Dangers of 'doing a Dave'

Dangers of ‘doing a Dave’

Broadcast editor Lisa Campbell

The rebranding of UKTV G2 was impressive - but channels should beware of copying it.

It was a masterstroke of rebranding. Moving onto Freeview but changing nothing but its name, Dave shot up the digital channels chart from number 29 to number 10. Meanwhile, after some sniggering when the UKTV G2 relaunch was announced in October, many in the industry have become green-eyed monsters wondering if they too can "do a Dave".

It's certainly an attractive proposition for channels as they fight for attention in an increasingly cluttered market and who wouldn't want figures like Dave's: the channel has grown threefold, share has increased 47% and Dave's incremental growth will contribute £25m of ad sales revenue in 2008.

But just how realistic is it to "do a Dave"?

Interestingly, UKTV looks set to adopt a different strategy when it relaunches all its channels in the next 12 months. Although details are firmly under wraps, the first in the new line-up, UKTV Gold, will alter its schedule by focusing on classic comedy while a new entertainment channel will be created to sit alongside it. Neither will adopt a first name. While the latter has yet to be decided, the former will simply be called Gold. Ambitious? No. Boring? Possibly. Sensible? Yes. Gold resonates with its audience and when you're competing for eyeballs, ditching a strong brand would be foolish, risky and a waste of money.

Neither is Dave a magic formula which can be applied to the rest of UKTV's portfolio or anyone else's. Dave works because of its crystal-clear proposition: a channel for blokes looking for a laugh with content that reflects that. The reason for its success is that the content was good enough in the first place, it was simply the ability to drive people towards it that wasn't. So there was no need to worry about such pesky details as reassessing the schedule, demographics, tone and investment in content. Are there many channels out there that can say the same?

Industry will need to push for placement
Culture secretary Andy Burnham's passionate tirade against product placement will be a blow to many in the industry, not least ITV's Rupert Howell, who this week spoke about fixing ITV's problems using such methods. Some indies too have been gearing up for its adoption after a recent EU directive greenlit a relaxing of the rules in this country.

Burnham is clearly alarmed by how intrusive product placement can be and it will be up to the industry to persuade him it can be used sensibly. Ofcom's consultation on the issue launches in the summer and although Burnham said he will "listen to the arguments", his strength of feeling is such that a very convincing case is going to have to be made. Over to you.
Lisa Campbell, editor


Please note: In order to post a response you need to be registered on the site. You can register here.

Reader Response

360 reposition? surely that means they ended up in the same place ie facing the same direction they started from!

Product placement is a very dangerous route to go down. We already have 10 minutes of advertising and several trailers every hour do we really need even more advertising? I say NO, what we need is good programming which people will want to watch. This will boost viewing figures and in turn boost advertising revenue. We do not need constant mentions of particular brands, repeated mentions of who sponsored the prises or over the top plugs. This sort of thing should be limited to TV shopping channels.

It's also dangerous to attribute this success as a simple rebrand for a number of reasons. First UKTV G2 was such an awful name you could have changed it to anything and got a better response, secondly there's the Freeview effect - when you get that much extra reach it's bound to improve your profile for the pay TV segment and thirdly any channel would benefit from the kind of marketing campaign spend that accompanied the launch. What was important about this was that it was a coherent 360 degree re-position, not the traditional change of the identity package.