It’s not whether WIN should put their brand on things, it’s how they do it. I’ve only ever seen it done well twice in my lifetime - 2005 when they put a transparent WIN logo above the Nine logo during news and sport, and 2016 when they put a transparent WIN logo above the One and Eleven watermarks. Every other attempt at co-branding has either covered up the metro watermark or been solid for no good reason.
9 Likes
Do you really think Bruce sits there and watches his stations from Bermuda?
I am guessing this is cheapest and simplest way of doing it, just cover it up.
Honestly maybe considering the relationship had or was souring at the end of the last affiliation agreement, maybe Nine just said, that’s what your getting, no clean feed, take it or leave it…
Personal opinion there. You don’t know what objectives the engineering and playout teams were given. How much they could spend, and how long they were given to implement it.
Who knows what the new agreement will bring, but let’s be honest, WIN do a reasonable job, considering the amount of markets they cover…and how much we pay to watch it.
4 Likes
i know up till december 2016 the win watermark was just the transparent WIN without the watermark and i did read somewhere that in december 2016 bruce arrived in wollongong and saw what was going with win and wanted the watermark to back to what it was previously when win was 9 afflitate and that was the mappy watermark and wanted it transparent
1 Like
I wasn’t blaming the playout teams or engineers. Solid coverups are obviously directed by upper management. Are you suggesting we saw solid coverups for decades because the engineers were on a tight turnaround and/or budget? 
I don’t blame the BCM pres coord if I don’t like Home and Away.
4 Likes
No, but look at history; just after WIN’s switch to Ten affiliation it had a nice subtle transparent watermark, then Bruce made his annual visit from Bermuda and suddenly huge solid mappy appeared.
Cheapest & simplest would be what SCA are doing: Using the network branding, unaltered.
Nine were still providing a clean feed for their main channel, as 10 are now, but that didn’t stop the solid mappy.
Ego appears to be involved; SC9 looks clean. Insisting on covering up the network’s brand seems childish. Either do it properly, or don’t bother.
I’m certainly not blaming playout engineers. What viewers have seen suggests it’s management decisions.
8 Likes
you wouldn’t happen to have those logo’s on hand, would you?
1 Like
Hold up.
So, Nine is affiliating with WIN again.
WIN is in NBN areas.
So I think NBN will have to affiliate with 10 or there will be two Nines.
1 Like
Relax. WIN will stay with Ten in Northern NSW.
Nine’s announcement re: WIN excludes any mention of Northern NSW:
NBN is owned by Nine so it’s not going to change
3 Likes
That’s an example of WIN’s branding idiocy.
Like GEM & Go! (before they became 9GEM & 9Go!), at that time Ten’s secondary channels didn’t include “10” in their names but that wasn’t good enough for WIN?
Why did WIN need to slap their logo on there too?
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if the TVBlackBox report is correct and from 1 July WIN don’t rebrand the Nine network channels, but I’m not hopeful.
7 Likes
Or that time WIN covered the Nine WWOS watermark with a GEM WWOS watermark. Completely defeated the purpose of getting the WIN brand on everything and gave it to a Nine brand instead. Just bizarre.
13 Likes
As long as it wasn’t the 9 dotty logo then I guess they considered this mission accomplished.
The channels were called Gem and Go from the beginning even on WIN so they had adopted the “Gem” branding as their own.
5 Likes
That’s understandable, but then you watched non-sports programming on GEM at the time and the direction is completely different:
11 Likes
And the colours didn’t even match either 
4 Likes
9 Likes
…Nine-WIN affiliation that had existed for nearly three decades until five years ago, when WIN signed an affiliation instead with Ten.
Funny way of putting it, instead of the more accurate statement that Nine signed a deal with SCA, leaving WIN & Ten to partner up.
The proposal itself is bad for competition, and wouldn’t fix the cost & efficiencies issues in regional TV.
Getting rid of the metro-regional divide by having the metros acquire their affiliates would provide the efficiencies of scale, remove the price-taking issue, wouldn’t reduce the number of voices in the community, and legislated content & equivalency of service requirements could mean for example if a network wants to start up a new channel they’d have to put it across their entire network, and they’d have to provide a degree of local content (particularly news).
7WM clearly saw that approach as workable when they tried to merge with Prime Media Group, and they already do basically that in Qld.
I’d imagine the metros would hate Gordon’s monopoly proposal as their negotiating power would be reduced, they’d get less money but not have any more control, and so it’s not going anywhere.
The article seems to suggest the rumours of Nine merging with WIN aren’t happening, which fits with Nine’s lack of interest outside the metro cities.
5 Likes
So if I understand that article right, WIN wants to be the only source of TV in regional areas. So run like Griffith, Mt Gambier and Riverland but with local news?
So a substandard local news going to air because there’s no competition (and not even presented in the local area), a regional partner playing hardball with their metro partners because they have the monopoly (so maybe paying Ten like 5-10% annual affiliation fee), an high placed advertising rate card because “they’re the only TV player in town” and no other local programming clauses.
Yep, what a great deal for advertisers and viewers
2 Likes
So, in effect, he wants the MCS model that was first mooted in the 80s.
Cheezy petes…
1 Like
Do we finally have an idea of what the “save our voices” campaign were pushing for?
9 Likes
Merge Our Voices never had the same ring to it.
13 Likes