No it's not. BBC 3 is a television channel. The online replacement is just some branding for a selection of VOD programmes. They're not even remotely similar.
Sorry, but I think that's total rubbish. They're not the same, but they are very similar - the way that most of us now consume the BBC's video output (because it's not television anymore is it - I hardly watch using the aerial anymore) has changed, and I think it makes total sense for BBC II! to be the trailblazer here.
No it's not. BBC 3 is a television channel. The online replacement is just some branding for a selection of VOD programmes. They're not even remotely similar.
Sorry, but I think that's total rubbish. They're not the same, but they are very similar - the way that most of us now consume the BBC's video output (because it's not television anymore is it - I hardly watch using the aerial anymore) has changed, and I think it makes total sense for BBC II! to be the trailblazer here.
I give television ten years.
Have to disagree with TV disappearing in 10 years.
There are huge blackspots still where people have zero access to the Internet - it's going to take much longer than 10 years to iron this out for a start.
A whole generation of viewers will have to pass on before we get rid of Television through the aerial - we've even still got people watching TV on Black and White TV sets!
So, once an entire generation of viewers pass away - I could see TV through the aerial disappearing but I also see the coverage of broadband being more widely available by then and eventually yes everything will move online or perhaps there will be something even better than online by then? Time will tell.
Whether it was a genuinely conscious decision during the rebrand or it's a desperate attempt to play along with the joke, I find it quite depressing that they're lampooning themselves. That sort of video is something Charlie Brooker should be pointing out.
Have to disagree with TV disappearing in 10 years.
There are huge blackspots still where people have zero access to the Internet - it's going to take much longer than 10 years to iron this out for a start.
A whole generation of viewers will have to pass on before we get rid of Television through the aerial - we've even still got people watching TV on Black and White TV sets!
So, once an entire generation of viewers pass away - I could see TV through the aerial disappearing but I also see the coverage of broadband being more widely available by then and eventually yes everything will move online or perhaps there will be something even better than online by then? Time will tell.
I didn't mean disappear altogether. I meant I give it ten years as the primary way people consume the media.
Shocked to hear there are people without Internet. Why don't they move?
Whether it was a genuinely conscious decision during the rebrand or it's a desperate attempt to play along with the joke, I find it quite depressing that they're lampooning themselves. That sort of video is something Charlie Brooker should be pointing out.
Yes. A tv channel having a sense of humour .....what depressing times we live in. Won't someone please think of the grandiose media critics and their now redundant lame observations.
When you consider BBC One and BBC Two are in desperate need of a refresh but can't do so because the Tories and the media will slaughter them for spending money on somebody most people don't care about, rebranding a channel that's approaching death and then openly implying they've put minimal effort into it is surely setting themselves up to be slammed.
Channel 4 take pride in their idents (for some reason) but it wouldn't look very good if they immediately took to Twitter and said "aren't these weird and s**t?"
It just frustrates me because I actively support the BBC and think the many sticks they're beaten with are unjustified and unfair. But they're really not helping themselves by spending what I can only presume is quite a bit of money and then saying "yeah, it's not very good".
When you consider BBC One and BBC Two are in desperate need of a refresh but can't do so because the Tories and the media will slaughter them for spending money on somebody most people don't care about, rebranding a channel that's approaching death and then openly implying they've put minimal effort into it is surely setting themselves up to be slammed.
Channel 4 take pride in their idents (for some reason) but it wouldn't look very good if they immediately took to Twitter and said "aren't these weird and s**t?"
It just frustrates me because I actively support the BBC and think the many sticks they're beaten with are unjustified and unfair. But they're really not helping themselves by spending what I can only presume is quite a bit of money and then saying "yeah, it's not very good".
It's ludacris spending money on a refreshed brand for online BBC 3 when you already have an already established and well known online brand called BBC iPlayer.
They should have followed Channel 4's On Demand service "ALL4" - and put their unique online only programming under the iPlayer brand.
I guess it's easy for me to sit here and say this - perhaps there's deeper reasons they haven't dumped the BBC 3 brand - but I guess it keeps people in jobs...
When you consider BBC One and BBC Two are in desperate need of a refresh but can't do so because the Tories and the media will slaughter them for spending money on somebody most people don't care about, rebranding a channel that's approaching death and then openly implying they've put minimal effort into it is surely setting themselves up to be slammed.
Channel 4 take pride in their idents (for some reason) but it wouldn't look very good if they immediately took to Twitter and said "aren't these weird and s**t?"
It just frustrates me because I actively support the BBC and think the many sticks they're beaten with are unjustified and unfair. But they're really not helping themselves by spending what I can only presume is quite a bit of money and then saying "yeah, it's not very good".
It's ludacris spending money on a refreshed brand for online BBC 3 when you already have an already established and well known online brand called BBC iPlayer.
They should have followed Channel 4's On Demand service "ALL4" - and put their unique online only programming under the iPlayer brand.
I guess it's easy for me to sit here and say this - perhaps there's deeper reasons they haven't dumped the BBC 3 brand - but I guess it keeps people in jobs...
By moving BBC Three off the TV, they need to work extra hard to give themselves an identity which calls towards the audience, because they can't be discovered by channel surfing any more. The brand should push the content rather than the channel, which is probably why the new logo focuses on the symbol over the number Three.
It's not poor alignment per se, the left column is aligned to the left, the right to the right and the centre column is centred. It's kinda clever if you think about it and see the guidelines there to help show this, and I doubt many could even see this normally on the logo because on the website and the DOG (which I'm assuming changes and tonight will be a new one) will be so small on screen.
Won't someone please think of the grandiose media critics and their now redundant lame observations.
