I much prefer the smoother 9 than the current 2d variant with the larger square cutouts.
Why not just reinstate the 1990’s WWOS globe style?
when nine last had the olympics they had something similar to my concepts and didn’t use the wwos logo though that would make sense as it is their sports brand.
That is true however when you think about the lead-up to the 2012 games Nine used ‘the globe’ logo together with the Olympic Rings on WWOS broadcasts. The Nine logo was only really used during coverage of the games itself.
The 90s globe won’t fit into the digital age
I wasn’t suggesting it would ‘fit’ today. I was simply saying that the 1990’s type globe style would be better suited to this application in a co-branding sense as it would return an iconic piece of the Wide World Of Sports brand. If Nine follow the same strategy with a joint Nine/Stan Sport brand like they currently do with events they will need to have branding that shows this which can only mean the globe|Stan Sport branding would need to continue.
yes but I think there is a requirement from the IOC that they have to have the rings in the watermark. would look very long if the rings were added. will see what happens
Could be the current dual watermark but the right is 9 or Stan, and the left is replaced with the Olympics logo?
What if TV2 (now TVNZ 2) brought back the old South Pacific Television name (from the 1970s) and the old channel symbol (from the 1980s)?
The channel had branded itself as “TV2 South Pacific Television” since its launch (30 June 1975), according to sources. In 1976, it dropped the TV2 moniker and was renamed simply South Pacific Television before merging with TV One (now TVNZ 1) to form TVNZ in 1980. This also reduced confusion in Auckland and Dunedin where TV One broadcast on channel 2 (TV2 broadcast on channel 4 in both centres).
Additionally, the iconic TV2 logo from the old TVNZ era was used from 1982 to mid-1987.
The mock production endcap is identical to the one used, in real life, by Australia’s Nine Network during the early to mid 1990s.
It would’ve been fine if Channel i was a niche entertainment channel; it didn’t, as it was Channel 5’s only TV rival at the time in terms of general entertainment.
Having 5 and Channel i under common ownership (not gonna go technical, given SG’s small territorial space) would’ve meant programming changes to avoid any duplication. Channel U was kept on the air after the buyout, because…Chinese majority demo, and made it a channel for Asian dramas with Mandarin audio dub.
I cannot comment much on Mediacorp’s news output domestically, but I guess logistics and CNA might be the reasons News Tonight doesn’t rebroadcast late night on linear TV. If Channel i was kept, in my view, a News Tonight rebroadcast won’t be necessary.