[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

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.

Simple but pointless. An expensive change for change sake if the general reaction is ‘’what’s the point?’’ and continue to use the brand name they’ve used for 18 years.

[Stuart]

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!

I suspect you're the only one following that ethos. There are hundreds of free channels available.

What do you call BBC Three, BBC Four. ITV2/3/4. E4, E4 Extra, More 4, 4 Music. 5USA, 5 Star. Sky News, Sky Mix . . . need I go on?

[all new phil]

I suspect you're the only one following that ethos. There are hundreds of free channels available.

What do you call BBC Three, BBC Four. ITV2/3/4. E4, E4 Extra, More 4, 4 Music. 5USA, 5 Star. Sky News, Sky Mix . . . need I go on?

It’s possible to refer to those five as 1-5 without having to come up with a number brand for every other channel in existence.

[tellyblues]

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.

Rebrands don't always succeed or even right away and with the situation Channel 4 are in right now and, to put it politely, what they are cranking out, any plans won't pay off because people aren't desperate to use any service they have to offer.

ITVX has content that viewers want, which goes a long way to promote the new branding.

[Stuart]

It’s possible to refer to those five as 1-5 without having to come up with a number brand for every other channel in existence.

Purely because of their positioning on every EPG. Nothing more. They are not a brand.

[eyeTV]

Yes, I would have ditched the 'Channel' prefix and made the hero brand '4'. It just doesn't suit referencing a streaming service.

Then you could have 4Now or 4Play as the streaming service. That is perfectly simple (I think).

[Brekkie]

Rebrands don't always succeed or even right away and with the situation Channel 4 are in right now and, to put it politely, what they are cranking out, any plans won't pay off because people aren't desperate to use any service they have to offer.

ITVX has content that viewers want, which goes a long way to promote the new branding.

Exactly. So many of the ads for "Channel 4" are based around archive content rather than new programming. It just makes you long for the content they seem to be making less and less of now.

Branding wise archive content on All4 was just that, but now it's promoted as the main offerings of "Channel 4" it just feels like they're trying to survive on past glories.

[Stuart]

Then you could have 4Now or 4Play as the streaming service. That is perfectly simple (I think).

They've always deliberately avoided using '4Play' for obvious reasons.

[eyeTV]

They've always deliberately avoided using '4Play' for obvious reasons.

Of course, which is why it would likely work or be memorable.

[PATV Scunthorpe]

They've always deliberately avoided using '4Play' for obvious reasons.

Though that didn't stop Box Plus using it for 4Music, who used it when playing four songs by the same artist.