interview with
Fran Cassidy
Fran Cassidy became Carlton Television's Marketing Director in 1992, later becoming Marketing Director of the Carlton Channels Group, staying with the company until 2004. Fran was responsible for the roll out of branding across the company, as well as marketing and presentations.
In 1998, Michael Jackson at Channel Four noted that as a publisher-broadcaster, the brand and their audiences were their most important asset. Were Carlton similarly aware of the importance of their brand identity, given that they were also a publisher-broadcaster?
Yes but not in the same way. Carlton soon became a producer and owner of product as soon as we merged with Central TV and then HTV and West Country. Plus we were a very commercial company – publically listed. Channel 4 was not and still is not. I would say we were not in charge of our brand in the same way as Channel 4. We were part of a network – so not in total control of the product we delivered either. It was never as strong as CH4.
Given that the region was previously served by Thames, which, by its very name had local connections, how was the Carlton identity established as the London provider, and how successful was this?
We were commercially very successful. We used the idents created by Martin Lambie Nairn – which incorporated Londoners at the beginning and then it evolved. We also used our local programming eg London Bridge – a new soap at the time. Very focussed on London casting. And all the other regional programming of course – and London News Network – the news product was also central. We promoted LNN a lot. As Carlton became a broader brand it evolved further. Remember that at one stage Carlton Communications plc had the largest library of films outside Hollywood.
Yes but not in the same way. Carlton soon became a producer and owner of product as soon as we merged with Central TV and then HTV and West Country. Plus we were a very commercial company – publically listed. Channel 4 was not and still is not. I would say we were not in charge of our brand in the same way as Channel 4. We were part of a network – so not in total control of the product we delivered either. It was never as strong as CH4.
Given that the region was previously served by Thames, which, by its very name had local connections, how was the Carlton identity established as the London provider, and how successful was this?
We were commercially very successful. We used the idents created by Martin Lambie Nairn – which incorporated Londoners at the beginning and then it evolved. We also used our local programming eg London Bridge – a new soap at the time. Very focussed on London casting. And all the other regional programming of course – and London News Network – the news product was also central. We promoted LNN a lot. As Carlton became a broader brand it evolved further. Remember that at one stage Carlton Communications plc had the largest library of films outside Hollywood.
The marketing campaign that accompanied the launch identity for Carlton was fairly “aggressive and confrontational”(Lambie Nairn, 1997) in gaining audience recognition- why was this approach abandoned?
Not sure where this quote came from but I don’t recognise it and actually don’t agree at all.
Not sure where this quote came from but I don’t recognise it and actually don’t agree at all.
How did the Carlton 1999 project come about- who initiated the project? What were the motivations for the change in branding?
New CEO. Stephen Cain. He had a vision to broaden the brand into a much larger entertainment brand.
The project was controversial for removing the names of regional companies Central and Westcountry. What was the driving force behind this decision?
Hugely controversial. The driving force was the need to promote the Carlton brand name – to increase its dominance, awareness etc ahead of ITV merger conversations.and political discussions at the time. Plus we had much broader business by then, including a book division and several interntional companies.
How did the Carlton board respond to the new branding, especially compared to that of the ITV network?
I think half knew it was a half way house before ITV became the dominant brand. Others hated the removal of regional brands. And the rest were behind it.
How long would it take from getting the assets from the design company to officially rolling out the branding?
It was all done in 8-10 weeks. Nearly killed me. Everything from getting newspapers to include the new branding on their TV programming pages to signage, stationery and video case covers. The on air was the easy stuff.
New CEO. Stephen Cain. He had a vision to broaden the brand into a much larger entertainment brand.
The project was controversial for removing the names of regional companies Central and Westcountry. What was the driving force behind this decision?
Hugely controversial. The driving force was the need to promote the Carlton brand name – to increase its dominance, awareness etc ahead of ITV merger conversations.and political discussions at the time. Plus we had much broader business by then, including a book division and several interntional companies.
How did the Carlton board respond to the new branding, especially compared to that of the ITV network?
I think half knew it was a half way house before ITV became the dominant brand. Others hated the removal of regional brands. And the rest were behind it.
How long would it take from getting the assets from the design company to officially rolling out the branding?
It was all done in 8-10 weeks. Nearly killed me. Everything from getting newspapers to include the new branding on their TV programming pages to signage, stationery and video case covers. The on air was the easy stuff.
The Carlton rebrand in 1999
Have you ever worked on projects whereby executives and other staff who are not involved in the design process put forward ideas that are not suitable – how do you deal with this?
Yes – often colleagues thought it was just about the logo size. You have to try and inform them about the broader brand proposition and its applications across the company and the need for flexibility – eg show them how it needs to work as a logo in top left corner of the screen for example and on EPGs. For lessons on how not to do it look at Granada Productions logo around this time. And see how it doesn’t work when its small eg on the side of a VHS box – that was important then!
Why do you think the system of regional identities of ITV stations became unsustainable?
Because the TV landscape changed and ITV – though still dominant had more competition and needed to pull together to compete. Plus it was much more efficient. Eg we used to promote the same programme on air in 15 different promos produced by 15 different promotion teams. It was barking mad. But at the time it was important as Channel 3 for many years had the monopoly on commercial TV advertising –so it would have been too powerful as a single company. That’s why it was split up so each regional company competed with each other. But gradually the competition broadened and it was accepted by Govt that to compete effectively it should be able to sell as a single channel. But Govt agreed only as long as some safeguards for advertisers were put in place – look up “CRR” https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/27610/crr_summary_pdf.pdf
Yes – often colleagues thought it was just about the logo size. You have to try and inform them about the broader brand proposition and its applications across the company and the need for flexibility – eg show them how it needs to work as a logo in top left corner of the screen for example and on EPGs. For lessons on how not to do it look at Granada Productions logo around this time. And see how it doesn’t work when its small eg on the side of a VHS box – that was important then!
Why do you think the system of regional identities of ITV stations became unsustainable?
Because the TV landscape changed and ITV – though still dominant had more competition and needed to pull together to compete. Plus it was much more efficient. Eg we used to promote the same programme on air in 15 different promos produced by 15 different promotion teams. It was barking mad. But at the time it was important as Channel 3 for many years had the monopoly on commercial TV advertising –so it would have been too powerful as a single company. That’s why it was split up so each regional company competed with each other. But gradually the competition broadened and it was accepted by Govt that to compete effectively it should be able to sell as a single channel. But Govt agreed only as long as some safeguards for advertisers were put in place – look up “CRR” https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/27610/crr_summary_pdf.pdf
Thank you to Fran Cassidy for giving up her time for this interview.
