Commentary
Will A More Fragmented TV World Result In More Name Changes?
- by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, April 11, 2011
Recently Discovery's Science Channel went to just Science; now NBC Universal's Sleuth goes to ClooMore name changes are coming, no doubt, as networks look to stand out in this ever-fractionalizing TV world. And who needs to be called a "channel" anyway?
The change to Cloo is all about copyright -- similar to what went on with Sci Fi Channel morphing to Syfy. I'm guessing NBC's other small digital cable network, Chiller, might go in the same direction. Maybe Chilla? Then again, maybe no one would think to spell a network that sounds like a exotic dog.
For Discovery, it is probably a different mindset. Seems the move relates to a cleaner looking logo. Just "Science" makes sense. Why? Consumers know it's not only about a TV network anymore. Discovery hopes they think digital and mobile as well. Still "Science" seems kind of flat. It doesn't really have much zing. How about "Formula" or "Equation"?
advertisement
advertisement
The question remains: Are networks changing monikers to get more consumers interested, to monetize a copyright for future merchandising/marketing endeavors, or both?
Once, TV station call letters were thought to have tremendous brand equity -- WABC New York, WMAQ Chicago, KTTV Los Angeles, for example. But now brand marketing experts believe that's the wrong approach -- that those call letters elicit an older entertainment medium for perhaps older, set-in-their-way, consumers.
Everyone knows what ESPN is. But its original name back in the late '70s was the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network, which doesn't sound so hot -- and is a mouthful to boot.
Critics had some issues with CBS and Warner Bros. when they were starting up The CW -- merging the remains of UPN and the WB. The current lettered-name doesn't sound like much either. Do consumers really care that it stands for the first two letters of those respective media companies' names?
In the digital landscape, cool names are the rule. Yahoo!, Google and Facebook sound specific enough for further investigation.
That said, if TV marketing executives aren't ready to go for the unusual, perhaps they can be a little be a more frank with their consumers. The Food Network seems a little plain. How about "Grub"? The Golf Channel? "Duffer" is a natural choice.
C'mon Lifetime, take a chance with the obvious: it's GirlTime.
Wayne Friedman is West Coast Editor of MediaPost. You can reach Wayne at wayne@mediapost.com.
Apparently you live in a world where you can get away with referring to women as girls. Not so here at the academy.
Sorry to comment back on-topic, but I was not aware of where some of the name changes were coming from. Like most corporate name changes, most of these don't make much sense to me. I can understanding having to change the name you used for a long time if it was bad or someone exerts copyright whining. But most seem either to be done by clueless committees or imagination-challenged CEOs.
Of course CW stands for "Country Western". Isn't a "ClooMore" a type of land mine? And let's dump the useless brand of Discovery and just use generic "Science". Oh, that must be why Sci Fi Channel had to change their name, do avoid confusion with "Science"???
Naming a channel with something more colorful like "Grub" (not "grubs"?) or "Foodies" can be used a brand, but I prefer a name that is not one of the crowd, but an authoritative name like "THE Food Channel".
It's scary to see how fast these channels want to change their names. It takes years (decades) of consistent brand use before channel brands get entrenched to a degree that they're productive.
Unfortunately, every new individual involved with a brand seems to want to change it and every new agency creative director wants to put their mark on it. The hardest part of brand management is knowing when NOT to make a change.
Of course, they all justify it by saying they want names that are more consistent with their strategy. Hmmm. Like the way "Pepsi" and "Coke" and "Kelloggs" and "Apple" and "Microsoft" and "Google" carry so much product meaning --- not. Great brand names come when you stick with a name and use your products to give it meaning.
Too bad these networks aren't very good at it.
ClooMore? Boo Hoo More. MooMore. Head up their loomore.