WRTV Debuts New Logo

[ecs0013 9]

9 hours ago, LexTVandRadio said:

Would the ABC action news branding work in Indy? 

 

Not sure or if anyone historically has a claim to it. WTHR just lost the "Eyewitness News" branding, so it could if it wasn't a super-flashy application (and let's face it, since Scripps is doing everything cookie-cutter, it wouldn't be '90s/2000s tabloid format). Or do you just forgo any graphics for an open and go full WPVI?

 

8 hours ago, LexTVandRadio said:

Hahaha, yeah really. Just flip it around.  

It's not a UHF channel. I would get that. Not like channel is 36, 46 or 56 (all lexington channels, we must love our 6's here). It's 6.

 

It's also 6 on most cable/satellite systems in Central Indiana (except a few in Indy proper), so it doesn't quite make sense to drop the 6. People usually still just call it "channel 6" - I could kind of see downplaying the over-the-air number for WNDY and WXIN since they're 10 and 11 on most cable systems, but WXIN also has been "Fox 59" forever.

[TexasTVNews 1377]

I'm not happy about the new WRTV | ABC logo. I'm more than mad that 'THR dropped the "Eyewitness News" name thanks to Tegna Media. What the hell's going on in Indianapolis Television?

[Kenneth Kissel 283]

I just called WRTV a few minutes ago, They told me the reason they told me the reason they got rid of the 6 in the new graphics was due to "cord cutters" and cable outlets having the channel on a different portion of the dial then 6. My answer to them was this. I recommended what @LexTVandRadio said about just flipping the WCPO 9 to a 6. They tried to give me more BS as why that wouldn't work for marketing purposes. I laughed at them and hung up.  Is the tv news business that clueless nowadays?

[CircleSeven 1955]

RTV6 has been the perennial dog outlet for god knows how long. Should we be all that surprised?

 

This new branding change is not change the status quo.

 

[Samantha 2895]

Huh, that is an interesting take. But the execution was so, so off the mark.

[dman748 1256]

42 minutes ago, Kenneth Kissel said:

I just called WRTV a few minutes ago, They told me the reason they told me the reason they got rid of the 6 in the new graphics was due to "cord cutters" and cable outlets having the channel on a different portion of the dial then 6. My answer to them was this. I recommended what @LexTVandRadio said about just flipping the WCPO 9 to a 6. They tried to give me more BS as why that wouldn't work for marketing purposes. I laughed at them and hung up.  Is the tv news business that clueless nowadays?

2 things:

 

1. How would it not work for "marketing purposes"? That's something I would've asked them about if I were in your shoes.

2. As much as I hate to say it as a news junkie I believe they are. From everything I've read about your post it's clear to me that nobody at WRTV has a clue how marketing works, the cord cutting part makes no sense at all although I can understand the part about cable companies in outlying areas of Indy having WRTV on a different channel other than 6. Outside of that what the WRTV people told you on the phone clearly shows lack of understanding for what marketing is actually about.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

Branding by the callsign could have worked in 2009.

 

And what happened to David Kaye? He sounds like he's ready to sing the Anvilania National Anthem, he's that devoid of emotion.

[TexasTVNews 1377]

How long you'll think the "WRTV News" and the logo will last before management will star to listen to viewers?

[Rusty Muck 4374]

49 minutes ago, TexasTVNews said:

How long you'll think the "WRTV News" and the logo will last before management will star to listen to viewers?

Their news presentation is the visual equivalent of Sominex. They've got problems beyond a logo and positioner.

[ABC 7 Denver 1715]

3 hours ago, TexasTVNews said:

How long you'll think the "WRTV News" and the logo will last before management will star to listen to viewers?

 

With Scripps? Hahahaha! Never. KMGH is indicative of that. It seems like they're beginning to phase out all segment branding. Ch. 7 just dropped their weather branding. It's now just 'Weather'. Soon 7SportsExtra will just be Sports. Why branding anything when that costs money to promote with the hope to intrigue more viewers? That's Scripps' viewpoint. Basic is good enough. For the few viewers that actually watch the news, trying to encourage more viewership doesn't have nearly the return. So it's not worth investing in.

[Kenneth Kissel 283]

2 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

2 things:

 

1. How would it not work for "marketing purposes"? That's something I would've asked them about if I were in your shoes.

2. As much as I hate to say it as a news junkie I believe they are. From everything I've read about your post it's clear to me that nobody at WRTV has a clue how marketing works, the cord cutting part makes no sense at all although I can understand the part about cable companies in outlying areas of Indy having WRTV on a different channel other than 6. Outside of that what the WRTV people told you on the phone clearly shows lack of understanding for what marketing is actually about.

It does show they have zero clue what they are doing. If I was the Scripps CEO, you fix this ASAP.

[ABC 7 Denver 1715]

1 hour ago, Kenneth Kissel said:

It does show they have zero clue what they are doing. If I was the Scripps CEO, you fix this ASAP.

 

If I were the CEO of Scripps I'd be shopping a sale around.

3 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

2 things:

 

1. How would it not work for "marketing purposes"? That's something I would've asked them about if I were in your shoes.

2. As much as I hate to say it as a news junkie I believe they are. From everything I've read about your post it's clear to me that nobody at WRTV has a clue how marketing works, the cord cutting part makes no sense at all although I can understand the part about cable companies in outlying areas of Indy having WRTV on a different channel other than 6. Outside of that what the WRTV people told you on the phone clearly shows lack of understanding for what marketing is actually about.

 

2. You're too close to this to understand why people are cord cutting. The precise reason is because it's not an individualized experience. People have to watch news they aren't interested in because it's targeted to the masses. I don't give a crap about news in a neighborhood in which I don't live. This is why people cut. 

[TSSZNews 1051]

16 hours ago, Kenneth Kissel said:

It does show they have zero clue what they are doing. If I was the Scripps CEO, you fix this ASAP.

In complete fairness to Scripps:

1) There are way more important things in our current climate to deal with right now than how a GFX package looks on-air--like getting news on the air in some markets while keeping your staff safe, where "safe" not only means protection from the virus, but also protection from any number of Internet trolls screaming muh MEDIUHHHH BIUSSSSS waiting to hang someone out to dry.
2) You can't really do effective marketing that draws exclusively back to your product right now without looking a bit selfish. How many ways can you say "We're in this together, but also we're the only ones that will keep you and your family safest and if you watch the other guys YOU WILL DIE but also Facts Not Fear" and not come off like a pretentious jackass?

3) AFAIK Scripps hasn't done mass layoffs in this climate which, given continued long-term uncertainty, is insane.

It's easy to lose sight of how extraordinary these circumstances are if you're on the enduser side of a business that is hanging on for dear life and, in the early stages of the pandemic, looked like it was going to careen off a cliff at full speed. Be assured that right now, *no one* in television is doing things the way they want or even need to. It is largely by the seat of everyone's pants, because no one really knows how this is going to pan out years, months, potentially weeks from now. 

I'm on the record here saying the current Scripps look leaves a lot to be desired, but seriously: give them a break.

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

It seems that good old common sense has given in to metrics to chase the ideal demographic, and the end result is this.

 

Losing the "6" takes a chunk out of their identity....how many people refer to a particular station as "Channel X"?  And since it's been RTV6 for lord knows how long, it's like a brand new station, and this comes several years after WTTV 4 swiped CBS from WISH.  In their case, they lose out on the cord-cutting front since the OTT services don't carry a lot of CW affiliates, including WISH.

 

Given their race towards the basement over the years from botched relaunches to being out-paced by their competition , this seems like a move that could hurt them even more.

[DENDude 217]

When did they drop "theindychannel.com" web address?  They had been using that for years.

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

Someone had to do it...

 

[ABC 7 Denver 1715]

41 minutes ago, DENDude said:

When did they drop "theindychannel.com" web address?  They had been using that for years.

 

Scripps actually likes that. That's why thedenverchannel.com still is in use too.

[CircleSeven 1955]

51 minutes ago, DENDude said:

When did they drop "theindychannel.com" web address?  They had been using that for years.

 

On the day of the new logo launched.

[Samantha 2895]

1 hour ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Someone had to do it...

 

I don't like when mocks derail threads, but... This.

 

It's not like they haven't launched a competent 6 logo this year (KIVI)...

[nathannah 2429]

6 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

It seems that good old common sense has given in to metrics to chase the ideal demographic, and the end result is this.

 

Losing the "6" takes a chunk out of their identity....how many people refer to a particular station as "Channel X"?  And since it's been RTV6 for lord knows how long, it's like a brand new station, and this comes several years after WTTV 4 swiped CBS from WISH.

I'm wondering if there was some kind of odd thought (possibly involving ABC intervention since they now have that contractual final say on logo design, at least involving the ABC logo placement) where they didn't want to copy WSYX in Columbus too much to avoid confusion/Sinclair lawyers, and that's why they just decided to go without the "6". It certainly isn't an issue to the average viewer...but it certainly limits ideas when two-market adjacent, you have another "ABC 6" (even though the average viewer easily knows there's a difference between 6 in Indy and 6 in Columbus).

 

There's also been a huge decline in stations going with the "TV-X" branding template because of 'affiliation XX' branding and 'digital first', which just seems myopic and again, not of an average viewer's concern.

Basically, branding designers and corporate overlords overthought about insignificant things not involving the actual channel branding, and this is what ended up happening.

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

In terms of OTT, it's a new frontier as well, in terms of branding. 

There are no channel numbers, and users can mostly order the channels however they want. 

By default, YouTubeTV lumps the affiliate stations available in a particular market first in terms of their channel number, then the PBS stations available to them.  What the channels are called are up to the stations, and can call themselves by their brand or call letters.

 

A wrinkle in this is if you are using a Firestick, and the Live TV function, which gives the users the ability to combine multiple services into a single channel guide.  The hitch is that the channels are sorted ALPHABETICALLY, so that stations that brand themselves by their call letters, or start with "NEWS" are lumped in the middle or the bottom of the listings.  Same goes with the network co-brands, they fall where they fall.

 

Since WRTV is an ABC affiliate, it would give them a significant advantage if they were to brand themselves as ABC 6 WRTV for this reason.  Even better if they have the "6" first, since that would trump the letters and put them at the top.

(It's referred to as RTV 6 on YTTV, while the others are CBS 4, FOX 59, and WTHR 13)

 

Being ABC has an alphabetical advantage that they need to take advantage of, even better to put the "6" in there as well.  Then again, WRTV comes before the others alphabetically (WTHR, WTTV, WXIN) since WISH is not available.

[J1975am 208]

55 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

In terms of OTT, it's a new frontier as well, in terms of branding. 

There are no channel numbers, and users can mostly order the channels however they want. 

By default, YouTubeTV lumps the affiliate stations available in a particular market first in terms of their channel number, then the PBS stations available to them.  What the channels are called are up to the stations, and can call themselves by their brand or call letters.

 

A wrinkle in this is if you are using a Firestick, and the Live TV function, which gives the users the ability to combine multiple services into a single channel guide.  The hitch is that the channels are sorted ALPHABETICALLY, so that stations that brand themselves by their call letters, or start with "NEWS" are lumped in the middle or the bottom of the listings.  Same goes with the network co-brands, they fall where they fall.

 

Since WRTV is an ABC affiliate, it would give them a significant advantage if they were to brand themselves as ABC 6 WRTV for this reason.  Even better if they have the "6" first, since that would trump the letters and put them at the top.

(It's referred to as RTV 6 on YTTV, while the others are CBS 4, FOX 59, and WTHR 13)

 

Being ABC has an alphabetical advantage that they need to take advantage of, even better to put the "6" in there as well.  Then again, WRTV comes before the others alphabetically (WTHR, WTTV, WXIN) since WISH is not available.

It has also been a new frontier in terms of digital broadcast television, as well. For those homes not hooked up to cable and that have a digital antenna, the display of one's television in the Indianapolis area when turned to WRTV (and its subchannels) basically look like this:

 

6.1 WRTV

6.2 Grit

6.3 Laff

6.4 Court TV Mystery (formerly Escape)

 

This might be another reason why management at WRTV made the decision to rebrand the way they did (since the number 6 in their branding obivously refers back to the analog era).....

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

21 minutes ago, J1975am said:

It has also been a new frontier in terms of digital broadcast television, as well. For those homes not hooked up to cable and that have a digital antenna, the display of one's television in the Indianapolis area when turned to WRTV (and its subchannels) basically look like this:

 

6.1 WRTV

6.2 Grit

6.3 Laff

6.4 Court TV Mystery (formerly Escape)

 

This might be another reason why management at WRTV made the decision to rebrand the way they did (since the number 6 in their branding obivously refers back to the analog era).....

This is a result of the DTV transition, when many stations moved away from their legacy analog frequencies to new digital (and often UHF) ones.  This PSIP mapping makes sense out of all of where these stations actually fall on the spectrum.  It's also been exasperated by the Spectrum Auction repack, and now the co-channel sharing that's happening with ATSC 3.0.

 

Imagine if a station had to change their channel number, it would have been a branding disaster.  Even in places where their hand was forced (like ABC 33/40 in Birmingham being relegated to subchannels), the brand still lives on, because it's all people have known since the dawn of their existence.

[ecs0013 9]

4 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

In terms of OTT, it's a new frontier as well, in terms of branding. 

There are no channel numbers, and users can mostly order the channels however they want. 

By default, YouTubeTV lumps the affiliate stations available in a particular market first in terms of their channel number, then the PBS stations available to them.  What the channels are called are up to the stations, and can call themselves by their brand or call letters.

 

...

 

Being ABC has an alphabetical advantage that they need to take advantage of, even better to put the "6" in there as well.  Then again, WRTV comes before the others alphabetically (WTHR, WTTV, WXIN) since WISH is not available.

 

I was curious how YouTube TV did it—I use Hulu + Live TV and the local affiliates are in order by network and have the station logo (still the old one, by the way) in the guide (WRTV is between A&E and ABC News Live, WTHR is between National Geographic and NBC Sports Network, etc.) In some ways, I'd prefer all the local affiliates grouped together, just like satellite/U-verse do before everything else, but this also sort of demotes them to being "just another channel to pick from" and at least in any market you're in, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC all fall in the same spot in the guide. DirecTV Now also did it this way when I had it, so I'd assume AT&T TV also does now.

 

I feel like it would almost make more sense to focus on having a great logo that fits in a square and is easily recognized both for social media, apps, and many of the OTT guides that use the logos instead of text for channels.

 

Here's how it looks on the web version, while the Apple TV version is dark and does away with the circle cut-outs:

[Rusty Muck 4374]

Probably the only way you could execute a rebrand in all this mess would be a soft launch. If the virus wasn't bad enough, it'll be all the ungodly amount of political adverts between now and the start of the November sweeps.

 

So I kinda get why it's this low-key.

 

I'm just gonna be super disappointed if they don't play off the WRTV calls to say "We aRe TV, and more!"