Channel One? Seriously?

Paranoimia · 19-08-2010, 12:33

I did a quick search but couldn't find any mention of this.

Noticed last night that Virgin 1 is to be renamed Channel One.

Are they serious? [Admin edit (Chris): Language, please.]

I know nothing's really changing but the name, but still... Channel One? Is that the best the Sky execs could come up with? I imagine the meeting being something like that scene in The Simpsons, where they decided on the name of Poochie.

Digital Fanatic · 19-08-2010, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoimia

I did a quick search but couldn't find any mention of this.

Noticed last night that Virgin 1 is to be renamed Channel One.

Are they serious? [Admin edit (Chris): Language, please.]

I know nothing's really changing but the name, but still... Channel One? Is that the best the Sky execs could come up with? I imagine the meeting being something like that scene in The Simpsons, where they decided on the name of Poochie.

I think we discussed it briefly in the Coming soon thread, but that gets a little busy

not very inspiring is it? seems a little rushed.

Taf · 19-08-2010, 12:53

I bet the name change will cost millions though....

Jameseh · 19-08-2010, 13:10

I imagine they'll fold it into Sky 1/2/3 soon enough and use the space for a timeshift of something.

**Rob** · 19-08-2010, 13:18

Sky Broadcasting paid good money to acquire the Virgin family of TV channels - Living, Brave, Virgin 1. I can't see that they'd be wanting to weaken those into minor channels too swiftly, especially as some of those channels do now seem to have found their "niche" programming schedules. No doubt there are also contracts for existing shows to be show on certain channels only, and that is probably reflected in potential advertising revenue too.

But the rebranding name choice is rather bland. I suspect they threw a few execs into some meeting room, Apprentice Style, and told them they had 1 hour or someone would get fired

LondonRoad · 19-08-2010, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

I bet the name change will cost millions though....

That would depend on what the intend to do with if long term. If they intend to tread water with it until they decide what they'll do then I suspect they won't be spending millions.

haydnwalker · 19-08-2010, 14:35

Would have been better to leave it as Virgin 1 until a proper decision was made. Or rename to V1 or something.

Sky 4 makes a logical choice, however that would take a fair chunk of cash to rebrand the ads etc.

v0id · 19-08-2010, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

Would have been better to leave it as Virgin 1 until a proper decision was made. Or rename to V1 or something.

They couldn't as Sky don't have the rights to use the Virgin brand

However, perhaps they could have changed the channel name back to FTN, or even LTN (Living Televison Network) which would make more sense

ChrisLUFC22 · 21-08-2010, 09:08

The logo is even worse.

jrhnewark · 25-08-2010, 11:04

It does suggest a complete hash-up. "Same channel.. new name"... so from a consumer point of view, why change it?

Peter_ · 25-08-2010, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

It does suggest a complete hash-up. "Same channel.. new name"... so from a consumer point of view, why change it?

Because it is no longer a Virgin Media channel and now belongs to SKY.

Zee · 25-08-2010, 12:10

The logo is alright, but i thought the name was a bit crap. who cares anyway, as long as the programs are what people expect

jrhnewark · 25-08-2010, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Because it is no longer a Virgin Media channel and now belongs to SKY.

I said "from a consumer point of view"...

Peter_ · 25-08-2010, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

I said "from a consumer point of view"...

Could you really see SKY having a channel called Virgin 1 at all, so not from a consumers point of view at all as it would never ever happen.

jrhnewark · 25-08-2010, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Could you really see SKY having a channel called Virgin 1 at all, so not from a consumers point of view at all as it would never ever happen.

Please could you re-read my original comment? I said that from a consumer point of view, if the product isn't changing, why change the name? They don't know that the channel has been sold to Sky, it's only on geeky forums like this that people discuss it.

Other than that, I'm well aware that Virgin would never license the brand to BSkyB for one of their channels. The Virgin Radio/Absolute Radio situation gives form for this.