I think it's alright for what it is. The ident is nice, the promos are pretty nice too - the on screen menu is a mess but then it'll only be in place for a month (since next month the channel will become a barker). Indeed, it surprises me that they even bothered to create a new off air caption, or make the DOG interact with 60 seconds (it didn't when they simulcasted with BBC HD back in 2012, and I don't think it caused a problem).
No qualms from me.
Of course I've nothing against the argument that BBC Three should just have been killed off; as compromises go it's a load of old rubbish.
I think it's alright for what it is. The ident is nice, the promos are pretty nice too - the on screen menu is a mess but then it'll only be in place for a month (since next month the channel will become a barker). Indeed, it surprises me that they even bothered to create a new off air caption, or make the DOG interact with 60 seconds (it didn't when they simulcasted with BBC HD back in 2012, and I don't think it caused a problem).
No qualms from me.
Of course I've nothing against the argument that BBC Three should just have been killed off; as compromises go it's a load of old rubbish.
Their last month on TV is their time to advertise themselves, so splashing the new logo everywhere makes sense
I think it's alright for what it is. The ident is nice, the promos are pretty nice too - the on screen menu is a mess but then it'll only be in place for a month (since next month the channel will become a barker). Indeed, it surprises me that they even bothered to create a new off air caption, or make the DOG interact with 60 seconds (it didn't when they simulcasted with BBC HD back in 2012, and I don't think it caused a problem).
No qualms from me.
Of course I've nothing against the argument that BBC Three should just have been killed off; as compromises go it's a load of old rubbish.
Their last month on TV is their time to advertise themselves, so splashing the new logo everywhere makes sense
After this and Channel 4, I truly fear the days of "television branding" will soon be dead. It'll just be "marketing".
Because of 2 rebrands you don't like? Please.
Pardon me. They are two rebrands that in this forum alone has prompted a lot of negative reactions and have been supported by marketing dross to try and justify it rather than just making something that looks like. Whether or not I like the rebrands has nothing to do with it.
After this and Channel 4, I truly fear the days of "television branding" will soon be dead. It'll just be "marketing".
Because of 2 rebrands you don't like? Please.
Pardon me. They are two rebrands that in this forum alone has prompted a lot of negative reactions and have been supported by marketing dross to try and justify it rather than just making something that looks like. Whether or not I like the rebrands has nothing to do with it.
You're living in the past.
No major television station will launch a new look without some form of marketing push to back it up, regardless of how marketing-lead that rebrand has been. This isn't a new thing either, it's been true for at least the last 15 years. All that's happening now is that you are able to see that marketing push in action immediately rather than having to wait for it to trickle through the press (if it had at all).
If BBC One ever gets a rebrand, it will be done on the cheap I suspect. In house creativity is being relaunched within the BBC and of course any upcoming marketing company will have a profile enhancement if their CV declares it created or co-created the onscreen look for BBC One. Was the new BBC II! logo created inhouse or outsourced? If it was outsourced then that nullifies any argument about BBC One not being able to justify a rebrand.
The branding works on the Internet and not on TV. I think that's what their intention is, but they should have just kept the old branding during the last few weeks of BBC Three then rebranded online.
