Why Apple is keeping an eye on TV brand

/u/i/n/MarkRitson.jpg

The next big Apple product is on its way. The first hard evidence of its existence emerged in Walter Isaacson’s revealing biography of Steve Jobs late last year. Apple’s late founder made it clear that he was working on an “integrated television set” that was “completely easy to use” and which would seamlessly synch with other devices and the internet.

Jobs told Isaacson that he had “already cracked it” and since that interview became public, various analysts and bloggers have speculated on when and what Apple will bring to the market. The consensus appears to be a 42-inch flatscreen, controlled by voice or iPhone, featuring apps and networked programme content that will retail for £951 and hit the shelves by Christmas 2012.

But it’s not the technical specs or product launch that will intrigue marketers. The big question is what Apple will call the new device.

Surely, it’s obvious, isn’t it? It will be called the iTV. And therein lies a problem because since 1955 that name has belonged to the ITV network and since 2004, with the merger of Granada and Carlton, to ITV plc. Adam Crozier is its CEO and he warned Apple off the name when he took charge in 2010. The big branding question is will Apple heed that warning?

It could follow the lead of RIM, which changed its original plan to name its new mobile operating system BBX, instead choosing BlackBerry 10 because the BBX acronym was already owned by a software firm in New Mexico.

This would certainly prove to be the easiest solution for Apple but it also looks the least likely given the company’s consistently dogged approach to brand naming. Apple has fought vehement litigious battles against the likes of Cisco and Amazon to own the naming rights to everything from iPhones, iPads and even the term “app”. ITV isn’t going to dodge the branding bullet that easily.

A compromise option would see Apple use the name iTV in most countries and opt for an alternative brand name in markets where ITV owns the naming rights. This is a more common strategy than most consumers appreciate. In Australia, for example, Burger King trades as Hungry Jack’s because a local Adelaide restaurant originally owned the rights to the Burger King name. Despite eventually acquiring the Burger King naming rights in Australia, the restaurant chain has retained the Hungry Jack’s name because of the residual brand equity that two decades of marketing has created.

Another example is Budweiser. Czech brewer Budějovický Budvar holds the rights to the Budweiser name in much of Europe, which means the US beer brand is marketed as Bud in much of the EU and Anheuser-Busch B in Germany.

This kind of geographic solution is unlikely to appeal to Apple because it is a brand that positions itself on simplicity and revels in its global appeal. Add to that the fact ITV may well have registered its name in territories beyond the UK and this option looks even more unlikely.

And this brings us neatly to the most intriguing potential outcome - Apple buys the iTV brand name.

There are two ways this can happen. Crozier can sell Apple the naming rights and then rebrand his own organisation using an alternative title. This is a painful and long drawn out process for any listed company but in ITV’s case there are a number of suitable brand names, like Granada or Carlton, that could be used. There would also be considerable consolation for ITV in the multimillion pound settlement that Apple would have to offer it in exchange for the brand name.

The problem for ITV is that Apple will be in a hurry to buy the name in time for this year’s launch. That means there will not be enough time for ITV to slowly rebrand under an alternative name using a gradual endorsement with the ITV masterbrand that most experts would recommend in this kind of situation.

So what if Crozier rejects Apple’s enquiries completely? There is an outside chance that Apple could just buy the whole company outright. These days, ITV is a well-run business with very little debt, a market capitalisation of £3bn and 2011 earnings likely to be close to £500m. That’s an attractive multiple and it’s also a price tag that cash-rich Apple would not even blink at paying. Add the synergies of its extensive programme library and the idea of buying ITV is not impossible to envisage.

Right now, a team of Apple finance jocks may well be running over the ITV books and contemplating an offer. Buying a company to get the brand is not that rare. Usually it’s the brand equity, the awareness or the heritage that drives the acquisition, but on rare occasions it’s the desire for a brand name itself that creates the demand to buy a business.

Who could have known a lifetime ago that a three-letter acronym would one day draw the attention of the 21st century’s hottest technology company? ITV or iTV? Watch this space.

Readers' comments (12)

  • Interesting speculation but I wonder if there's another possibility? It might just be that the difference between the lower case i and the upper case I is enough for the lawyers to agree on. It is after all about the specific fixation in which a brand manifests itself. Add in colour, font and category context and you may well have two very different looking brands. Granted that's not as interesting as any of your scenarios, but then life does have a way of staying remarkably dull.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What's wrong with ITV and iTV? different names in my opinion

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or Apple could just think a little bit outside the (tele)box for an alternatvie name - iBox, iVision, iScreen, iTele, iTel...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why doesn't Apple call it iTelevision instead?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Apple have always been innovative about how we look at things - why limit this device as just a TV. It is the holy grail of the digital household to have an integrated hub seamlessly. wirelessly and simply connecting the TV, home theatre, music, internet, video phone, email, ... this is more than just a TV. It is a game changer as futuristic as the Jetsons household, just don't call it a TV and limit our minds.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • we were mulling this over at the rts in cambridge in sept - some of the financial media journalists were discussing this very thing - saying it made sound economic sense for apple to do this. Clearly there are certainly going to be a lot of changes in brands and offerings possibly happening faster in some cases than some viewers behaviour!. No doubt these takeovers/mergers etc will impact viewing in the long term. But lets not forget its not just brand name that could potentially be on offer here to Apple the beauty of ITV in its ability to deliver fantastic (what we call) 'compromise tv' that people can agree on and often enjoy more than watching privately. Very exciting times for those at ITV and us watching this space

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think some of the conjecture in the article is a flight of fancy (buying ITV, rebranding ITV etc.)

    I'm with Julie on this. Call it the iTelevision. Or something out of the ordinary such as iBox (also mentioned above). iHome perhaps.

    iTelly would be too downmarket, and too British.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm not sure this will happen. Apple's business model to date has been to offer content through the walled garden of iTunes, effectively a form of subscription i.e. the user purchases or rents content aggregated by Apple and Apple pockets a percentage.
     
    Buying ITV means that Apple would move into free-to-air broadcasting, producing and offering their own content free to the viewer while generating revenue through advertising. 
     
    It doesn't seem to be a good fit for them and Apple don't appear interested in trying to establish such a service (unlike Google). I think they will initially stick to the iTunes model, competing with Netflix etc for paid content rather than the BBC, Ch4 and Ch5 etc for audience share.
     
    Then again they probably will do something unexpected!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is no doubt from an IP perspective that iTV would be allowed to exist in markets were ITV already owned the rights to the name - so that option is off the table.

    While I agree with many of the comments above - the iTV cat is well and truly out of the bag already. If you Google search for "ITV" for the last 7 days for example you get more links to Apple related info than ITV info. As far as the market is concerned (and several Apple personnel who have also used the term freely) the new TV is already thought of as iTV.

    Interesting times ahead....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • While iScreen or iView would sum up the new concept of 'television', they too would be challenged by other rights holders. The iTV approach is fascinating though because ITV Player offers an iTunes-style platform exclusively for TV and film footage.
    Independent Television and Apple as the technology hub. Hm. They wouldnt be buying a 'brand' rather buying into a sector in one leap. Course, without iTV, would ITV be the natural partner. I suppose not, but it ought to be a cooperative one at least since all the gain is their side IMO.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Job of the Week

Top Jobs

social+media Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
knowledge+bank