Offline
So now there's really no reason to have a "Radio One," since there is no more Radio Two. Radio One was chosen, not like a Top 40 "we're #1!" cheerleading slogan, but to differentiate between the CBC networks.
But they're not changing that and it now makes far less sense to keep the numeric moniker.
Offline
It's the CBC. They have deep-pocket funding courtesy of the hostaged Canadian taxpayer. They don't need to make branding sense.
That said, I rather like the brand "Radio 1": it's more of a positioner than a singular entity. Think "Sportsnet One".
Offline
Tim Brown 2016 wrote:
Those noble, courageous leaders of "free market" broadcasting in this country have their regulatory protection funded by the same taxpayers.
So, private radio's ENTIRE operating budget is ENTIRELY funded by the taxpayer? Double check your statement, Sir. 🤔
Offline
cGrant wrote:
It's the CBC. They have deep-pocket funding courtesy of the hostaged Canadian taxpayer.
Quick! Call the Wahhhhhhhmbulance!
Offline
I love the way [not] this was rolled out. I mean if you renamed or re branded something, would you make a big announcement about it? I started looking around because I did not hear them saying Radio Two this morning. They did last weekend.
I started by looking on their corporate web site. I didn't find anything.
Instead I had to resort to google to get the definitive answer.
And as suggested above, why call Radio One, Radio One anymore?
Last edited by andysradio (February 25, 2018 5:20 pm)