Forum:BBC Video vs. BBC DVD

Index → Panopticon → BBC Video vs. BBC DVD

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

If you look at the articles for BBC Video and BBC DVD, you get the distinct impression from both that DVDs were/are handled by an entity known as BBC DVD, while VHS copies of episodes were the responsibility of an entity named BBC Video.

Now, as an American, I'm looking at all this through the filter of importation, but on all my DVDs and VHS copies, there's a singular BBC entity. It's all BBC Video. I've never seen a BBC DVD logo, whereas BBC Video's mark is everywhere. For instance, look at this advertisement for a selection of modern BBC DVDs. The official name of the corporate entity certainly seems to be "BBC Video".

Is it possible we've gotten the wrong end of the stick at both these articles? Is there actual proof somewhere of a corporate brand known as "BBC DVD"? If not, we need to rethink the language. I don't think we should necessarily delete BBC DVD, because it's still a useful term for "an officially released DVD from the BBC", but it shouldn't be portrayed as a unique "division" of the BBC. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there's definitely a BBC DVD logo on the back of the couple of DVD's I've just checked. On the UK releases it's everywhere here on the cover and also here

BBC DVD is as it says on the page a division of BBC Worldwide, the corporate arm of the BBC. So really it is an arm of BBC Worldwide the same way BBC Books is, which doesn't really make it unique, but certainly a bit different.

Perhaps the confusion lies in who is publishing the DVDs and who is releasing them (as they're not necessarily the same). For example Roadshow Entertainment releases the Doctor Who DVDs in Australia, but they're branded as ABC DVDs (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), but they also bare the BBC logo, with the 2|Entertain logo on the spine. --Tangerineduel 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooh, that's very helpful! "BBC DVD" does, as you say, appear on some R2 releases. But there's a dividing line right at 2004. The last R2 of 2003, The Three Doctors is labeled simply "BBC", while the first R2 release of 2004, The Visitation, begins the tradition of "BBC DVD" appearing on the cover. This seems to be consistent with 2|entertain's creation by the merger of BBC Video, VCI and other entities — which happened in 2004.

If you look at the 2|entertain website you see that they mention only BBC Video. Indeed, the information at wikipedia:BBC Video confirms the 2004 takeover, and speaks of BBC Video as the proper name for the label.

So, again, I tend to think that "BBC DVD" is just a local "service mark", rather than the name of an actual company. By the time that "BBC DVD" came to be used in R2, the actual publishing company was 2|entertain. I therefore can't see how BBC DVD is, as our article now asserts, a "division of BBC Worldwide". By the time "BBC DVD" started appearing in R2, the publishing arm of wikipedia:BBC Worldwide was already 2|entertain. Instead, the mark is more likely a way for the British public to distinguish BBC DVDs from the DVDs of other companies now published by 2|entertain (like VCI) or CDs released by Demon Music Group. This is, I think, a case of what happens in America being closer to the truth, since the parent of 2|entertain is BBC Worldwide, rather than the BBC itself. (Incidentally, R4 releases are of little help in deciding the matter; they're all labeled simply "BBC", and distribution is handled there by someone other than 2|entertain/BBCWW.)

Another huge clue that we're sorta making this term up is that a Google search of "BBC DVD" returns our page in the top 10 responses. Nothing in the first ten pages of responses points to a corporate page of any kind. Conversely, the CLG Wiki gives a huge variety of BBC Video logos from 1982 onwards. BBC Video is unquestionably a corporate entity, and they have released/do release DVDs, contrary to what our BBC Video page alleges.

Put it simpler terms, the logo "BBC DVD" means "this is a BBC DVD", rather than "this is published by BBC DVD". And "BBC DVD" has extremely local usage. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote a BTVS song 'Where do we go from here'?

I just did a check and BBC DVD doesn't appear to be a company, whilst BBC Video is (check it out here), though a further search links it to 2|entertain (here for not a lot of info though supposedly it's got tangible assets of 6.3m pounds).

The BBC DVD page is still relatively useful. We could just reword it at the start from 'a division' to a 'commercial mark' (though it doesn't sound as official as 'division'). --Tangerineduel 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that a link to BBC DVD should be maintained. However, it should be redirected to the (somewhat surprisingly) uncreated article, 2 entertain. BBC Video should also be redirected to 2 entertain. As the main entity, 2 entertain should be the title of the main page, with BBC Video and BBC DVD as subheads. This is the approach taken on Wikipedia. Here's a rough outline of how the page should be:

2 entertain is <lead pargraph>

Overview

(Deeper explanation of the lead)

BBC Video

(Move/alter lead text from BBC Video)

BBC DVD

"BBC DVD"' has been the brand identity seen on BBC Video DVDs released in Region 2 since the 2004 creation of 2 entertain. The first DVD to receive this branding was The Visitation. Prior to this release, the BBC's Region 2 DVDs went out under a simple BBC logo. The mark has never been used on Region 1 or Region 4 DVDs.

Production

Restoration

(explanation of how they're continuing BBC Video's relationship with the Restoration Team)

New material

(explanation of their role in commissioning and producing new material for DVD releases)

Distribution (possibly, "Releases")

VHS

(Merged info from BBC Video#Timeline of releases), with explanation that catalogue numbers are for the R2 releases only

DVD

(Merged info from BBC DVD#List of Releases), with explanation that catalogue numbers are for the R2 releases only

Now that's going to make a hell of a long article. It may be advisable to move BBC Video to List of VHS releases and BBC DVD to List of DVD releases, then edit the newly created redirect pages so that BBC Video and BBC DVD are pointing back to 2 entertain. Then. you'd just drop a "main article at List of VHS releases" and "main article at List of DVD releases" link back into the 2 entertain article. The only thing then left to do would be to check the existing pages that link to BBC DVD and BBC Video to see which article they'd be more appropriately linked to. From my random sampling, most existing links would not, in fact, need to be relinked to the "list of" articles.

I know you're in the midst of mind-numbing prefixes changes at the moment, so I'm clearly not asking you to take care of these changes. I'm happy to do them, as long as you basically agree to the concept. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I agree. We should also have a section for Laserdisc. (Though I'm not sure what company handled their releases). (I'm trying to ignore the prefix changes at the moment). I think yes we should have dedicated pages to lists of videos/DVDs/laserdiscs etc...

When you kick off the move of info we'll also need to change the spotlight article (not to the new page, to anything), just noting that so one of us remembers to change it to something interesting prior to this shake up.

As no one else has got involved in this discussion, I'm fine with it. So go ahead with the creation, move and everything. --Tangerineduel 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)