Branding: TV is different from the web
Steve Safran April 25th, 2007
One of the better debates here at LR is coming on the topic of branding. At the core of this question: should your website solely reflect the brand of your on-air newscast, or should it create all sorts of new brands that don’t need to reflect the news brand at all? We argue the latter, but there is plenty of good debate and that’s what we like most. My partner at AR&D, Terry Heaton, devotes his latest essay, “To Brand or Not To Brand,” to this topic. As Terry’s loyal readers may imagine, he is in support of local media outlets creating all sorts of new brands online. The crux of Terry’s argument: “The point is that pushing brands online also carries downsides, the biggest one being that if you can be anything you want online, why limit yourself to your brand?”
7 Comments Add your own
1. Rob | April 25th, 2007 at 8:45 am
I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution on this one, so everyone’s answers are bound to be different based on - but not limited to - where the market is, what your TV brand’s market position is in the on-air ratings, site management’s philosophy on creating different online identities other than the on-air identity, how risk averse management is to taking chances online as opposed to on-air …
That’s my PC answer.
My not so PC answer … to copy the on-air brand online risks building a secondary or tertiary platform for news publishing and makes it the red-headed stepchild not equal partner in the business.
In order for it to survive and thrive you might need to take some risks and push to develop an identity separate from the TV brand in order to attract people that might not watch your TV broadcasts but might find your online persona more appealing.
2. invitedmedia | April 25th, 2007 at 9:22 am
a belated congrats to another LR commentor ok?
to the guy from wood in grand rapids MI: even if done in a defensive mode snapping up thegrandrapidschannel.com was a very wise move.
make another wise move and point it to your existing web.
eyeballs are a terrible thing to waste.
i found you easy enough, how many others only got a default page?
considering the default page is what prompts me to think this was a defensive move. having said that ,locals need to stop being defensive and make some moves on the offense. get off your heals.
not to pick on woodtv either. journalbroadcast owns a bunch and they too end in default. i mean WTF? why spend money for no return? augusta ga, you’re in there too. eyeballs cost money, harvest them.
anyone wanna guess what’s up with such tertiary markets as elpaso, modesto, salinas, albany, buffalo, spokane, redding, eureka to name a few? i could go on for another 40.
3. invitedmedia | April 25th, 2007 at 9:38 am
btw- i read terry’s essay.
i think it mentions the idea of simultaneously promoting your core brand by promoting peripheral brands.
i didn’t read where it advocated abandoning your tv brand.
however, as an ad buyer i’d be less than eager to pay big to just be on wbig.com when i already write you a check for being on wbig. offer me another vehicle and then maybe.
4. Dave | April 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
invitedmedia — good advice. NetSol just got our $12.
Seriously though, how many people are searching for thegrandrapidschannel besides you? None.
How about our actual established brands of 24 Hour News 8 or Storm Team 8. Some, but not a lot. It’s still worth doing.
What’s the saying about a bird in the hand? Priority 1 has to be protecting the brand you already have.
5. invitedmedia | April 26th, 2007 at 7:22 am
thanks for the response…i think.
in answer to your “seriously though” question i would ask you to be a little patient. i have a feeling you might be able to leverage the concept of being “grand rapid’s channel”. but that’s just an educated guess.
however, you will notice that verisign has no trouble offer you a free landing page because they use it to serve up context ads and pocket the pennies themselves.
after my rant yesterday i went back to thegrandrapidschannel.com and saw no less then 4 very local businesses who were handing “your” ad money (YOUR LOCAL ad money) to google (and by extension verisign). one was your local bmw dealer.
hmmmm. think your sales folks might wanna stop by there?
the funny thing about theaugustachannel is the google ads i’ve seen there sometimes are for THEIR COMPETITORS.
great move protecting that brand, augusta.
6. invitedmedia | April 26th, 2007 at 7:33 am
btw- you should consider godaddy for your registrational needs.
go there via google and new regs are just $7 (vs. $9 if you enter thru the front door). no $12 fee to forward them either.
service is not too bad if you can put up with bob parson’s rants and the heavy emphasis on upselling everything under the sun.
i realize these are rounding errors when you are talking big media budgets, but a friend of mine always said to sweat the small stuff.
good luck.
7. invitedmedia | April 26th, 2007 at 7:41 am
i have one OTHER suggestion for you too.
wanna see which local businesses are using google ad words??? (like to generate some sales leads for a total of $7 a YEAR???)
don’t waste a great name like thegrandrapidschannel.com to do it. rather, register another domain using grandrapids in it and watch it closely.
godaddy offers the same context ads that verisign does. seems like easy pickin’s to me.
fwiw
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed