BBC picking a good company name is a tricky business

[newdandy]

Although William Shakespeare wrote that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", it wouldn't be a good idea for a new online flower delivery service to call itself Rancid-Thorns.com.

Names matter in business: picking a good one is vital for new companies that want to stand out from the crowd and connect with customers. Read more here. . .

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Thanks for sharing. I honestly believe that it's not hard to come up with a brand name. There are so many domains available at decent prices and umpteen new gTLDs to play with, there hasn't been a better time to create a business imho. Just don't expect to have a single dictionary word domain in .com for $1k...

Hopefully the BBC will change it's name, no doubt they'd commission scientific research cause it's tax payer's money... plenty of people react badly to the sight of their propaganda ridden rag of a website so they might struggle. Best to shut it down

 

[redemo]

Defund the B.B.C.

 

[seomotionz]

Even if they do change their name.

It's not like that they are going to completely change their mentality. The same old colonial mindset.

They will still judge others through their narrow scope.

So, my saying will be 'Why bother them at all?! '

@redemo @MadAboutDomains @newdandy

 

[Samer]

Thanks for sharing. I honestly believe that it's not hard to come up with a brand name. There are so many domains available at decent prices and umpteen new gTLDs to play with, there hasn't been a better time to create a business imho. Just don't expect to have a single dictionary word domain in .com for $1k...

Hopefully the BBC will change it's name, no doubt they'd commission scientific research cause it's tax payer's money... plenty of people react badly to the sight of their propaganda ridden rag of a website so they might struggle. Best to shut it down

My friend, this reminds me so much of NPR, somehow “nonprofit” paid by tax for & rag bias.

Only CSPAN is 100% true neutral; worth funds

 

[redemo]

B.B.C. has the best standard of reporting and website user experience in the U.K. imo. Very few popups and no commercial ads if you're viewing it from the U.K. So I'm not just being a hater. But the problem is an aggressively left wing agenda on most issues which doesn't fairly represent the views of a significant proportion of the population. I hold generally liberal views which are neither on the left or right. Just wish that, as a publicly funded broadcaster the B.B.C. would report more impartially. For instance they aggressively push womens football, which is a good thing, but they do it in the mens section, when the majority of men I know aren't interested in womens football. I also see alot of "a source said" but without naming the source, which detracts from the credibility of any claims.

 

[seomotionz]

@redemo You are spot on correct.

They are a news agency, right? So, their job is to report news. Whether it is good or bad !!! People shall judge which is what.

But instead of reporting the truth they compromise their job. Peddle propaganda all the time and in many cases they aggressively try to create false narrative.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

My friend, this reminds me so much of NPR, somehow “nonprofit” paid by tax for & rag bias.

Only CSPAN is 100% true neutral; worth funds

Yep, NPR is % a baiting rag of a news source anything to get people angry and embolden idiots.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

B.B.C. has the best standard of reporting and website user experience in the U.K. imo. Very few popups and no commercial ads if you're viewing it from the U.K. So I'm not just being a hater. But the problem is an aggressively left wing agenda on most issues which doesn't fairly represent the views of a significant proportion of the population. I hold generally liberal views which are neither on the left or right. Just wish that, as a publicly funded broadcaster the B.B.C. would report more impartially. For instance they aggressively push womens football, which is a good thing, but they do it in the mens section, when the majority of men I know aren't interested in womens football. I also see alot of "a source said" but without naming the source, which detracts from the credibility of any claims.

Bingo. They have too much money and not enough diversity of opinion. I would not let my kids read their "kid's news" section and they're not even born yet. It's not news, it's some progressive cr*p that's suppose to beat you over the head all day like some kind've warped tolerance exercise that's brought to you by a bunch of people that are completely intolerant of the people that are already living in the country. Quite laughable.

 

[Samer]

Bingo. They have too much money and not enough diversity of opinion. I would not let my kids read their "kid's news" section and they're not even born yet. It's not news, it's some progressive cr*p that's suppose to beat you over the head all day like some kind've warped tolerance exercise that's brought to you by a bunch of people that are completely intolerant of the people that are already living in the country. Quite laughable.

“Diversity of opinion” is too expensive.

Too much uncertainty;

Much easier to control all on the same leash