Interesting, but isn't 'Sky Sports' a collection of channels? and Paramount too,c ome to that? Whereas the others are single channels? Maybe this just reinforces the point about the strength of the main terrestrial channels. If I were being really picky (and why not)I might think that the strength of the channel is in inverse proportion to its strength as a brand - if BBC1 is 'for everyone/has everything' what does it really stand for/what is its focus?

I think that you have a point when it comes to looking at audience share but I'm not sure that when it comes to brand it matters.

But my point is more about how successful Sky Sports has been in comparison to the other brands in the Sky broadcasting portfolio. Sky Sports is a real brand on all sorts of criteria.

But that there aren't really many real brands in the multichannel universe - i.e. channels that mean something to us rather than just carrying some programmes we quite like.

And this is critical because uncertainty about revenue models threaten the emergence of Brand Darwinism in the multichannel universe. Not that the broadcasters seem to have really woken up to this yet as they all rush to go free to air on Freeview and become ever more dependent on advertising revenue. Ultimately only real brands will survive on the EPG of any platforms because only real brands will be able to call for revenue directly from the consumer rather than through the advertiser.