[Mike]

The logo doesn't look great. I'm trying to find things to liken it to...

Surprised ITV haven't kicked off, U is a bit close to UTV.

[Rex]

I just read about this rebrand this morning. I understand UKTV wants to strengthen their own masterbrand but this is just missing the mark entirely.

Every channel's brand will end up getting diluted in the long term when this rebrand happens.

[Kunst]

I just read about this rebrand this morning. I understand UKTV wants to strengthen their own masterbrand but this is just missing the mark entirely.

Every channel's brand will end up getting diluted in the long term when this rebrand happens.

I definitely agree with the user who thinks that brands like W, Yesterday and especially Dave, only work as their own brands, not with something else being attached to.

I disagree with people who think the masterbrand should be needed, but definitely there are also better ways to do it?
Like adding a small "UKTV" or "by UKTV" without ever saying it? A strategy that some broadcasters use
It all screams insecurity by UKTV.

I understand UK broadcasters are peanuts compared to the standalone American brands I've mentioned earlier and might want more recognition, but definitely brands like Gold, Dave and Yesterday are well established by now?

[BlueFrog]

There's been some pretty bizarre rebrand decisions in the past, but with this? U got to be kidding.

[Spencer]

The logo doesn't look great. I'm trying to find things to liken it to...

Surprised ITV haven't kicked off, U is a bit close to UTV.

Today may well be the first they've heard about it, unless UKTV approached them first.

It does feel rather that it's infringing their copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if ITV's lawyers are sharpening their pencils as we speak.

[TesTVWhirl]

ITV have never seemed to put much effort into protecting some of their older company brands when the new one-man-bands have decided to buy out the name to trade off the history. So whether they'd consider it worth putting up much of a fight around the UTV brand which, although still technically active, they've already massively downplayed in recent years is debatable. If anything they might just use this as a good reason to finish it off completely and reposition the few remaining bits under ITV rather than risk getting into brand confusion territory.

In all likelyhood UKTV will have registered any relevant trademarks for the new plans anyway before announcing this publicly to stop any squatters, so if ITV were going to object on that ground they'd have received a notification due to being in similar classes and done it then.

[Rdd]

Have they really learnt nothing from UKTVG2 at this stage?

While this company has had a penchant for bizarre branding and silly names, you have to feel this will dilute or destroy a lot of brand equity they’ve built up. I get they want to tie the individual stations to the streaming service but I’m not sure this was the way to go about doing it.

[callumwatchestelly]

UKTV has announced that next year they'll become 'U'.

UKTV Play will rename to just U, and the channels will become prefixed by 'U&', i.e. U&Dave, U&W, U&YESTERDAY. The press release says the free-to-air channels will adopt the rebrand first before later being adopted to the pay channels.

corporate.uktv.co.uk 

Why are certain companies so interested in changing their company names to one letter that means literally nothing?

[DeMarkay]

I can kinda see what they were going for, you can imagine their continuity announcers saying something like:

Stacey Dooley Sleeps Over. Coming soon to U&W

Mock The Week. New and exclusive to U&Dave

Etc etc.

[Josh]

i.ytimg.com 

'It's like UKTV, but it's you. Cos you're essentially doing the job of four letters but in one letter. Cos like Dave is your mate, he's your bezzie, "hi, Dave, how are you?" but instead of "you" it's "U".'