ITV name change?

[quote="2inbambed"]
The Letter from Granada

"I'm writing to you from ITV Television"

LMAO, Did the word processor have any sense not use comic sans? Oh and Independent Television Television.

You know my views on regional broadcasting.

Why don't they brand the channel 'ITV1 Region' on high-quality programmes, and keep plain 'ITV1' on the reality, low-budget programmes. This would help, because I'm sure that many associate regional itv as better. Saying it is on 'ITV Region' would draw back viewers who watched the regional channel, imho. Then ITV rebrand and use the regional names soley as ITV Region, maybe even cutting the '1'. This would be used on reality programmes, because i think, when used properly, reality is high-quality. Back to what the article mentioned:
We all know what happened to consignia! I thiunkt hat if ITV produced high-quality programming the invesment would pay off. I really enjoyed the episode I saw of 'Jane Hall'.
Also, can Hutchinsons... claim ownership of the number three. Personally I think it is wrong if a company can claim sole ownership of a number. To me it is too generic. Don't know what you think. failing '3', what about channel 3 ventures?
Though I think that granada is good. They could go back to using arrows for the 'a's, and make a G, with an arrow logo again. subsidaries are made by making a logo with an arrow coming out of it. They could buy back 'Moto', and market peak-time on posters, etc. to people coming back home. i think owning the service stations could be profitable.

Bye.

There is no real technical reason why the regions could not be branded individually. ITV1 could easily be Central, Yorkshire, LWT etc and still be played out from one source. Their argument over branding is cobblers. Men & Motors hasn't got a I T or V anywhere near it generated enough revenue to keep it on SKY. The positioning argument is cobblers. It will still be on channel 103 on SKY and freeview so people will know where they can find it.
If they actually listened to all their reseach (as they have started to at YTV) they would realise that regionalised TV is/was the single most appreciated part of ITV
What other company would own so many appreciated & loved brands and dump them for one name which is now tainted?

All qualified reasonings there, but...

Yes we all fondly remember our local ITV stations name, but why did we watch the channel - was it for it s presentations (for some possibly but if you lived any of the franchise areas then the presentation was inevitably going to be more or less the same all the time - as it is now). IMHO what made people watch the ITV channel was the real decent programmes, the quality, the depth, the research, the costumes etc.. Why - because of inter-competiton between the regions to try to get their programmes on air. Nowadays there is NO inter-competition as there is one brain, (i.e. London HQ), so it will become monotone.

BBC has the right idea - competiton between their own areas (i.e. London competes with BIrmingham, Manchester, Cardiff, Scotland) and with independents for decent ideas, etc... and then pilots are made etc etc etc, then only, and only the best reaches the network.

ITV has none of this, their idea machine is London, with only a moniroty of ideas from indepdendents, and then franchised out to the regional studios (to fill the quota of programmes that need to be filmed outside London) - this was shown up recently when the second series of Northern Lights was suddenly moved from Manchester to London - why????? Goes to show that it was not a Manchester idea programme but a programme thought up etc.. in London and then franchised out to Manchester.

If ITV were to follow the BBC principle then possibly, especially with a bigger emphasis on competing with independents, the network could start producing more original, more quality and more watchable programmes.

After that little rant comes the prose - does it really matter what the station is called (remember in the MIdlands they had a few name changes from ATV to Central to Carlton), same in the south (Southern, TVS, Meridian) and London wasn't left out - the one of only a few regions never to change name was the North West as they always had Granada (I am not counting Yorkshire as that was once part of Granadaland) and other areas, that just as long as the programmes of a standard of originality, watchable and bring the viewers flooding back to what was once the most popular channel in the UK

Because the channel now known as "ITV1" was originally a network of regional broadcasters, and therefore a different channel name in each region, wasn't "ITV / Independent Television" originally an informal expression (to distinguish it from the BBC) rather than an official national name for the channel ???

Right from 1955, there obviously must have always been some sort of organisation/company (or whatever) nationally co-ordinating the necessary co-operation between the varoius regional broadcasting members of the channel, and indeed awarding the regional contracts/licences/franchises to bidding companies in the first place.

By about the 1990s, said body was "the ITV Network Centre". But if my understanding of the origins of the "ITV" name are correct (i.e. "Independent Television" was originally merely an expression not an official name ), then there's no reason why the national name for the channel/company should have to be "ITV".

Yes, I understand how the natural evolution of "ITV" into "official name" status makes a lot more sense than them plucking a random "national name" out of thin air. So it did make sense for "ITV" to be the only "national name" for the channel at a time when in practice it was still a network of regions. But now that everything's nationalised, there no rason why they can't be called something totally different if thy really felt the need to be. (e.g. "Alpha plc" running channels Alpha1, Alpha2... etc (or whatever))

From what I've gathered. There were official bodies, that refered to independent television from the beginning. Am I wrong, or was there an ITV act? The was the ITA, which was the independent television authority. It awarded the contracts. It then inherited responsibilites from the governmenet to regulate independent, commerical radio stations, it changed name to the independent broadcasting authority. The Independent Television companies' Associations' Programme Controlers' Commitee (or soemthing like that) was a body that worked towards the decisiion of networked programmes. I'm not sure if this was an official body, or just an informal coalition, that formed out of their own discretion. The actual channel, that was made by the network, was ultimately given it's first name in the 'ninties, 'Channel 3.'. i prefer to think of ITV as the network, or the machine, and channel three as the product the full television channel, that can be recieved on television sets, that (used not to be named.) comes out of the machine, and ITVPLC, and other contractors, as parts of the machine. However this is just my interpretation. So in my interpetation the networked pumped out a channel, which didn't have a national generic name, up into the 'ninties, but was names channel three later. remember though, this is my interpretation.

As many have said ITV will not change the name (remember the failed "Channel 3" rename attempt of 1996, only two regions took it up & even then one of them, Yorkshire, kept their name & the chevron as the main focal point).

The broadcasting act of 1990 was the start of the decline. The 1991 franchise auction was badly though out & processed (blind bidding), which led to one of the biggest franchises (Thames Television) losing the franchise. Thames weren't perfect (for every good bunch of programmes the produced a few duds got through) but alot better than their replacement, who went on record that they weren't going to produce many or indeed any of their own programmes for the network.

This then led to merger after merger, with sadly Central (who where another major player in the network, also under the name ATV) bought out by Carlton.

Once many of these regions were bought out by Granada, Carlton & United News & Media (remember them) they started to compete less & less with each other resulting in ITV becoming more & more diluted.

Now with only one major company owning the majority of the franchise areas (Granada under the guise of ITV Plc) there is no competion with each other resulting in pi.ss poor TV with no variation at all (Look at CITV with nearly the same schedule week in, week out & nightimes on ITV1 - Love Island followed by Club Reps at least four times a week for the last couple of weeks).

Unfortunately with no more franchise battles the current company remains unchallanged. Had we have had a franchise battle like in 1991 we could have had an outcome like in 1992/1993, whether or not this would have made things worse or not we will never know, however would the network have been dominated by one company as it is now? probably, would it have been the same pi.ss poor quality it is now? we will never know.

What ITV really needs to do is to be taken over & have a complete clear out with some creative people behind it not a board who are forever trying to copy BBC, Channel 4, five or SKY

However , having said all of that I don't think regionalism should come back, modern TV doesn't really demand it as much now & besides as much as I would like to see LWT back (seeing as in the end they were the only region who cared about their name.) it will never, ever happen.

The point is that regionalism was seen as a strength, not a weekness, for the first four decades of ITV...the individual companies were proud to produce series which, if networked, reflected the character of their region. Nowadays, with the balance sheet counting even more than ever, it no longer makes sense to have large studios all over the UK. Most local programming could be produced from a lock-up on a windswept industrial estate.

Id like to see regional names back as some sort (even though I used to be in favour of ITV1), but the trouble is now, there is not enough regional programmes for this worth happening.

I can't see ITV investing in more regional programmes now.

There's no technical reason, there just isn't really any point. It would cost more and make things more complicated for no real benefit




That's not the issue ITV had though. Having 11 or so diffrent names for the same thing makes it difficult to advertise or promote. A programme such as Ant & Dec or Love Island is promoted, reviewed and advertised on a national basis.

Why would any company choose to produce 11 diffrent sets of marketing for the same product? Think of Opal Fruits/Starburst, Oil of Ulay/Oil of Olay etc

Surely they could use 'itv' for networked programmeses promotions, and the region's brand for the regionses programming. Then use the regions brand for all idents? I do belive there is a point, because although brand is just a part of marketting, it helps to have a loved brand.