No wonder Grade's hopping over Kangaroo

It's difficult not to argue with Michael Grade's comments that it seems rather incongruous that the Office of Fair Trading is referring Kangaroo - the video on-demand service from ITV, BBC Worldwide and Channel 4 - to the Competition Commission while allowing others, most notably Apple and Google, to build their own market-dominating position.

As well as appearing to unfairly persecute British broadcasters, which are responsible for sustaining the UK production industry as well as returning cash to the Exchequer, all three TV companies ostensibly still share - to varying degrees - the common goal of being public service broadcasters.

Ensuring that their content is available as widely as possible to online viewers is not only in the best interests of viewers and advertisers, it also indicates that this ethos is being firmly applied, whereas Google and Apple have no such motive beyond the purely commercial.

And what could have greater public service ethos than that?

Tim Davie's promotion meets predictable and depressing response

Predictably enough the appointment of - shock, horror - a marketing man, Tim Davie, as the BBC's director of audio and music has brought the usual whingeing from the broadcasting elite that the job should have gone to someone with a ‘creative' background.

As well as being utter rubbish, I think this is rather offensive. While I certainly hold no brief for Davie, it shows that in the media fraternity generally, and the bitchy world of TV in particular, marketing is still viewed with a large degree of disdain, if not revulsion, among programme makers.

Any hope that Andy Duncan's elevation to the chief executive of Channel 4 would have proved this clique wrong, has sadly not come to pass. Perhaps this is indicative of the current malaise in media, where marketing is viewed as a function rather than a creative art in its own right. If marketing isn't about conceptual alchemy then I don't know what is; creativity is certainly not the preserve of people who ‘make' things, whether listeners and viewers are interested in them or not.

If media can globalise, why can't brands?

Although its proximity to Basingstoke meant that Cannes it was not, some interesting themes emerged from yesterday's International Advertising Association Global Brand Think Tank in Hampshire.

On the one hand the clear myth of the global consumer was convincingly exploded - not least that consumers react and have different emotional stimuli differently in different markets - and that the world's needs and desires have not become irrevocably homogenized; on the other, it was shown that there are global trends in media that apply to all markets.

These include the trend from mass media to masses of media; from mass media to ‘me' media; and that there is no longer a mass in mass marketing. With globalisation of media consumption a reality while brands continue to operate best on a local level, this makes the job of trying to link these two together to achieve effective communication all the more testing. Sadly, however no answer was given as the debate moved on to the rather safer, and considerably less interesting, topic of processes and CSR case studies.

Nonetheless Jean-Claude Larreche provided a real highlight with an energetic presentation of the ‘momentum effect' to achieve real growth, published in his book of the same name. While some of the previous discussions left me feeling that questions hadn't been answered, Larreche provided real advice on marketing strategy and, despite there being no Croisette, made the trip a worthwhile exercise. As did the spectacle of watching Mark Palmer, ex-OMD, and now founder of Maverick Planet calling Dr Les Buckley, SE Asia regional director of Asia Pacific Breweries, 'Bob'.

Bet Mark Thompson is glad his nerve isn't in his tooth

How very generous of the BBC to be willing to share some of its knowledge of digital production and sharing its ‘scientific know-how' in order that it maintains the sole recipient of the licence fee.

But there are a number of problems with this - the BBCs knowledge was publicly paid-for and should have automatically been given to the public service broadcasters in the first place, particularly given C4 is also publicly-owned while ITV actually contributes money back to the Exchequer. Equally talk of ‘scientific know-how' sounds suitably nebulous to almost be meaningless.

On its third proposal - the sharing of some of its regional and local news for repurposing and rebroadcasting - defeats the entire point of the plurality of public service broadcasting that the Ofcom review is supposed to be all about.

Instead, wouldn't it make more sense if the BBC brought all its news divisions together so that the appalling spectacle of teams of BBC journalists - all representing its various different outlets - aren't all sent to cover the same event as is so often the case.

From this obvious saving of duplication of costs, the BBC should have more than enough licence fee to share with its commercial rivals. Ofcom should file this BBC submission straight in the bin.

Is this really the talk of Consett Working Men's Club?

It's a difficult time for the regional press so any innovation that has the potential to help out cash-strapped publishers is usually seized with both hands. But The Journal's ‘500 Of the Most Influential People in the North East' looks like it might have been a brand extension too far.

Put it this way -The Sunday Times Rich List it aint and you certainly won't get the same voyeuristic pleasure from reading it. Quite why your average Whitley Bay housewife would care whether Simon Roberson, regional manager BT, or Bill McGawley, executive vice-chairman, TDR, should have made the cut is beyond me and I shouldn't imagine it's the talk of the pubs of Spennymoor.

Business magazines in particular are prone to these brand extensions but they're normally a bit of knockabout fun and an opportunity to indulge in a bout of harmless self-reverential navel-gazing. The regional press would probably be best advised to either steer clear of them or come up with a slightly more interesting category for the sake of their readers. Otherwise they just end up looking desperate for cash.

Daily Mail wins in convincing people not to leave the house

How on earth has the Daily Mail's website, Mail Online, become the most popular newspaper website in the UK (http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/821653/Mail-Online-bumps-Telegraphcouk-top-spot/)?

It's less surprising that the Daily Telegraph previously held the number one spot - its sports coverage is second to none - but the Daily Mail? It's not as if its demographic profile seems to fit what you'd assume is the typical web surfer while the content itself is hardly a must-read.

But I've got a theory. Perhaps the paper has been so successful in its apparent aim of frightening middle-aged women that it's no longer safe to leave the house that they have barricaded themselves into their panic rooms with just their computer for company and the Mail Online to tell them what a terrible and dangerous world we live in.

Steve Davis beats Andy Murray

Britvic won't be using Andy Murray in its Wimbledon-themed advertising this year presumably meaning that the miserable Scot is available for as a spokesman for other brands.

You can understand Britvic's dilemma - he doesn't come across as a terribly warm person; more of a surly teenager who has been caught by his mum up to no good on his own in his bedroom (not that over-privileged air puncher Tim Henman had much charm either).

However Murray must be kicking himself that he missed out on a golden opportunity that would have suited his temperament.

According to a press release received today - which wins the prize of most pointless one received so far this week - the PVC-U trade body (inexplicably called Network VEKA) has signed Steve Davis as its public face.

Boring body appoints boring spokesman. Better luck next time Andy.

Something interesting comes from Cannes...

The annual back-slapping Cannes adfest where the advertising industry talks to itself (among other things) usually carries little interest, but this year there was something from the reports that caught my eye and it had nothing to do with which agency won a Grand Prix or the tittle-tattle from the Gutter Bar.

Lord Puttnam, chairman of Profero, predicted that internet ad expenditure would overtake TV in the next few months rather than by the end of next year as the IAB had earlier claimed. There is an element of ‘well he would say that wouldn't he' to his prediction but on closer inspection there really isn't much that TV advertisers and companies should worry about.

I'm with Tess Alps on this one - talking about TV and the internet as separate entities is hopelessly outdated as it's all about the delivery of audio visual content. There is no distinction; the internet, like satellite or TV transmitters, is just another platform and the owners of the best most compelling content will be the ones that deserve to get the revenue. The TV companies are the ones that are best-placed for this.

Another day, another deck chair at Five....

Anyone else get the feeling that they're just rearranging the deck chairs at Five?

The appointment of Grey London to handle its £5m ad account is the latest in a series of changes at the broadcaster - the most high-profile of which was the announcement that Dawn Airey was returning to Long Acre as chairman.

Sure, RTL luring Airey back might have seemed like a masterstroke, but in reality it seems that she had already developed itchy feet at ITV after finding out that the job of managing director of global content was not all it cracked up to be. Admittedly, her previous tenure at the station as chief executive was a success but back then the station's trajectory could only really go in one direction - and that was upwards.

Now it's a very different story and until RTL decides what it wants to do with Five it's difficult to see these changes as little more than just tweaking around the edges, no matter how good the new advertising strategy proves to be.

The Sun backing MacKenzie is no surprise...but Murdoch?

Should we be so surprised that Kelvin MacKenzie has secured the backing of Rupert Murdoch in his decision to stand against David Davis in the by-election caused by the latter's shock resignation?

MacKenzie claims that Murdoch is willing to put up the cash to fund his campaign because given if no other parties chose to contest the seat it ‘democracy would not be best served by a walkover'. He also claims that he has the weight of Rebekah Wade and The Sun behind him.

Certainly there might be a case that in a referendum, the public might vote in favour of 42 days detention so, like it or not, The Sun might be right on that. However it rather sticks in the craw for Murdoch to claim that he is such a doughty defender of democracy given his cosiness with the totalitarian Chinese regime.

It's not just O2's bubble that has burst

Odd that in the same week that the European Court ruled in favour of 3 in its battle with O2 over the use of O2's bubble trademark that ITV should attempt to prevent the use of the acronym iTV as a representative term for interactive television.

Surely the floodgates on the use of iTV are beyond closure and its chances of successfully coercing anyone from using the term are absolutely minimal? Well not necessarily - in fact, given that iTV advertising at least has proven to be something of a damp squib judging by the fact that advertisers are staying away in their droves, the best thing that ITV can do is sit-by and watch red button wither on the vine.

Unless of course ITV dies before it, which, judging by its current share price could always be a possibility.

Product placement is an opportunity, not a threat

Given that the country is teetering on the brink of the worst recession for more than a decade, the decision of culture secretary, Andy Burnham, to rule-out product placement on TV is at best bizarre and at worst crass.

The media sector faces unprecedented threats to its revenue streams as advertisers pare back spend so surely instead of putting them in some sort of straight-jacket, they should be encouraged to develop additional money through innovation.

Burnham seems to think that if the UK did adopt the practice, which is still the subject of an EC consultation, marketing directors would have an undue influence on editorial integrity. Rubbish. This would be in no-ones interest and, in fact, without brand references, programming looks even phonier.

I'm not rejoicing at the iPlayer

The iPlayer was probably a very worthy winner of the Marketing Moment of the Year at this week's Marketing Society Awards for Excellence, so hats off to Tim Davie.

And yet, and yet...I find it hard to give to much praise to a device that, while it has transformed the viewing experience and allowed people without the wit to use a PVR to watch programmes they have missed, gives the BBC another unfair advantage over its commercial rivals.

Predictably enough Five is hopelessly behind the game, but on itv.com ITV has launched a similar service that is equally good and in some ways better as it has a better catch-up service. Unfortunately it lacks the aesthetics of the iPlayer as the site is necessarily plastered with commercial messages but ITV deserve full credit for investing £20m on the service.

Quite how much money the BBC chucked at the iPlayer is unclear but you can bet that it was a lot more than that because the organisation is disgustingly profligate with licence fee payers' money.

The successful launch of the iPlayer was undoubtedly a key moment of the year, but I'm not sure people who care about the health of commercial television should be celebrating.

Newspaper paranoia?

In a controversial move, this blog won't mention the execrable Big Brother so if you want to read about what's going on, or otherwise, in the house go to one somewhere - sorry, anywhere - else.

In his column in last week's Marketing, our columnist, the veteran media hack Ray Snoddy, pointed out that national TV critics on national newspapers were dropping like flies. (http://www.brandrepublic.com/InDepth/Opinion/814207/Raymond-Snoddy-media-TV-critics-gone/)

Ray, in his own eloquent way, gave a convincing argument that given fragmented TV audiences, the views of one critic on one particular show are largely irrelevant because it's highly likely that most of its readers probably didn't watch it.

And I thought he was probably on the money.

But then a letter arrived from one of our readers gave an even better theory. He pointed out that given that newspaper groups are increasingly becoming multi-media operations themselves with TV feeds on websites, it was not in their interests to puff rival media channels that are now competing for consumers' attention.

So then I changed my mind and agreed with him.

And then today while going through the papers I was disheartened to see the amount of coverage of the first night of Big Brother. So now I don't know what to think and nor it seems do newspaper editors.

They are willing to jump on the coat-tails of successful TV brands in a bid to boost sales but don't want to play any role in creating or acknowledging new ones.

And I'm sorry for breaking my promise not to mention BB. Damn. Done it again.