BA
Firstly, I don't think they do look at things as a whole, the way BBC management is now and compartmentalized into specific things, there is no longer an overall "image" of the BBC that's in one person/departments control, as each little unit can and does do its own thing.
That falls in line with Lambie-Nairns original strategy with the BBC logo and Gill sans text. Every single outlet, brand and sub-brand would have the same basic logo layout [B][B][C] Brand for print, online, TV media it was consistent. This worked and in my opinion looked good.
But this does lead to "creatives" feeling boxed in and wanting to break the mold to appear distinct and different, and for some cases this can work, but when it then becomes the norm you get to the stage where we are now where nothing matches. Plus with various "head of's" doing their own thing in their own way you get the mess that BBC Two presentation is in, whilst I love that the 97 idents are cropping up, it's a sign of a poor brand that needs to do it.
Secondly, the BBC logo as it isn't going anywhere, it's so ingrained in the public mindset and perception of the BBC that it won't ever change, much like how David Lowes sound of the BBC is now part of the public consciousness that the BBC can't really change it without it becoming a big thing (good or bad.)
So, yeah, I didn't give an answer, I think there should be a better "brand BBC" going on across all platforms, but I can't see an appealing way to do this without losing "uniqueness" between various outlets that desire it.
For further "reading" this lecture by Martin Lambie-Nairn himself is a very interesting insight into how the 1997 re-brand came about, what the BBC wanted, and how they did it.
Bail
Moderator
I think the bigger issue is probably that the BBC's branding issues go beyond BBC1 at the moment and to fix issues with BBC1/2 they might need to look at the branding as a whole.
Firstly, I don't think they do look at things as a whole, the way BBC management is now and compartmentalized into specific things, there is no longer an overall "image" of the BBC that's in one person/departments control, as each little unit can and does do its own thing.
That falls in line with Lambie-Nairns original strategy with the BBC logo and Gill sans text. Every single outlet, brand and sub-brand would have the same basic logo layout [B][B][C] Brand for print, online, TV media it was consistent. This worked and in my opinion looked good.
But this does lead to "creatives" feeling boxed in and wanting to break the mold to appear distinct and different, and for some cases this can work, but when it then becomes the norm you get to the stage where we are now where nothing matches. Plus with various "head of's" doing their own thing in their own way you get the mess that BBC Two presentation is in, whilst I love that the 97 idents are cropping up, it's a sign of a poor brand that needs to do it.
Secondly, the BBC logo as it isn't going anywhere, it's so ingrained in the public mindset and perception of the BBC that it won't ever change, much like how David Lowes sound of the BBC is now part of the public consciousness that the BBC can't really change it without it becoming a big thing (good or bad.)
So, yeah, I didn't give an answer, I think there should be a better "brand BBC" going on across all platforms, but I can't see an appealing way to do this without losing "uniqueness" between various outlets that desire it.
For further "reading" this lecture by Martin Lambie-Nairn himself is a very interesting insight into how the 1997 re-brand came about, what the BBC wanted, and how they did it.