Wonder why the have gone with Sky Sports News HD rather than Sky Sports HD News to fit in with the rest of the HD Sport channels.
Because Sky Sports HD News sounds stupid.
Hadn't thought of that, thanks!
Shame they have already gone with...
Sky Sports HD 1
Sky Sports HD 2
Sky Sports HD 3
Sky Sports HD 4
Sky Sports HD News would have fitted in with the rest of the Sky Sports HD brand nicely.
The difference here is that the Sky HD channels were originally stand-alone options, rather than direct simulcasts. Hence you could in the past get a programme shown on Sky Sports 3 and HD2. By putting the HD after the 2 rather than before it, it could have inferred that it was an HD version of SS2, rather than the 2nd Sky Sports HD channel. Imagine if BBCHD launched a second channel, which didn't simulcast BBC2 any more than BBCHD simulcasts BBC1? BBC HD 1 and BBC HD 2 would have to be the option, as calling them BBC1 HD and BBC2 HD would be confusing.
I guess the reason they havn't switched the HD and the channel numbers around is because the channels are now existing brands, and the HD forms part of the channel number. Plus there's probably a load of stationary, legal documents, etc. that would all have to be changed needlessly; and all the presenters are used to calling them that. They've just left it as it is.
With SSN however, it IS an HD version of SSN from the off, like Sky News. And in this case, the HD must come at the end. As Brekkie so eloquently puts it, it sounds stupid having the HD in the middle. The differentiator in a channel name should always be last. Consider BBC1 London, or ITV1 Wales.
Sky Sports HD1-HD4 are the only ones to do this differently, for the reasons I mentioned.
