With ITV Be and Encore launch really soon, E4/More4/Film4 having launched and won respective audiences in their target market, is it now time we looked at the idea of Numbers Channels' time ticking away? As Television moves online, into Video on Demand and onto services like Netflix, is a brand such as [Insert Channel Name] 2 good enough? Do channels need more to get their audience to remember their names/ideas?
Channels like BBC 1 and BBC 2 serve a large demographic and have programming from many different genres. So unlike the more focused and niche channels, any name chosen for them will not be reflective of their content, and risk loosing recognition gained over many decades.
There are also many examples throughout Europe and the world of numbered channels/strands so there is no inherent sign that this practice is being phased out.
Channels like BBC 1 and BBC 2 serve a large demographic and have programming from many different genres. So unlike the more focused and niche channels, any name chosen for them will not be reflective of their content, and risk loosing recognition gained over many decades.
I think BBC 1 and BBC 2 are exceptions because even as they stand now, BBC 1 is the main channel, with BBC 2 a slightly more highbrow alternative. They don't focus on a particular genre.
However, when you start numbering channels that have a particular genre or a more focussed audience, I think they could be better placed having a name that reflect that channel's content (for example ITV Encore instead of ITV 3)
ITV have moved away from numbered channels perhaps, but no evidence to suggest that practice is more widespread.
I wouldn't say they've moved away from it. Yes, they've dropped the 1, and are launching some non-numbered channels, but I'd be surprised if there changes to ITV2, 3 & 4.
Numbered channels are useful for pubcasters who want general channels that don't expressly target a particular audience. They clearly refer back to the corporate brand, which is important to maintain the legitimacy of public funding etc.
It doesn't make as much sense for commercials broadcasters who can allow themselves to have a more scattered presence with more targeted brands. There are a several broadcasters that have launched "second" channels (RTL II, 7two, CTV Two) to supplement the first one, but they rarely continue beyond that. Actually, I can't come up with any commercial broadcaster worldwide other than ITV (and Sky UK for a short period) that has employed this practise.
Numbered channels are useful for pubcasters who want general channels that don't expressly target a particular audience. They clearly refer back to the corporate brand, which is important to maintain the legitimacy of public funding etc.
It doesn't make as much sense for commercials broadcasters who can allow themselves to have a more scattered presence with more targeted brands. There are a several broadcasters that have launched "second" channels (RTL II, 7two, CTV Two) to supplement the first one, but they rarely continue beyond that. Actually, I can't come up with any commercial broadcaster worldwide other than ITV (and Sky UK for a short period) that has employed this practise.
That doesn't make any sense. In fact I would say it's the other way round - names like ITV2, 3 and 4 have a focus on the corporate brand ITV because the numbers don't work on their own. ITV Encore could easily be referred to as Encore.
The BBC, as I assume you're referring to as a 'pubcaster', hasn't the need to focus on the brand as much. The legitimacy of the public broadcast certainly wouldn't be at stake. According to your theory, names like CBBC, BBC Asian Network or BBC Radio Cambridgeshire shouldn't be allowed because they target a certain demographic....?
The BBC relabelled BBC Three/Four 12 years ago (from Choice/Knowledge) to bring them into line with the other two main channels as DSO approached. It made them easier to recognise and understand on the EPGs.
As usual, ITV are well behind the curve, and are removing numerals and creating channels which don't match their corporate network identity because someone has told them, no doubt during a
'Perrier-fuelled'
marketing lunch, that it's a "good idea".
Any company that was convinced by (and paid for) the 2002 celebrity ident joke set and what came after is probably susceptible to just about any mildly convincing marketing: if it's sold to them with enough buzz words.
I remain to be convinced otherwise!
As has been said: ITV Encore will probably become known as 'Encore', and people won't associate it with ITV. As for ITVBe (or probably later ITV2 Plus), I'd give it 6 months!
Any company that was convinced by (and paid for) the 2002 celebrity ident joke set and what came after is probably susceptible to just about any mildly convincing marketing: if it's sold to them with enough buzz words.
Of course ITV of now is very different to what it was like 10 years ago.
I bet if you asked a lot of people what ITV 3 or 4 showed they couldn't tell you, the same couldn't be said for Dave or Sky Living. The numerals are alright for the BBC but they just become meaningless if you keep giving new services whatever number is due to be used next. It could be argued it's best to have a brand name that gives a better understanding of the content in my opinion.
Most people will know what Dave shows: as it's a Freeview channel and 90%+ of the population can view it.
It's no different to the BBC/ITV bouquet of channels: ITV3 is Drama and ITV4 is Lads/Sport. Calling them "Drama" or "Lads & Sport" doesn't increase that audience amongst the plethora of channels available - it just makes them indistinguishable.
Similarly, those with subscription services will know what Sky Living shows, and their attempts to re-position it to a more mainstream demographic.
Sky have the advantage of high EPG positioning and cross promotion, as well as subscription whether people watch or not!
Sky3 was possibly renamed for the introduction of Picnic (later Now TV), as they wanted a channel name which didn't rub people's noses in the fact that they didn't have the other subscription channels. It sounded 'third rate', although it's actually a good channel.
'Pick' sounds better, and rather premium.
Sky2 has been relegated to a low EPG position, but is still OK. I'm not sure what it's for . . . so perhaps it's simply a placeholder for some later project.
Sky Sports have never suffered from having their channels with a numerical suffix. They have sport specific channels too, of course (Sky Sports F1) and change the name of others if they need to on a random basis (Ashes etc).
It's no different to the BBC/ITV bouquet of channels: ITV3 is Drama and ITV4 is Lads/Sport. Calling them "Drama" or "Lads & Sport" doesn't increase that audience amongst the plethora of channels available - it just makes them indistinguishable.
But you still hear people say things like "yeah that match will probably be on ITV 2 or something". If it was on a channel with a clearly defined brand name I'm sure that wouldn't happen so much. I'm sure people realise there is a channel from ITV that shows old drama and one that shows quite a bit of sport but I'm not sure if they could put a number to them. It's better for advertisers too as they have something more clearly define they're buying into. Not something the BBC has to worry about.
It's important not to over estimate what 'normal' people pick up, not because they're stupid but simply because they don't care.