I was slightly perturbed by some of the comments in your article on media independents in Scotland (MW August 28).
I explained to your reporter that the reason MediaVision was separately branded was partly because of the local market needs but also, and importantly, be-cause of the ownership and shareholding structure.
I did suggest that she spoke to MediaVest Manchester about the operation. If she had done this, she would have established that Media-Vision already has billings of 20m, a staff of six and will make a profit in its first year.
It seems to me that those firm facts are of somewhat more value (if slightly less sensational) than an unnamed source (presumably a competitor) who believes it might flop.