[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

You've given them all the information they need by simply saying it's on "Channel 4".

You're not if they're assuming you're referring to what was solely "Channel 4" for 40years and not the platform they know as something else. In almost a year now I've never heard anyone refer to it as Channel 4. Almost always 4OD, sometimes All 4 but never "Channel 4". Conversely people seem to have taken to ITV X instantly.

[cable]

the trouble is how people seem to be stuck giving 20th century conventions to 21st century issues. How would you feel if the TV channel was called channel4.com, with the sub channels being listed in the EPG for example channel4.com/ent, channel4.com/film etc, the website would be channel4.com.

Now, it's just an icon on the programme tile, who cares if you watch on the TV, the broadcasters app or even another streaming service like ITVX/Netflix, times are changing and things move on.

[Steve in Pudsey]

If you think Channel 4 is a silly name for the streaming service then I don't think any comments on here are going to make you change your mind. Ditto for those that think it's a good name and shouldn't have a separate name like other networks have or how it used to be with 4oD or All4. Both opinions are valid.

Conversely, if you think giving the streaming catch up service for a whole family of channels the same name which for 40 years has referred to just one of those channels isn't counter intuitive and means that people pointed to the app instinctively look at the linear channel, comments here won't change your mind either

---

the trouble is how people seem to be stuck giving 20th century conventions to 21st century issues.

Being clear and unambiguous is a 20th Century convention?

[Brekkie]

Maybe they should just rebrand the linear channel "Channel 4 1" to avoid the confusion.

[gottago]

You're not if they're assuming you're referring to what was solely "Channel 4" for 40years and not the platform they know as something else.

But you are. Again the idea that people who are recommended a show will go straight to the channel or the schedules to scour through for a linear repeat, over simply searching for it on demand is just absurd - at least for the vast majority of viewers. I expect C4 reached the same conclusion via their extensive research prior to carrying out an expensive rebranding and repositioning.

As I said before maybe 10 years ago the former would be true but not now. Ratings reflect that, a show will get far higher consolidated figures for on demand than linear repeats shown that week do.

I agree that 4OD was a strong brand and I still hear it today (I haven’t heard All4 once since it died). But I’ve had plenty of people recommend things on “Channel 4” both before and after the current rebrand and I’ve known exactly where to go to watch it on catch up.

I think 4OD is just another example of people saying “Granada” rather than ITV1 (change per region) and will die out eventually.

[Spencer]

I think 4OD is just another example of people saying “Granada” rather than ITV1 (change per region) and will die out eventually.

It can take a long time though.

x.com 

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

But you are. Again the idea that people who are recommended a show will go straight to the channel or the schedules to scour through for a linear repeat, over simply searching for it on demand is just absurd

Why did you say ‘’searching for it on demand’’?. If only there was a recognisable in it's own right brand that could be easily pointed to.

[gottago]

Why did you say ‘’searching for it on demand’’?.

For the context of this conversation. I expect they will have been thinking about the consumer over people debating on a niche pres forum when they organised the rebrand.

If only there was a recognisable in it's own right brand that could be easily pointed to.

Luckily they have a strong brand with over 40 years recognition that can be easily pointed to and they're using it to its full potential.

You say it's on "Channel 4", they search for it on Channel 4. It truly is as simple as that.

[Stuart]

For the context of this conversation. I expect they will have been thinking about the consumer over people debating on a niche pres forum when they organised the rebrand. Luckily they have a strong brand with over 40 years recognition that can be easily pointed to and they're using it to its full potential.

You say it's on "Channel 4", they search for it on Channel 4. It truly is as simple as that.

I don't tend to watch E4, but how are they doing the trailers for programmes on that channel. Do they still just say "watch it on Channel 4", which would be rather confusing.

[WatchTower]

Maybe they should consider using “Channel 4” when referring to just the TV channel and just use “4” for the streaming service.

The word “channel”, like many on here have indicated, is from an age when there was nothing but linear television.

The logo itself has never included the word “Channel” in its entire history, so to prepare the brand for the future, it makes sense to stop using the word “channel” for anything else besides the linear tv channel.

Again, like many others have said on here, they have always used the name “4” in a casual manner.

In my opinion, now seems the right time to formally clarify that moving forward the master brand will be “4” (as in their current logo), which is never to be written as “Four” for clarity and brand recognition purposes.

When promoting programmes on TV it will simply be…

“7.30 tonight on Channel 4 or watch now on 4”

“11am this morning on E4, or watch later on 4”

“3pm weekdays on More4, or watch anytime on 4”

“9.15 this Friday on Film4, or watch from midnight tonight on 4”

“Channel 4 News, 7pm weeknights on 4”

This gets rid of the phrase “watch live” which they use to refer to watching linear television, rather than a programme that is actually being broadcast live.

By doing this it won’t cost them anything as the brand recognition is already existing. The logo already exists. Nothing presentation wise needs changing apart from how they write and say the times when trailing programmes.

To me the following brand recognition applies…

“1 or One” is BBC One
“2 or Two” is BBC Two
“3 or Three” is the mobile phone company
“4 or Four” is Channel 4
“5 or Five” is Channel 5

The solution has been staring them straight in front of them all along!