Forum:BBC Video vs. BBC DVD

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.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  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)