« Topics
12345
Larry the Loafer4,301 posts since 2 Jul 2005
Granada North West Today
Nothing mentioned by the BBC Trust has indicated that the BBC Three brand would disappear, so I'm not sure why people think BBC Four would be an unsustainable numeric in the 'family of channels' on offer (especially as it started when BBC CHOICE was still broadcasting).

Having 'one', 'TWO', 'Three (online)' and 'FOUR' is no more illogical than ITV removing the numeral from their premier channel and yet retaining 2, 3 & 4.


I'm sorry but I disagree. ITV comes before ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4. BBC3 comes half way through a sequence of BBC channels. I really feel BBC4 should have been rebranded. Though to be honest will BBC4 also disappear in the near future? Wink


Neither scenario is ideal. But having ITV, 2, 3 and 4 is more sensible than having BBC 1, 2 and 4. Plus nobody liked "ITV1" anyway.

It think you missed the point I was making: the BBC Three brand isn't disappearing, so why should there be a need to rename BBC Four?.


Nobody really knows what the rules are because it's never happened before. In my eyes, it's becoming a standalone service. It's not a linear channel anymore and it won't be on television, so I just find it strange it's keeping itself in line with the BBC's other linear television channels. I know brand awareness has a part to play in this, but this is all a matter of opinion. As I say, nobody knows what the right thing to do is because it's never happened before.
2
Stuart6,514 posts since 13 Oct 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
Nobody really knows what the rules are because it's never happened before. In my eyes, it's becoming a standalone service. It's not a linear channel anymore and it won't be on television, so I just find it strange it's keeping itself in line with the BBC's other linear television channels. I know brand awareness has a part to play in this, but this is all a matter of opinion. As I say, nobody knows what the right thing to do is because it's never happened before.

I agree that there are no rules, but we haven't before been in a situation where 'TV' doesn't have to be delivered by a linear broadcast channel to be regarded as such. Amazon Prime is available on Smart TVs etc, and if I had it, I wouldn't regard it as any different to other content I use.


To many people, such as me, I'll still be able to view BBC Three on my TV. The delivery method, and the way I select the programme won't really change a great deal.

I select quite a lot of my viewing from the Catch-up services on Sky, others I have recorded from the EPG as they were broadcast. They are then presented to me on the same list from which to choose.

I don't see a problem with BBC Three retaining its identity, regardless of how I actually source their output. I'm sure there will still be plenty of cross-promotion of BBC Three on the linear channels, the same way they mention iPlayer now in their trailers.
RDJ1,890 posts since 25 Oct 2003
Central (South) Midlands Today
The 'Three' looks slightly reminiscent to this.... (Especially with the connecting T & H)

*

EDIT: Ignore me, I see someone made the same similarity on the previous page.
Last edited by RDJ on 5 December 2015 6:21pm - 2 times in total
Central News South
January 9th 1989 - December 3rd 2006
Stuart6,514 posts since 13 Oct 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
That promo sums it up though - the content is on the iPlayer first and foremost. The BBC3 connection will be very much secondary.


I don't understand why you are alleging anything as 'secondary'? It will commission output in the same way, no 'connection' has been lost for the customer (the viewer).

The way people access TV programmes has changed.

Perhaps this is the way broadcasters will go in the future, but I don't see this as a reduction in the quality of programming available, and I don't see your argument that it would do so.

The BBC have been forced to cut costs because of a frozen Licence Fee for 6 years. I would rather pay an extra £10 to get back the quality/services we had, but that isn't going to happen.

This is the best way of retaining something important: BBC Three is innovative and cheaper if without the infrastructure of a linear broadcast network.

BBC FOUR will probably be next, but again without a change of name. It's just evolution for the broadcasting industry, and may manage to keep the BBC alive, despite continuous Government attempts (of all colours) to destroy it.
Last edited by Stuart on 5 December 2015 6:29pm
pad_ehh (previously pad_eee) 888 posts since 28 Feb 2013
UTV Newsline
Yet, they have still kept that horrible (Reggie Yates??) voice saying "Free" and the awful pink colour scheme.

They should have went for a full on change of look and style instead of making the letters capitals again and throwing in a dot to make it look like an exclamation point. Ooh, well done for that. So clever. You really deserve to lose the tens of thousands you probably paid for that.
Rob_Schneider
London London
The sad thing is they could so easily keep it going by axing some of the overmanning and duplication in the Corporation.