Baby channel
- Thread starter joedekock
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 9K
- Status
I feel like BabyFirstTV is going to go the way of Disney Channel. When Disney first launched, wasn't it a bit overpriced as a premium? Once the channel realizes that $10 a month is too high to get the distribution they need, they'll reorganize some things and charge a lot less....that or they will go out of business as mentioned earlier.
I checked out there site and found out they are seen in other parts of the world as well and listed on Thaicom 3, PAS 10, Hot Bird 6 (TPS), Eutelsat W3A (DigiTurk), Amos 2 (Yes), Hispasat 1D (TV Cabo) not counting the two sats here.
'Baby TV' causes controversy among pediatricians
NEW YORK -- Escalating an already heated debate, a first-of-its-kind TV channel premieres Thursday designed specifically for babies -- an age group that the American Academy of Pediatrics says should be kept away from television altogether.
The new, round-the-clock channel is called BabyFirstTV. For $9.99 US a month, it will be available initially by satellite through DirecTV and later through cable TV providers as well. It will not be available in Canada.
TV offerings already abound for older toddlers, and a lucrative -- though controversial -- market has developed for baby-oriented videos, attracting the Walt Disney Co. and the makers of Sesame Street, among others. But, until now, there had been no ongoing TV programming aimed at infants.
"This is the first channel dedicated to babies and their parents -- transforming TV from its original purpose into a way for them to interact,'' said Sharon Rechter, BabyFirstTV's executive vice president for business development and marketing.
"The fact of life is that babies are already watching TV,'' she said. "That's why having BabyFirstTV is so important -- what we want to offer is completely safe, commercial-free and appropriate content.''
A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68 per cent of children under two watch TV or videos daily and 26 per cent have a TV in their bedroom. Nonetheless, the pediatrics academy recommends that children of that age not be exposed to TV or videos, saying that learning to talk and play with others is much more important.
The academy's guidelines were cited last week in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission, challenging claims by leading makers of videos for babies that their products were educational.
Seattle-area pediatrician Donald Shifrin, chairman of the academy committee that studies television and children, urged parents to exercise prudence and to view the new TV options skeptically.
"Sesame Street has opened a Pandora's box by legitimizing the idea that TV needs to be developed for this demographic,'' Shifrin said. "We're not the nation's nanny, but we do want to provide a little balance -- we don't want to make TV the default entertainer for children.''
Critics of TV for infants also are skeptical of assertions by BabyFirstTV and other companies that their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner.
"Experience tells anyone that it's not going to be used that way,'' said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "Parents use it to park their kids in front of the TV so they can get things done.''
Rich said the companies "are basically letting parents off the hook from their guilt by saying, `This is educational,' so parents can justify it to themselves.''
Rechter said BabyFirstTV is not claiming that its programs -- designed for viewers from six months to three years old -- will make babies smarter. "But having babies and parents interact helps children's development, and we give them that opportunity,'' she said.
Asked about the possibility that parents might simply use the new channel as a baby sitter, Rechter replied, "We could speculate as much as we like about what parents should do.''
"If a baby is watching TV, let's put them in front of appropriate content,'' she said. "At the end of the day, parents make the decisions.''
BabyFirstTV's advisory board includes Dr. Edward McCabe, a pediatrician who is physician-in-chief at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital.
"I was skeptical when I first heard about it,'' McCabe said. "But I became convinced that this is a major evolution in media for kids.''
Rechter said BabyFirstTV will start with 250 hours of content, 80 per cent of it original. Some of its programs will come from baby DVD companies, including Brainy Baby and First Impressions, and it has an agreement with Sterling Publishing, a Barnes & Noble subsidiary, to use children's books in a Story Time program.
By the end of 2006, Rechter said, BabyFirstTV also will be available in Spanish.
The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of Fox Entertainment; Kardan N.V, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/baby_tv_060511/20060511?hub=CanadaAM
NEW YORK -- Escalating an already heated debate, a first-of-its-kind TV channel premieres Thursday designed specifically for babies -- an age group that the American Academy of Pediatrics says should be kept away from television altogether.
The new, round-the-clock channel is called BabyFirstTV. For $9.99 US a month, it will be available initially by satellite through DirecTV and later through cable TV providers as well. It will not be available in Canada.
TV offerings already abound for older toddlers, and a lucrative -- though controversial -- market has developed for baby-oriented videos, attracting the Walt Disney Co. and the makers of Sesame Street, among others. But, until now, there had been no ongoing TV programming aimed at infants.
"This is the first channel dedicated to babies and their parents -- transforming TV from its original purpose into a way for them to interact,'' said Sharon Rechter, BabyFirstTV's executive vice president for business development and marketing.
"The fact of life is that babies are already watching TV,'' she said. "That's why having BabyFirstTV is so important -- what we want to offer is completely safe, commercial-free and appropriate content.''
A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68 per cent of children under two watch TV or videos daily and 26 per cent have a TV in their bedroom. Nonetheless, the pediatrics academy recommends that children of that age not be exposed to TV or videos, saying that learning to talk and play with others is much more important.
The academy's guidelines were cited last week in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission, challenging claims by leading makers of videos for babies that their products were educational.
Seattle-area pediatrician Donald Shifrin, chairman of the academy committee that studies television and children, urged parents to exercise prudence and to view the new TV options skeptically.
"Sesame Street has opened a Pandora's box by legitimizing the idea that TV needs to be developed for this demographic,'' Shifrin said. "We're not the nation's nanny, but we do want to provide a little balance -- we don't want to make TV the default entertainer for children.''
Critics of TV for infants also are skeptical of assertions by BabyFirstTV and other companies that their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner.
"Experience tells anyone that it's not going to be used that way,'' said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "Parents use it to park their kids in front of the TV so they can get things done.''
Rich said the companies "are basically letting parents off the hook from their guilt by saying, `This is educational,' so parents can justify it to themselves.''
Rechter said BabyFirstTV is not claiming that its programs -- designed for viewers from six months to three years old -- will make babies smarter. "But having babies and parents interact helps children's development, and we give them that opportunity,'' she said.
Asked about the possibility that parents might simply use the new channel as a baby sitter, Rechter replied, "We could speculate as much as we like about what parents should do.''
"If a baby is watching TV, let's put them in front of appropriate content,'' she said. "At the end of the day, parents make the decisions.''
BabyFirstTV's advisory board includes Dr. Edward McCabe, a pediatrician who is physician-in-chief at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital.
"I was skeptical when I first heard about it,'' McCabe said. "But I became convinced that this is a major evolution in media for kids.''
Rechter said BabyFirstTV will start with 250 hours of content, 80 per cent of it original. Some of its programs will come from baby DVD companies, including Brainy Baby and First Impressions, and it has an agreement with Sterling Publishing, a Barnes & Noble subsidiary, to use children's books in a Story Time program.
By the end of 2006, Rechter said, BabyFirstTV also will be available in Spanish.
The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of Fox Entertainment; Kardan N.V, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/baby_tv_060511/20060511?hub=CanadaAM
DBSOgre said:
Ha! I forgot that Disney was once a premium channel! What a joke! They still had commercials too if I remember right!
They showed a story on the local news last night about that new channel and they interview a local spokeswoman for Comcast and said they were getting calls as when they going to add it to their line up. She mentioned probably early summer. They shouldn't waste the bandwidth and instead use it to add more Cinamax or HD stuff.
dishcomm said:
you got to wait for your "smell a vision" tv set first before subscribing. not only can you hear but smell the aroma as well.
KimmiKat said:
of course everyone wants it, but when they learn of the $9.99 price tag, most will be like, WTF? I'm serious, people want something until they really have to pay for it.
dishcomm said:
nope, the checkers, shuffleboard, and rocker on the porch channel!
What's that old parody Rush had..."Womb to the tomb!"
dishcomm said:
directv with the hd lite issues, would this be smell free due to bandwidth issues ?
- Status
