SMG Presentation

But SMG doesn't have anything it wants to sell to the world. It's got commercial airtime to sell to advertisers and many of them are looking for viewers that watch a lot of TV. The figures show that the viewers identify strongly with the brand and the advertisers like this. Being called ITV won't make them any extra money. They're purely self-interested - just like ITV plc.

You really are saying 'why don't Sainsburys call themselves Tesco just so that Tesco can get bigger?'

Scottish TV and ITV are NOT rivals, Sainsbury's and Tesco are...

Tesco Local doesn't ditch the Tesco Brand to mark its difference from the Main Company, why does Scottish TV try to pretend its not ITV 1?

Smg Plc - http://www.smg.plc.uk
200 Renfield Street
Glasgow G2 3PR
UNITED KINGDOM +44 141 300 3300
+44 141 300 3030

SMG plc(SMG). The Group's principal activities are the production and broadcasting of television programmes, local and national radio production and broadcasting, the sale of television advertising airtime and space in these media and in outdoor, cinema and Internet services. Prior to the sale of the Publishing division on 04-Apr-2003 the Group also published newspapers and magazines. Television accounted for 46% of 2002 revenues; publishing, 29%; out of home, 16%; radio, 9% and online activities, nominal.

Itv Plc
Upper Ground
London, SE1 9LT
UNITED KINGDOM

Itv Plc. The Group's Principal Activity Covers Broadcasting, News And Production. It is a Media Company Comprising The Current Businesses of Granada Plc And Carlton Communications Plc. It Owns All Regional Channel 3 Licenses in England And Wales

(business.com)

they sound pretty much like rivals to me! you know ... 2 companies, providing the same services in the same marketplace.

the fact they both hold franchises for the itv network does not make them part of the same company. it makes them part of the same network.

How can they be rivals if SMG take ITV Programmes, and ITV can't advertise or operate in scotland. ITV PLC does what the other franchises did before they merged.

ITV is a rival to SMG in the sense that they operate three channels which compete for airtime in SMG's two television regions.

Are you saying that say Anglia wasn't a rival of HTV?

do you not understand how the itv network operates?

the itv franchises and independent producers are invited to pitch programmes to the itv network (all-be-it now dominated by one group, itv plc).

smg are free to pitch programmes, as are utv. a great many of the programmes may be from itv plc, but then given the legacy of the companies that merged to create itv plc, that is no great surprise.

you must get it into your head the difference between itv network and itv plc.

and of course smg compete with itv plc to produce programmes for channel 4, five, bsky b etc.

Commercially they are. It really wasn't that long ago since we had the big Carlton v. Granada stand off. Two rivals, still producing ITV shows and broadcasting them, but bitter rivals trying to buy each other or get bigger than each other.

I agree. They don't even have any rivalry in their areas of operation outside broadcasting on Channel 3.

Perhaps SMG simply have the attitude that they want to appear independent to their audience, but sneak in most of the programmes and promotional material through the back door (under cover of darkness), doctor it abit, and slap it on screen and say "I made this".

Rather childish behaviour if you ask me.

They don't operate in the same region, so the viewer cannot choose one or the other, hence no rivalry.


I am not talking about programmes here, I am not suggesting SMG be taken over, I am talking about the Channel. Scottish TV, is ITV 1 with opt outs, and putting a different logo on it doesn't change that. SMG should run it, and provide regional programming, but the channel should be ITV1, all-be-it with a Scottish or Grampian appendage.


Commercially, any company is a rival to another, but again I am talking about the channel not the company. Scottish tv does not rival ITV1 because both are exclusive from each other.


Its like copying in an essay, they take the programming, but hide the fact they didnt make it. TV 3 and RTE do it properly, they buy in programmes from ITV and BBC respectfully. When the regions were set-up there was no one company, and ITV hardly ever appeared on air, but now, its either pride, stupidity (people not realising when asked that changing to ITV, would not mean a loss of programming) or just some execs belief they own the station.

Martin, maybe you city dwellers like the ITV1 brand, but those in Scotland don't and prefer a less upmarket Scottish brand which is popular with old ladies and the like.

Sorry, I just thought I'd apply a vast generalisation like you have done in the Metropol Morrisons thread.

Well you obviously see things in a more negative view, I didn't mean to make a generalisation, and I know there are cities in the north.

I never said the scottish brand was bad, just that it doesn't make sence to have different brands for a single product/channel.

So why are you complaining so much about Safeway stores changing to Morrisons? What you seem to propose in that thread is that the Morrisons brand is retained for stores in the North, because "Northerners like it", yet the Safeways brand is used to appeal to you city-dwellers. Why is this different?!

Surely what you propose for Morrisons and Safeway is two different brands for what is essentially the same thing? You argue the case for that, yet you seem so against the idea of ITV1 and SMG being 2 seperate entities. I'm not trying to pick faults with you here, I'm just confused at why your opinion differs so wildly here.