TV Home Forum

Have Numbered Channels Had Their Day?

(February 2014)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
VM
VMPhil
Stuart posted:
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).


Yes but the Sky Sports channels all show the same type of programming: sport. Granted, Premier League games are only shown on 1 and 2, but every channel (apart from F1) shows different types of sport and they aren't always on the same channel, although they do of course try to keep things consistent like with the Ashes on 2.

However I'm sure most people, like me, scroll through each of the channels to find what's on rather than thinking "Oh it'll be on Sky Sports 3 because it's this kind of sport". So it's not really the same comparison to the ITV channels.
ST
Stuart
Jon, as far as people are concerned in Devon/Cornwall - the name of the broadcaster on the 'third button' has changed that many times they are losing count.

I still hear people call it Westcountry and ITV1. I've even heard some older people still call it Westward or TSW.

Renaming it ITV down here made no difference whatsoever as it never was in the first place. The vast majority aged 20-30 call it 'channel 3': which would please the muppet who came up with the idea to wreck the identity of the region I used to live in! Very Happy
AM
amosc100
Thinker posted:
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.



RTL4,5,6,7
TF1,2,3,4
Ned1,2,3
Fox Sports1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Sky Italia Sport 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Bein Sport 1-12
Sky Deutschland Sport 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Even in the US - ESPN 1,2,3......

That's just straight off the top of my head!
ST
Stuart
VMPhil posted:
However I'm sure most people, like me, scroll through each of the channels to find what's on rather than thinking "Oh it'll be on Sky Sports 3 because it's this kind of sport". So it's not really the same comparison to the ITV channels.

I've never ignored an EPG listing simply because it was on:
Arrow BBC Three (Juvenile $hit)
Arrow BBC Four (old documentaries)
Arrow ITV3 (5 year old drama)
Arrow ITV4 (sport, yobs and ITC 1960s drama)

I have found programmes on all of these channels that I wanted to watch. I would be deterred if they gave themselves some other name which implied a specific genre. I have enough channels which do that for me already.
VM
VMPhil
Stuart posted:
VMPhil posted:
However I'm sure most people, like me, scroll through each of the channels to find what's on rather than thinking "Oh it'll be on Sky Sports 3 because it's this kind of sport". So it's not really the same comparison to the ITV channels.

I've never ignored an EPG listing simply because it was on:
Arrow BBC Three (Juvenile $hit)
Arrow BBC Four (old documentaries)
Arrow ITV3 (5 year old drama)
Arrow ITV4 (sport, yobs and ITC 1960s drama)

I have found programmes on all of these channels that I wanted to watch. I would be deterred if they gave themselves some other name which implied a specific genre. I have enough channels which do that for me already.

I agree, I was just saying that you can't really compare the Sky Sports channels with ITV's. An apples and oranges situation.
LL
Larry the Loafer
Maybe they just don't want to be the first broadcaster to surpass five numeric channels?
JO
Jon
VMPhil posted:
I agree, I was just saying that you can't really compare the Sky Sports channels with ITV's. An apples and oranges situation.

Yes, the brand is Sky Sports there is no difference in the type of content.
ST
Stuart
VMPhil posted:
I agree, I was just saying that you can't really compare the Sky Sports channels with ITV's. An apples and oranges situation.

Not wishing to disagree with your overall agreement, VMPhil, but I demonstrated that Sky had indeed differentiated between even their sporting 'oranges and apples' on previous occasions. Very Happy when it suits: but not permanently. Laughing

Jon posted:
Yes, the brand is Sky Sports there is no difference in the type of content.

It used to be different, although I have not seen Sky Sports idents since the generic 'naff' version was introduced. Sad
WH
Whataday Founding member
Stuart posted:
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.



The reason behind BBC Three and BBC Four was far more political than that, in order to get increased budgets approved for either channel
JO
Jon
Stuart posted:
It used to be different, although I have not seen Sky Sports idents since the generic 'naff' version was introduced. Sad

There are differences in the content but it's more or less based on importance and slot availability where the content lands.
WH
Whataday Founding member
Larry the Loafer posted:
Maybe they just don't want to be the first broadcaster to surpass five numeric channels?


Or maybe there is a long term strategy to merge ITV Encore with ITV3 an ITV Be with ITV2, so they don't want to confuse things further by numbering them.
TH
Thinker
chris posted:
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 definitely needs to focus on its corporate brand and has therefore attached its name to all its services. That is why they're called "BBC Asian Network" and "BBC Radio Cambridgeshire" and not just "The Asian Network" or "Radio Cambridgeshire". If the services weren't BBC branded, people wouldn't know that their favourite programmes and channels were made by the BBC, and it would loose public support as a result.

I agree about ITV. For them, the great advantage was that they could transfer some of the value from the ITV brand to their new channels. But, as you say, it has also meant that the channel brands can't stand on their own.

While I can't confidently say that ITV's strategy is wrong, I would argue that their strong focus on the corporate brand stands out among similar broadcasters who have usually selected a different approach.

amosc100 posted:
RTL4,5,6,7
TF1,2,3,4
Ned1,2,3
Fox Sports1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Sky Italia Sport 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Bein Sport 1-12
Sky Deutschland Sport 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Even in the US - ESPN 1,2,3......


The situation for RTL in the Netherlands is different in that those channels were named in the hope that they could claim the corresponding LCN and prominence in TV guides. This has largely succeeded as RTL 4, 5 and 7 are usually located on LCN 4, 5 and 7 (note that there is no RTL 6, as that LCN had already been firmly claimed by another broadcaster). ITV doesn't expect ITV4 to get LCN 4.

Nederland 1, 2 and 3 are not commercial broadcasters and I don't think there are any channels called TF2, TF3 and TF4.

Sports channels are different in that they are essentially multiplexes of the same service, as has been argued above.

Newer posts