MD
I don't have a problem with Morrisons taking over safeway, It has improved my local Ex-Safeway store, but I do think the brand image they use is crap. I also find it very phoney, and feel it is unsuitable, all in my opinion.
The Channel debate, is different, I feel the same channel shouldn't have different names in different areas. Scottish TV isn't its own channel, or it would buy in programmes from ITV1 like TV3 and RTE. It is ITV1 with regional opt outs. Think of how much it costs to make multiple trailers, multiple voice overs for networked programmes, staff to operate the graphics covering up the national ones.
Use that money for more regional programming, or improve existing content. End the mish mash of brand styles and logos. Allow ITV to advertise using the same adverts with the same logo without making multiple versions. Use the ITV brand to sell more SMG programming to the world, end all the inconsistancy.
The Channel debate, is different, I feel the same channel shouldn't have different names in different areas. Scottish TV isn't its own channel, or it would buy in programmes from ITV1 like TV3 and RTE. It is ITV1 with regional opt outs. Think of how much it costs to make multiple trailers, multiple voice overs for networked programmes, staff to operate the graphics covering up the national ones.
Use that money for more regional programming, or improve existing content. End the mish mash of brand styles and logos. Allow ITV to advertise using the same adverts with the same logo without making multiple versions. Use the ITV brand to sell more SMG programming to the world, end all the inconsistancy.
SC
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
scottishtv
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
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.
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
MD
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
Without ITV programming, there would be no Scottish TV or Grampian TV. And they don't own the stations, the ITV Network does, they only own the right to broadcast the channel, using network content.
They could still make money from using the ITV brand, and the benefits of being able to operate outside of scotland would give them new oppertunities surely?
scottishtv posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
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.
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
Without ITV programming, there would be no Scottish TV or Grampian TV. And they don't own the stations, the ITV Network does, they only own the right to broadcast the channel, using network content.
They could still make money from using the ITV brand, and the benefits of being able to operate outside of scotland would give them new oppertunities surely?
TV
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
yes, smg owe nothing to itv plc, the people they NEED to please are their shareholders. the scottish and grampian brands are 2 of the companies assets. generations of viewers have grown up with the names and in a multi channel world that is not something you throw away lightly.
smg are only concerned about selling air time in their regions. the strength of the itv brand in england scotland or anywhere in the world is of no consequence. they are making and have made plenty of programmes for itv and other broadcasters.
the itv name has been adopted by a rival company. why would smg want to promote the brand of another company when it has 2 strong, established brands of its own?
tvmercia
Founding member
scottishtv posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
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.
um, yes, but the companies own the channel. Boiling it all down you are basically suggesting that SMG TV gives up it's two strong brands which make it a lot of money in favour of the ITV brand, as some sort of gesture of goodwill to ITVplc who will give them nothing in return?
Why should a pretty small player like SMG really care about the ITV brand throughout the world when their own wee brands sell the airtime and make them money?
Think you should stick to designing graphics for the business news bulletins rather than trying to explain them.
yes, smg owe nothing to itv plc, the people they NEED to please are their shareholders. the scottish and grampian brands are 2 of the companies assets. generations of viewers have grown up with the names and in a multi channel world that is not something you throw away lightly.
smg are only concerned about selling air time in their regions. the strength of the itv brand in england scotland or anywhere in the world is of no consequence. they are making and have made plenty of programmes for itv and other broadcasters.
the itv name has been adopted by a rival company. why would smg want to promote the brand of another company when it has 2 strong, established brands of its own?
SC
Sorry, but have to pull you up on this too. Are you now saying that the some shallow brand name 'ITV' makes programmes?
As far as I'm aware Granada make some shows, Scottish TV make some others, ITN makes some. Yup, the endcaps tell me so.
Don't think this 'hiding' is really happening is it? Just admit that you're part of this corporate thinking that believes 'brands' should take over the world - your other posts have shown your a lover of branding guidelines and rules. However, there are examples of many big global corporations that have different brands for the same business in different countries because the local people like it that way.
Are a few blue squares on a TV screen in a country you don't live really offending you so much Martin?
scottishtv
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
Its like copying in an essay, they take the programming, but hide the fact they didnt make it.
Sorry, but have to pull you up on this too. Are you now saying that the some shallow brand name 'ITV' makes programmes?
As far as I'm aware Granada make some shows, Scottish TV make some others, ITN makes some. Yup, the endcaps tell me so.
Don't think this 'hiding' is really happening is it? Just admit that you're part of this corporate thinking that believes 'brands' should take over the world - your other posts have shown your a lover of branding guidelines and rules. However, there are examples of many big global corporations that have different brands for the same business in different countries because the local people like it that way.
Are a few blue squares on a TV screen in a country you don't live really offending you so much Martin?
TV
tvmercia
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
And they don't own the stations, the ITV Network does,
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/c3/scottish/scottishdrl.pdf posted:
Channel 3 Regional Licence
Licence granted to Scottish Television Limited to provide a Regional Channel 3 Service under Part 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended) and Part 3 of the Communications Act 2003
Licence granted to Scottish Television Limited to provide a Regional Channel 3 Service under Part 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended) and Part 3 of the Communications Act 2003
SC
wtf? you're trying to mix so many terms like channel, network etc to try and prove a point and it's not working. The network is made up of the individual companies which own the franchises they bought from the government. I think the shareholders would be very unhappy to learn that they don't own something they paid for.
I give up in despair I really do. I gave it my best shot guys.
scottishtv
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
They don't own the stations, the ITV Network does
wtf? you're trying to mix so many terms like channel, network etc to try and prove a point and it's not working. The network is made up of the individual companies which own the franchises they bought from the government. I think the shareholders would be very unhappy to learn that they don't own something they paid for.
I give up in despair I really do. I gave it my best shot guys.
ST
Let's face it, SMG do not have the finanical might of ITV plc, and will shrivel and die following analogue switch-off.
Surely the sassennach-hating execs at SMG must realise that they will need to sell out in the end - why prolong the agony - it's only leaving Scottish viewers with a secondhand service with a few bits of "sticky-back plastic" stuck on it saying "scottish" or "grampian" (to use an old Blue Peter analogy)
They could either merge entirely with ITV, or just sell off their broadcasting side to ITV and carry on with their other interests independently.
Surely the sassennach-hating execs at SMG must realise that they will need to sell out in the end - why prolong the agony - it's only leaving Scottish viewers with a secondhand service with a few bits of "sticky-back plastic" stuck on it saying "scottish" or "grampian" (to use an old Blue Peter analogy)
They could either merge entirely with ITV, or just sell off their broadcasting side to ITV and carry on with their other interests independently.
MD
It doesn't offend me, 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. People say local pride, but thats not a good reason to alter something. It dilutes the brand, and does nobody any good.
I DIDN'T SAY DITCH REGIONAL CONTENT, just provide the same or better service under a brand which reaches the rest of the UK.
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.
SC
Okay, I'll have one final go at you then. Please explain this statement. I watch Scottish TV on digital. Actually SMG TV Sales are selling digital interactive services to their advertisers. Sounds like they're dying(!)
Never heard making money being described as 'agony' before.
scottishtv
Founding member
StuartPlymouth posted:
Let's face it, SMG do not have the finanical might of ITV plc, and will shrivel and die following analogue switch-off.
Okay, I'll have one final go at you then. Please explain this statement. I watch Scottish TV on digital. Actually SMG TV Sales are selling digital interactive services to their advertisers. Sounds like they're dying(!)
StuartPlymouth posted:
SMG must realise that they will need to sell out in the end - why prolong the agony.
Never heard making money being described as 'agony' before.
SC
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.
scottishtv
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
People say local pride.
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.