• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CTV branding

M

mjlarochelle

With the generic branding in full swing in most of Canada as of this morning, it has been reported to me that at least one station, CJOH, has changed their signoff to not even state the calls - much like CFTO.

In addition, the Montreal website makes a very bold statement:

"CTV Montreal, formerly CFCF, was the first private television station in Quebec."

If anyone from CTV is reading this, that station is still CFCF-TV, whether you'd like to admit it or not.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by mjlarochelle on 10/03/05 05:43 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> With the generic branding in full swing in most of Canada as
> of this morning, it has been reported to me that at least
> one station, CJOH, has changed their signoff to not even
> state the calls - much like CFTO.
>

Also, like CFTO, CJOH is breaking the law -- CRTC regulations require radio and TV stations to identify themselves by their calls when signing on or signing off.

> In addition, the Montreal website makes a very bold
> statement:
>
> "CTV Montreal, formerly CFCF, was the first private
> television station in Quebec."
>
> If anyone from CTV is reading this, that station is still
> CFCF-TV, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
>
Agreed -- like it or not, the station has to have those call letters to operate. They don't have to use them in their promotions, but, as long as they are licensed by the CRTC, they are stuck with them.

Of course, those that call themselves "formerly [call letters]" will eventually have to bring their calls out of the closet -- when they air official messages regarding the station.
 
M.J. Larochelle did some web-surfing:

> In addition, the Montreal website makes a very bold
> statement:
>
> "CTV Montreal, formerly CFCF, was the first private
> television station in Quebec."

Should it read "CTV Montreal, formally CFCF, was the first private television station in Quebec..."??

"Formally" means "officially" or "legally".
 
Check out this article from yesterday's Ottawa Sun:

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/OttawaAndRegion/2005/10/04/1247149-sun.html

What is interesting is that Max Keeping was not even allowed to talk to the media about the change. That shows that CTV is pretty embarassed. CTV also lies when they say that nobody complained about the changes when they were "tested" in Toronto earlier this year. I personally wrote to CFTO's news director and to Dave Devall, and received responses from both of them. Plus there has been much complaining about it on several boards, including this one.
 
> CTV also lies when they say that
> nobody complained about the changes when they were "tested"
> in Toronto earlier this year.

What about Sasketchewan and Vancouver? I believe they were the first to dump their local identities for the generic CTV one.
 
> > CTV also lies when they say that
> > nobody complained about the changes when they were
> "tested"
> > in Toronto earlier this year.
>
> What about Sasketchewan and Vancouver? I believe they were
> the first to dump their local identities for the generic CTV
> one.
---------
Which damages their argument even further.
 
CTV Corporate management is thinking this...
"Streamline operations with a single corporate identity for all the local stations will allow people to be more aware of CTV as a whole." (Or somethin' like that)

Locals are thinking...
"Why change the identity of something that has heritage and awareness? That's like changing the name of Cadillac to GM" (Or somethin' like that)

PS. CFCN hasn't changed yet. What's holding them up?
 
> CTV Corporate management is thinking this...
> "Streamline operations with a single corporate identity
> for all the local stations will allow people to be more
> aware of CTV as a whole." (Or somethin' like that)
---------
But we viewers already know about CTV! While we're at it, why don't we rename the Toronto Maple Leafs to NHL Toronto. Then, we can rename the Blue Jays to MLB Toronto. Corporate branding is boneheaded and causes confusion. Remember Skydome in Toronto? Everyone still calls it Skydome. But, early this year, it became known as the Rogers Centre. I never hear anyone call it that name, and some commentators on TSN once commented that it was easier just to stick to Skydome since it was easier to say. Rogers could at least have called the place the Rogers Skydome, but no. Likewise CTV can't seem to understand keeping familiar brands along with their national brand.
>
> Locals are thinking...
> "Why change the identity of something that has heritage
> and awareness? That's like changing the name of Cadillac to
> GM" (Or somethin' like that)
>
> PS. CFCN hasn't changed yet. What's holding them up?
---------
Your answer is as good as mine.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
> While we're at it,
> why don't we rename the Toronto Maple Leafs to NHL Toronto.
> Then, we can rename the Blue Jays to MLB Toronto. Corporate
> branding is boneheaded and causes confusion.

The CFL did use something similar for a team at one time -- in the early-1990s, when the CFL expanded into the US, the Baltimore team was called, more or less, the Baltimore CFLs, because they couldn't use the name "Colts". The Following season, they finally gotten a real name, the "Stallions".

When the CFL left the states and folded the teams, they kept Baltimore -- which they moved to Montreal to become the "Alouettes".
 
> > > CTV also lies when they say that
> > > nobody complained about the changes when they were
> > "tested"
> > > in Toronto earlier this year.
> >
> > What about Sasketchewan and Vancouver? I believe they were
>
> > the first to dump their local identities for the generic
> CTV
> > one.
> ---------
> Which damages their argument even further.
>
CICC Yorkton carries the CKCK Regina news and CIPA Prince Albert carries the CFQC Saskatoon. Generic opens have been used on these stations for a long time. I assume all these stations are controlled in Regina.

There was "BC CTV" but we all know how THAT turned out...<P ID="signature">______________

Canada TV and College Radio</P>
 
I just shake my head at my fellow media geeks in the online world who are making such a big deal of this.

The new realities of broadcasting are this...

1) There is likely more strength in a single national brand rather than a fractured variety of local brands.

2) Centralization of broadcast operations (ie. master control) is likely making national branding more economical and logical in the long run.

3) Most viewers don't really care what the channel is called. At the end of the day, if they have a diary, they're going to write down whatever they think they're watching.

I think too many people online put too much emphasis on heritage and formalities. CTV is not 'ashamed' of it's rebranding... it is not misleading viewers. It has made a business decision to create a single, national brand, and it is wanting to do it with as little fanfare as possible. Good on them. That's the way these kind of things SHOULD be done.
 
> CICC Yorkton carries the CKCK Regina news and CIPA Prince
> Albert carries the CFQC Saskatoon. Generic opens have been
> used on these stations for a long time. I assume all these
> stations are controlled in Regina.
----------
I believe that CTV's Saskatchewan master control is at CFQC Saskatoon. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that CKCK went generic in mid-2001, while the other three stations didn't change over until sometime in 2002. Apparently they used split-fed opens for awhile.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
> I just shake my head at my fellow media geeks in the online
> world who are making such a big deal of this.
>
> The new realities of broadcasting are this...
>
> 1) There is likely more strength in a single national brand
> rather than a fractured variety of local brands.
>
> 2) Centralization of broadcast operations (ie. master
> control) is likely making national branding more economical
> and logical in the long run.
>
> 3) Most viewers don't really care what the channel is
> called. At the end of the day, if they have a diary,
> they're going to write down whatever they think they're
> watching.
>
> I think too many people online put too much emphasis on
> heritage and formalities. CTV is not 'ashamed' of it's
> rebranding... it is not misleading viewers. It has made a
> business decision to create a single, national brand, and it
> is wanting to do it with as little fanfare as possible.
> Good on them. That's the way these kind of things SHOULD be
> done.
----------
You must work for CBC, CTV, Global, or CHUM. This sounds very much like what the PR machines are spitting out. You seem to have no respect for heritage.

If there is so much strength in a national brand, then why hasn't it happened in the United States? Why isn't WCBS-TV just called CBS instead of CBS 2?

Do you not understand the importance of differentiating the network from the local station? If you don't have a local brand, how do you know you're getting a local newscast? You can't call both the national newscast and the local newscast "CTV News". CTV is engrained in peoples' minds as a national network. Now with local newscasts being called a purely national name, how do viewers know that there is a local newscast?

I know several people other than people like us that are interested in broadcasting that don't understand why the CFTO name was ditched, as well as The New VR. In fact one poster to this board told us that one night, shortly after CFTO made the switch, that he flipped to cable 8 in Toronto around 11:40, and when he saw the CTV News references, he thought the national news was still on. He changed channels, and ended up watching CITY for the first time, and was so impressed with their format that he switched his local news choice after many years.

Do you not understand the confusion created by this? Do you not understand that people who have been watching CJOH for the past 25-30 years are wondering what is going on? Do you not understand that this is an easy route for CTV to eliminate all local newscasts and feed evening news from Toronto?<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
I agree with mj. Changing an identity just doesn't make any BUSINESS sense! If people recognize a brand or trademark, the last thing a company would want to do is ditch it for something new. Local news is such a part of the community. When people live in a community, they want to see what is happening everyday from a reliable source. So they turn to their local news station. I know people that are loyal to one local affiliate, and stay with them their whole lives. Sure, call letters don't mean much to the average Joe, but certain call letters have been around for a long time, and people identify their choice for local news with those call letters or channel number. I know some people in Calgary that still like to watch "2&7"!

I really think that the success of a news source not only relies on the credibility of its content (which is why their in business in the first place), but also on its heritage. People don't like alot of change. I remember when the CTV station in Calgary switched from Cable 5 to Cable 3. At the time, they were identified by the name "Channel 5". After the switch, some people started calling it instead by it's calls -- CFCN, which it had used for years before that.

I also agree with the rebuttal "People won't differentiate between the national newscast and the local". But you have to remember that we tune into a station to see what's happening locally, so we want to see a local newscast. The local newscast should reflect the values, heritage, community, and identity of the area that it originates. So, if any CTV execs are reading this right now, think about what will happen if your CTV local newscasts lose all local flavor...

Take a cue from FOX network. Most every local affilate (whether o&o or not) ID by FOX(channel #). So why not CTV9, CTV3, etc. Huh? Hmmmmm, I may be onto something here.......
 
> Take a cue from FOX network. Most every local affilate
> (whether o&o or not) ID by FOX(channel #). So why not CTV9,
> CTV3, etc. Huh? Hmmmmm, I may be onto something
> here.......
>
There's only one thing that this concept won't work in Canada -- repeaters. CFCF and CIVT only have the one main transmitter in their cities (Montreal and Vancouver, respectively), but everyone else has several. Also, don't forget the digital trannies that are now starting to show up in Canada (which, in the long run, will eventually replace the analog trannies). In order for this to work, it's better to use the cable slot number (in CFTO's case, "CTV8" instead of "CTV9"), never mind that this concept won't work on satellite (3-digit numbers), or on cable systems in adjacent markets in Canada or the US (where another station would be on ch.8, for example).
 
> You must work for CBC, CTV, Global, or CHUM. This sounds
> very much like what the PR machines are spitting out. You
> seem to have no respect for heritage.

Nope... sorry.

This has nothing to do with 'respect' for heritage. (A flimsy argument to begin with... the only people who care about 'heritage' are us online media geeks.) In the current age of new media, I think it's an incredibly wise thing for broadcasters to try and consolidate their brand as much as possible. It provides a strong unified front in a world filled with media outposts.

>
> Do you not understand the confusion created by this?

No, I do not. I tend to give average viewers a lot more credit for being smart than the other online media geeks do. Viewers are resiliant. They do not build true loyalties to TV stations. They go where their favourite shows are and watch them. Changing the *name* of a TV station means nothing. If anything, the more detrimental thing that could happen to a TV station is changing where it lives on the cable dial. *That's* how most people associate with their channels (and trust me... I know... I worked for nearly half a decade in cable.) The names mean nothing. If the shows are on as they always have been, the viewer will find them and watch.

As for consolidated brands in the States... it hasn't worked because it's never been aggressively implemented. The better example is the UK. Most people today couldn't give a care if they're watching Westcountry, or Central, or Tyne Tees... they're watching ITV (which has consolidated its brand save for two hold outs.) IMHO, the only losers in the ITV network branding are the stations who've chosen to hold the line with local identities, not getting any benefit from potential national advertising that's taking place.
 
> No, I do not. I tend to give average viewers a lot more
> credit for being smart than the other online media geeks do.
> Viewers are resiliant. They do not build true loyalties to
> TV stations. They go where their favourite shows are and
> watch them. Changing the *name* of a TV station means
> nothing. If anything, the more detrimental thing that could
> happen to a TV station is changing where it lives on the
> cable dial. *That's* how most people associate with their
> channels (and trust me... I know... I worked for nearly half
> a decade in cable.) The names mean nothing. If the shows
> are on as they always have been, the viewer will find them
> and watch.
---------
That's not true. The New PL (CFPL-TV London) built a very strong local brand over the past few years, and they were very well known and talked about among the general public - not just us online media geeks. They dumped it and are now A(lberta) Channel. People are still calling the station Channel 10 or TV-London though. People ARE resistant to change. The fact that the Ottawa Sun had an article about CJOH rebranding to CTV Ottawa shows that there are a lot of people that care about this. People outside the online media geek world still call CJOH's newscast "Newsline", and CFTO's newscast "World Beat News".

Yes, people do associate programs with cable channels - even I do. However, with increasing satellite penetration, there needs to be a way for people to differentiate between all the CTV stations shown. "CTV Southwestern Ontario" doesn't cut it, because it is such a long and cumbersome name, compared with the simple CKCO.

> As for consolidated brands in the States... it hasn't worked
> because it's never been aggressively implemented. The
> better example is the UK. Most people today couldn't give a
> care if they're watching Westcountry, or Central, or Tyne
> Tees... they're watching ITV (which has consolidated its
> brand save for two hold outs.) IMHO, the only losers in the
> ITV network branding are the stations who've chosen to hold
> the line with local identities, not getting any benefit from
> potential national advertising that's taking place.
-----------
Well, yes it has been tried, and it has failed. WTXF (Fox) in Philadelphia (formerly WTAF) was known as TV-29 in the early 80s, then became Fox 29. Around 1995 they became known as "FOX Philadelphia". I think it was 2001 when they brought back the Fox 29 moniker.

I believe there was also an ABC affiliate in Florida that tried to become known as just "ABC", but again the station ditched the brand after several years.

You see, in all these cases, there must be a way of differentiating a station in one region from a station in another region. If you live in Belleville, you get CFTO and CJOH on cable. If you're new to Belleville, how do you know which station to watch? Do you watch CTV or CTV? If you know that one station is CJOH broadcasting from Deseronto (rebroadcasting Ottawa), then it's pretty simple.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
> I believe there was also an ABC affiliate in Florida that
> tried to become known as just "ABC", but again the station
> ditched the brand after several years.

I take it that you mean WFTS ch.28 in Tampa Bay -- a couple of years back, they dumped their "ABC 28" moniker for simply "ABC". Even the bug used for their syndicated shows was just an ABC logo (which they still use today). As for their news department, they went from "ABC 28 News" to "ABC Action News". All WFTS programs, including local and syndicated shows, were being promoted as being merely "on ABC".

Apparently, viewers and/or ABC complained, and being very close to another ABC station (Sarasota's WWSB ch.40, whose tranny is merely 20 miles from WFTS's) didn't help either. Afterwards, all programs on WFTS were being promoted as being on "your ABC Action News station", but that continued to rankle some, as they never mentioned a channel number or call letters in their promotions (though they do mention "cable 11" in their TV ads).

As a matter of fact, there is talk in the Tampa Bay radio forum about this that started very recently, in a thread about WTSP's 40th anniversary:

http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=554589&Board=tampa
 
MCTV and ATV are next

According to next week's program listings on CTV.ca, CTV's next targets for generic branding are MCTV and ATV, two regional systems each with four stations. The change takes effect on Tuesday, October 11th. CFCN is being left for now.

MCTV | 1980-2005
ATV | 1972-2005
CFCN | 1961-probably 2005<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>

P.S. Speaking of Live at Five, ATV is keeping that name for their 5 PM broadcast.
 
> > CICC Yorkton carries the CKCK Regina news and CIPA Prince
> > Albert carries the CFQC Saskatoon. Generic opens have
> been
> > used on these stations for a long time. I assume all
> these
> > stations are controlled in Regina.
> ----------
> I believe that CTV's Saskatchewan master control is at CFQC
> Saskatoon. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that CKCK
> went generic in mid-2001, while the other three stations
> didn't change over until sometime in 2002. Apparently they
> used split-fed opens for awhile.
>

No.

It was actually as far back as 1998 that the generic branding began. At that time, all four markets were running split opens, but branded the news partially as 'CTV News' and the stations as 'CTV Saskatchewan'.

By 2000, all four stations were using the 'CTV News' brand, and were identifying as CTV on air.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom