If it was that simple, then why do BBC brand everything BBC ONE Scotland or BBC TWO Scotland with different announcers? It's not anti-English, they just know that national identity is important to Scottish viewers and something that can keep them happy.
Well said......but then someone in London will think that this is a waste of licence payers money!!
But it uses the same look as BBC One England, only with scotland added to the logo. There is nothing wrong with this, as when they advertise a programme, they can use the same logo, they dont have to cover up menus or do multiple trailers. Grampian and Scottish should become ITV 1 Scotland, and that would be good.
It would save money, help ITV as a whole, and would end the "Mish Mash" mess of SMG continuity. What would be lost?
NOTHING.
When SMG commission a new package of idents then they will use them for years and years. We know that, so you can assume the cost will be negligible over that period. I don't know why you are so worried about the cost - it's not as if they have much creative talent left on the payroll.
I fail to see how your idea "helps ITV", (nor can I imagine why you think SMG would feel compelled to). The rest of the network doesn't see any of our branding, and those viewers who even bother to give it thought will probably assume there is uniformity anyway.
*I* (being the Scottish viewer, by the way) don't want to lose the Scottish identity - and why should I?
If Carlton owned it then it would be a different story perhaps, but of course they dont. Do they?
It would save money, help ITV as a whole, and would end the "Mish Mash" mess of SMG continuity. What would be lost?
NOTHING.
When SMG commission a new package of idents then they will use them for years and years. We know that, so you can assume the cost will be negligible over that period. I don't know why you are so worried about the cost - it's not as if they have much creative talent left on the payroll.
I fail to see how your idea "helps ITV", (nor can I imagine why you think SMG would feel compelled to). The rest of the network doesn't see any of our branding, and those viewers who even bother to give it thought will probably assume there is uniformity anyway.
*I* (being the Scottish viewer, by the way) don't want to lose the Scottish identity - and why should I?
If Carlton owned it then it would be a different story perhaps, but of course they dont. Do they?
You as a viewer do not want to loose the identity, why is this? What makes the differerence. We know its easier to have ONE itv, so they can advertise a programme as being on one channel, wherever the posters or trailers are shown. What is it about the name scottish tv or grampian tv that makes the difference.
:-(
A former member
martinDTanderson posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
It would save money, help ITV as a whole, and would end the "Mish Mash" mess of SMG continuity. What would be lost?
NOTHING.
When SMG commission a new package of idents then they will use them for years and years. We know that, so you can assume the cost will be negligible over that period. I don't know why you are so worried about the cost - it's not as if they have much creative talent left on the payroll.
I fail to see how your idea "helps ITV", (nor can I imagine why you think SMG would feel compelled to). The rest of the network doesn't see any of our branding, and those viewers who even bother to give it thought will probably assume there is uniformity anyway.
*I* (being the Scottish viewer, by the way) don't want to lose the Scottish identity - and why should I?
If Carlton owned it then it would be a different story perhaps, but of course they dont. Do they?
You as a viewer do not want to loose the identity, why is this? What makes the differerence. We know its easier to have ONE itv, so they can advertise a programme as being on one channel, wherever the posters or trailers are shown. What is it about the name scottish tv or grampian tv that makes the difference.
scottish TV mm - we live in scotland, scottish TV it not owned by english company and its not for english viewer its for Scottish viewer! we don't wont more london control! we demand our parlement back! ITV is seen as a english name! and that the bottom line! scotts would like to a have there spearete ideanty in the world! even if SMG have crap itdent for rest of time!
Most of the programmes come from ITV. So ITV 1 Scotland, still has scotland in it. The programmes are mostly english in language. It could save money which could go into Scottish programmes.
I suspect its just people feeling nostalgic, and that is hardly a good reason to leave things in the mess they are at the moment. IMO
I strongly disagree with Martin, I understand ITV wants to have a more nationalised look to attract advertisers, but the regions do matter, especially advertising in the region to attract customers, it still does matter in regional news for example, to be honest I think regions being named "ITV <region>" would be a better way to maintain regional identity, we may not have the old chevron back, but it still can work.
For me the argument is regional pride and the great north/south divide. England is actually 3 countries - NORTH (Border, Granada, Yorkshire, Tyne Tees, Anglia, most of Central), SOUTH (Westcountry, HTV West, Meridian) and LONDON (Carlton/LWT). Each MEGA-region is different from the other and yet LONDON expects the wholw country to fall into line with itself!!!!!
SCOTLAND on the other hand, along with WALES and NORTHERN IRELAND, is another story. They are not English, do not consider themselves to be English and do not want to be controlled by the English. It is about national pride. In both Scotland and Northern Ireland thee are BIG differences between England and them. Fo starters they do have different laws to England. Schooling sysytem is different, so why shouldn't trheir culture be different from English, i.e. national identities on their 3rd television station. The ITV franchises (i.e. UTV, Scottish and Grampian) may show the ITV programmes but they do want to stay separate with their own identites - that most identifies with the national community.
Also UTV, Scottish and Grampian are ONLY franchises and are NOT owned by ITVplc. Therefore they CAN do what they want - no matter what LONDON says. We can discuss as much as we want but the plain simple truth is they are different and the longer they stay different the better - who wants to have a very sterile TV culture like the one ITV, and BBC to an extent, are trying to create.
Could you image the uproar if, for all of a sudden, TV3 in Ireland was rebranded ITV Ireland!!!!! TV3 shows 90% of all the programmes that ITV show, and at the same time!. So the argument for one identity to save money could actually be stretched to cover TV3 - don't forget ITVplc has a controling stake in that station - more so than it does with SMG and UTV!!!!!!
I strongly disagree with Martin, I understand ITV wants to have a more nationalised look to attract advertisers, but the regions do matter, especially advertising in the region to attract customers, it still does matter in regional news for example, to be honest I think regions being named "ITV <region>" would be a better way to maintain regional identity, we may not have the old chevron back, but it still can work.
You disagree with me, but then think ITV <region> is a good idea, which is what I am suggesting...
Personally as a UK resident and a Scottish viewer i would like more integration with ITV plc and would like to see an ITV Scottish/ Grampian branded network. Its nothing to do waith politics its just better common sense. It DOES sound alot better ITV whatever rather than *on this channel* with no reference to what you are watching.