Reading this about the Channel 4 rebrand. Reinforced my view of the people behind it being a bit poncey "We're so good at television! We're so good at television!" types.
Indeed, but at least it fits with the previous Born Risky campaign, which I've whinged aboutbefore.
It screams of "be weird and shout "I'm so F-ing risky" long enough and people might start to believe it again", rather than reflect it in the content of the programmes.
Also, the fact all the 'industry experts' feel they need to use the F-word in their analyses is so cringeworthy.
It screams of "be weird and shout "I'm so F-ing risky" long enough and people might start to believe it again", rather than reflect it in the content of the programmes.
Of course sometimes that can work. BBC2 moving from the TWO era to the first outing for the 2s in the 90s involved very little programme change, but a shift in audience perception from stuffy to engaging, fun and quirky.
It screams of "be weird and shout "I'm so F-ing risky" long enough and people might start to believe it again", rather than reflect it in the content of the programmes.
Of course sometimes that can work. BBC2 moving from the TWO era to the first outing for the 2s in the 90s involved very little programme change, but a shift in audience perception from stuffy to engaging, fun and quirky.
Wasn't it the case there, though, that the programmes were already on the 'fun and quirky' side, yet it was the presentation that stood in the way of the channel's image?
Whereas, the argument here is that whilst C4's pres is screaming "risky" the programming itself is not.