• 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

My $.02 on CW's Branding

W

Whyzmaster954

Guest
I've been doing a lot of research surrounding how the new UPN/WB merger would help or hurt the branding. Here's my advice, for all the stations that want to go with the branding of CW, don't. It's been eleven years since the launch of UPN and the WB and stations spend a lot of money trying to get people to tune in to their stations. So, with that in mind, I think that stations like WPIX, WLVI and down here in South Florida, WBZL, should resort to just being "Channel #" the CW station. In the case of WPIX, people still say, I watch Smallville on Channel 11 or in Boston Channel 56. Yet, the station prefers to call themselves "Boston's WB." Even the president of Tribune Broadcasting said it best, "People watch shows, not networks." Hey, if the former UPN/WB stations are de-branding their affiliates, as with the case of Fox's UPN affiliates, then why not the soon-to-be CW stations? <P ID="signature">______________
YTZ Video Traders Central
http://tapetraders2003.cjb.net</P>
 
> In the case of WPIX, people
> still say, I watch Smallville on Channel 11 or in Boston
> Channel 56. Yet, the station prefers to call themselves
> "Boston's WB." Even the president of Tribune Broadcasting
> said it best, "People watch shows, not networks."

In Canada, something's similar happened to CTV's O&O stations. In the past few months, CTV's stations' call letters disappeared from branding and replaced with "CTV (city or region)". For example, Toronto's CFTO now prefers to be called "CTV Toronto", even though many viewers still refer to them as "CFTO" or even "Channel 9".

Comes to prove that even if you change your name, many viewers will refuse to accept it.
 
I doubt WLVI-56 will re-brand to "Channel 56" or "WLVI", but will be henceforth known as "Boston's CW".

The reason WLVI no longer uses it's channel number in it's branding is that the station is on cable channel 11 on most cable television systems in the Boston area. "WB-56" might suggest that WLVI is seen on cable channel 56.

On the other hand, NBC-owned KNSD San Diego brands itself as "NBC-7/39", using both it's channel position on most San Diego-area cable systems (cable channel 7) and it's over-the-air analog channel (39).

Maybe WLVI, once CW hits the air, may brand itself "CW-11/56".
 
> I doubt WLVI-56 will re-brand to "Channel 56" or "WLVI", but
> will be henceforth known as "Boston's CW".
>
> The reason WLVI no longer uses it's channel number in it's
> branding is that the station is on cable channel 11 on most
> cable television systems in the Boston area. "WB-56" might
> suggest that WLVI is seen on cable channel 56.
>
> On the other hand, NBC-owned KNSD San Diego brands itself as
> "NBC-7/39", using both it's channel position on most San
> Diego-area cable systems (cable channel 7) and it's
> over-the-air analog channel (39).
>
> Maybe WLVI, once CW hits the air, may brand itself
> "CW-11/56".
>

I agree. I think that once popular independents that turned UPN/WB like WLVI and WPIX which will be CW, should stick to their call letters and/or numbers. I think that names like UPN38, UPN28, WB11, WB20, etc. is not original. Alright, it's O.K with UPN or WB, but I agree, when the CW takes over, stick with an original name. WCTX in New Haven used to call themselves plainly WCTX. But then the UPN logo became present and then it was changed all together to UPN9, (WCTX is really on 59), just because it was on Channel 9 in 90% of the state.
 
> I agree. I think that once popular independents that turned
> UPN/WB like WLVI and WPIX which will be CW, should stick to
> their call letters and/or numbers. I think that names like
> UPN38, UPN28, WB11, WB20, etc. is not original. Alright,
> it's O.K with UPN or WB, but I agree, when the CW takes
> over, stick with an original name. WCTX in New Haven used to
> call themselves plainly WCTX. But then the UPN logo became
> present and then it was changed all together to UPN9, (WCTX
> is really on 59), just because it was on Channel 9 in 90% of
> the state.
>

I think WCTX also leaves out their UHF channel number (59) due to digital broadcasting (on channel 39).<P ID="signature">______________
The 2006 New York Yankees...on to title #27!</P>
 
What kind of branding do I think should exist? For VHF stations, which tend to be on the same channel on cable as OTA, should call themselves just by their channel number, with the CW logo shown adjacent to the numerical logo. "CW" doesn't roll of the tongue too well, so I'd rather it not be directly part of individual station brands. It would be similar to when FOX started - the first logo for WNYW appeared as FOX 5, but the station was referred to as Channel 5.

Other stations should use either the channel number, or call letters. I highly dislike names like "Cleveland's CW" or "CW Cleveland" or "CW-WUAB" or "WUAB-CW", because they are too lengthy and viewers won't use them. Americans love their call letters, channel numbers, and news themes, and they don't give them up easily - and one need not look further than Canada to see how NOT to brand television stations. Everyone still refers to CHAN/8 in Vancouver as BCTV, not Global or Global BC. And there was a station there, CKVU/10, that was known as Global less than five years ago. Should WUAB be Cleveland's CW affiliate, they should continue to call the station Channel 43, and have a "CW 43" logo.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>
 
Im Houston, people still refer to the WB affiliate as "channel 39", even though they haven't mentioned the channel number on-air in a couple of years (they'be been branding as "Houston's WB").
 
> I think WCTX also leaves out their UHF channel number (59)
> due to digital broadcasting (on channel 39).

That would have no impact, as per current rules WCTX would be deciphered by a DTV tuner as off-air channel 59.1 ...<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> And there was a station [in Vancouver], CKVU/10, that was known as Global
> less than five years ago.

And with that channel being on cable 13 in Vancouver, it was known as "CKVU 13" and "VU 13" at some points, even though that channel broadcaster on channel 10 (and, in the 1970s and most of the 1980s, channel 21). Today, being under CHUM ownership, it adopted Toronto's "CityTV" moniker.
 
> I've been doing a lot of research surrounding how the new
> UPN/WB merger would help or hurt the branding. Here's my
> advice, for all the stations that want to go with the
> branding of CW, don't. It's been eleven years since the
> launch of UPN and the WB and stations spend a lot of money
> trying to get people to tune in to their stations. So, with
> that in mind, I think that stations like WPIX, WLVI and down
> here in South Florida, WBZL, should resort to just being
> "Channel #" the CW station. In the case of WPIX, people
> still say, I watch Smallville on Channel 11 or in Boston
> Channel 56. Yet, the station prefers to call themselves
> "Boston's WB." Even the president of Tribune Broadcasting
> said it best, "People watch shows, not networks." Hey, if
> the former UPN/WB stations are de-branding their affiliates,
> as with the case of Fox's UPN affiliates, then why not the
> soon-to-be CW stations?
>

I agree. Here in the Raleigh/Durham area, it is still unknown whether WLFL Channel 22 (the WB) or WRDC Channel 28 (UPN), but I think whatever happens they should disperse with the station branding and call themselves by their channel number. CW 22 or CW 28 just doesn't sound good to me.
 
> I doubt WLVI-56 will re-brand to "Channel 56" or "WLVI", but
> will be henceforth known as "Boston's CW".
>
> The reason WLVI no longer uses it's channel number in it's
> branding is that the station is on cable channel 11 on most
> cable television systems in the Boston area. "WB-56" might
> suggest that WLVI is seen on cable channel 56.

I beg to differ, no matter what cable channel its on. People will still remember it as a particular number. Take a look at Chicago's way of branding their WB station, or Los Angeles's way until recently. The point is that the stations don't need to emphasize the affilation with the networks. And besides, the whole Boston's CW thingy is just nonsense. Remember the philosophy of when people want to call Cassius Clay, Mohammad Ali. "If yo mamma's name is Clay, we'll call him Clay!" If the station's 56, we'll call it Channel 56! Period.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
YTZ Video Traders Central
http://tapetraders2003.cjb.net</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom