Yes, but I didn't. I said 'why should a company ditch a brand that makes them more money than the alternative would?'
You just won't answer that question.
And how would they make less money with a brand that exists outside of and inside of scotland, explain how 'Scottish tv' or 'Grampian tv' makes more money than a possible 'ITV 1 Scotland'?
Let's face it, SMG do not have the finanical might of ITV plc, and will shrivel and die following analogue switch-off.
i think the right to broadcast the content of britain's most popular commercial network on epg position 3 to the millions of viewers in central and northern scotland in exchange for advertising revenue isn't the worst position in the world. i dont think people are ready to switch off corrie, emmerdale and the rest of the tat that a huge percentage of the population like to watch, just yet.
StuartPlymouth posted:
Surely the sassennach-hating execs at SMG must realise that they will need to sell out in the end - why prolong the agony
they have the right to sell the company, but they don't NEED to
StuartPlymouth posted:
They could either merge entirely with ITV, or just sell off their broadcasting side to ITV and carry on with their other interests independently.
merge? i think itv taking over smg is far more likely. that would of course require the backing of the shareholders. after all - they just want to make the most money. as long as the ad revenue keeps rolling in with the company demonstrating cost cutting, i wouldn't have thought there'd be any immediate pressure on smg to sell.
if they did sell, who's to say the buyer would be itv plc? there are plenty of media giants out there, and one or two of them must have considered buying into britain's most popular network.
martinDTanderson posted:
I just can't see any point trying to patch up another channel's logos and branding, which is used in the majority of locations in favour of another's whose logo is fixed to a single area.
shall i tell you the point? smg own the grampian and scottish brands. smg want to promote the grampian and scottish brands. the grampian and scottish brands are smg's asset.
itv plc, a separate company, with their own shareholders, use the itv brand for themselves.
it is not hard to grasp martin.
martinDTanderson posted:
Quote:
to provide a Regional Channel 3 Service
I DIDN'T SAY DITCH REGIONAL CONTENT, just provide the same or better service under a brand which reaches the rest of the UK.
to broadcast a channel you need a licence. 15 companies own the channel licences for itv network. all but 3 of the companies are owned by itv plc. smg own the central scotland and north scotland licences. that gives them the right to broadcast the itv network service to their franchise areas. itv network do not own any licences. itv plc do.
Yes, but I didn't. I said 'why should a company ditch a brand that makes them more money than the alternative would?'
You just won't answer that question.
And how would they make less money with a brand that exists outside of and inside of scotland, explain how 'Scottish tv' or 'Grampian tv' makes more money than a possible 'ITV 1 Scotland'?
Because the people they employ to sell their product (advertising) say so. Did you not look at the information they made publicly available on the article or website I posted? Believe me Martin, they put together a brief for the advertisers saying things like "Our brand is this, we have this many viewers, you can reach this many homes, these are our prices, do you like?" So far, the advertisers have said yes, and bought their adverrtising.
Why risk that? Because you would like them to? I'm sure these people have done their research (unlike you) and aren't just trying to piss you off with their own brand. Believe me, when it comes to programme making they take the easy option, and I'm sure they would take the easy option when it comes to branding too - but they must know ITV wouldn't work as well in Scotland, otherwise they would have done it.
I know the network is a group of 3 companies who own the 15 franchises. ITV plc is one of those companies. (SMG and UTV being the other two)
The ITV Brand extends to the NETWORK, but SMG and UTV choose to use their own brands, by covering up ITV. I think this is a stupid decision, as if ITV as a brand was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would strengthen the brand as a whole, and would also allow them to take advantage of the ITV brand outside of their franchise's region. It also means UTV and SMG have to discuise the fact it is ITV 1 they are showing, which costs money, makes duplication, results in mistakes, and provides a less consistant service to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I see no commercial benefit to keeping the brands in place over the ITV brand which has a much larger area to work with, and is becoming a strong european/global name.
Yes, but I didn't. I said 'why should a company ditch a brand that makes them more money than the alternative would?'
You just won't answer that question.
And how would they make less money with a brand that exists outside of and inside of scotland, explain how 'Scottish tv' or 'Grampian tv' makes more money than a possible 'ITV 1 Scotland'?
Because the people they employ to sell their product (advertising) say so. Did you not look at the information they made publicly available on the article or website I posted? Believe me Martin, they put together a brief for the advertisers saying things like "Our brand is this, we have this many viewers, you can reach this many homes, these are our prices, do you like?" So far, the advertisers have said yes, and bought their adverrtising.
Why risk that? Because you would like them to? I'm sure these people have done their research (unlike you) and aren't just trying to **** you off with their own brand. Believe me, when it comes to programme making they take the easy option, and I'm sure they would take the easy option when it comes to branding too - but they must know ITV wouldn't work as well in Scotland, otherwise they would have done it.
Now, can you answer my question?
Where else on TV can scottish companies advertise? If the networked programmes vanished from Stv or Gtv, where would the brand be, and what would people think then. Ask people what their favourite programmes were, how many local shows would be mentioned. Also, scottish advertises would then be able to use the whole of the UK if they could advertise on an ITV branded network, and then reach a wider audience at local pricing...
I know the network is a group of 3 companies who own the 15 franchises. ITV plc is one of those companies. (SMG and UTV being the other two)
The ITV Brand extends to the NETWORK, but SMG and UTV choose to use their own brands, by covering up ITV. I think this is a stupid decision, as if ITV as a brand was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would strengthen the brand as a whole, and would also allow them to take advantage of the ITV brand outside of their franchise's region. It also means UTV and SMG have to discuise the fact it is ITV 1 they are showing, which costs money, makes duplication, results in mistakes, and provides a less consistant service to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I see no commercial benefit to keeping the brands in place over the ITV brand which has a much larger area to work with, and is becoming a strong european/global name.
I think you're missing the point everyone else is trying to make and has said to you. Scottish / Grampian TV is a stronger brand than ITV is in Scotland. It makes SMG more money with advertising revenue.
And to be honest I don't know why it should bother you when you don't watch either region
I know the network is a group of 3 companies who own the 15 franchises. ITV plc is one of those companies. (SMG and UTV being the other two)
The ITV Brand extends to the NETWORK, but SMG and UTV choose to use their own brands, by covering up ITV. I think this is a stupid decision, as if ITV as a brand was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would strengthen the brand as a whole, and would also allow them to take advantage of the ITV brand outside of their franchise's region. It also means UTV and SMG have to discuise the fact it is ITV 1 they are showing, which costs money, makes duplication, results in mistakes, and provides a less consistant service to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I see no commercial benefit to keeping the brands in place over the ITV brand which has a much larger area to work with, and is becoming a strong european/global name.
I think you're missing the point everyone else is trying to make and has said to you. Scottish / Grampian TV is a stronger brand than ITV is in Scotland. It makes SMG more money with advertising revenue.
And to be honest I don't know why it should bother you when you don't watch either region
Stronger brand because ITV isnt common in scotland...
I know the network is a group of 3 companies who own the 15 franchises. ITV plc is one of those companies. (SMG and UTV being the other two)
The ITV Brand extends to the NETWORK, but SMG and UTV choose to use their own brands, by covering up ITV. I think this is a stupid decision, as if ITV as a brand was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would strengthen the brand as a whole, and would also allow them to take advantage of the ITV brand outside of their franchise's region. It also means UTV and SMG have to discuise the fact it is ITV 1 they are showing, which costs money, makes duplication, results in mistakes, and provides a less consistant service to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I see no commercial benefit to keeping the brands in place over the ITV brand which has a much larger area to work with, and is becoming a strong european/global name.
I think you're missing the point everyone else is trying to make and has said to you. Scottish / Grampian TV is a stronger brand than ITV is in Scotland. It makes SMG more money with advertising revenue.
And to be honest I don't know why it should bother you when you don't watch either region
Stronger brand because ITV isnt common in scotland...
Because ITV is making a big relaunch,not just the channels but the whole focus of the PLC is changing. They want to be seen as both broadcaster, and service provider, as do Sky and BBC. How can they have a consistant image, if they don't appear alongside sky and BBC in scotland and Northern Ireland.
Also, SMG is not in the best financial position, it could save money, time, and work to stop all this 'patch it up' presentation when most of the schedule is a replay of ITV1, there are only opt outs, not a totally different schedule. Why do a duplicate voice over, paying a 6-7 figure sum for people to record, when you can record some in advance with scottish voices and pay a cheaper one-off fee.
Scottish and Grampian TV will never become bigger than ITV, so why should scotland's advertisers, programme makers, and viewers be deprived of the widespread recognition of the ITV brand.
Many will say the UTV, STV, and GTV service looks shoddy, with many mistakes, and slips of "next on ITV 1" etc by presenters. So why go through it all, re-invest the saved money into improving the local content, and of course, it wouldn't be ITV1 to the local presenters and local voice overs, it would be ITV 1 Scotland or ITV 1 Scottish/Grampian/Ulster or Northern Ireland...
Because ITV is making a big relaunch,not just the channels but the whole focus of the PLC is changing. They want to be seen as both broadcaster, and service provider, as do Sky and BBC. How can they have a consistant image, if they don't appear alongside sky and BBC in scotland and Northern Ireland.
i am starting to think you are dense martin. why on earth would itv plc's wish "to be seen as both broadcaster, and service provider" in scotland be of consequence to smg? smg are a separate, rival, company.
Any company, would like to be able to operate in as wide a field as possible, and part of the reason for the new look is to move into a new public field...
Any company, would like to be able to operate in as wide a field as possible, and part of the reason for the new look is to move into a new public field...
so you think a rival company would be interested in facilitating itv plc's wish to operate in a wider field?
