I too do not like boxes. It was interesting watching Martin Lambie-Nairn describe in that video how BBC executives wanted "proper" logos like the other channels, when all this would result in would be a squashed BBC and a coloured box.
There was really nothing wrong with the centred 1997 logos, with the personality coming from the idents' symbols themselves. Nice and clear, and not distracting from the ident itself. At least the 2006 relaunch for BBC One centred it, although now the channels are back to a pre-1991 phase of not looking very similar to each other. I suppose there's a fine line between consistency and individuality, which I think from 1991-2000 was perfect.
But I think my main sadness lies with the fact that there were so many opportunities for the balloon, yet it didn't even last for 5 years. Such a shame. To me, everything went downhill come the new millennium (although 2000 was probably the peak for both main BBC channels).
It would be nice for a complete rebrand ala 1997, but it's almost certainly not going to happen.
Seeing the BBC 1 and 2 numerals beside one another makes me feel very nostalgic. A great look for both channels and is something that is sorely missed now. Everything looks all over the place for BBC ONE compared to how it used to look and as a whole I think the entire design of both 1 and 2 has gone down the pan. They have never more both needed a fresh new look that creates a bit of uniformity, familiarity but yet enough of a difference to make them individual, like their early-mid 90's looks but sadly it doesn't seem like that will happen.
I think part of the problem with branding nowadays is everything has to mean something, which it rarely ever does. ITV have claimed their idents show how ITV is a part of people's lives, Channel 4 say they're idents are supposed to tell people "why" they're watching, and the BBC One dancers were, IIRC, to show how they provoke different emotions or something.
Back in branding's glory days, it was far simpler. If the channel was classy, it had a classy ident. If it was edgy, the ident was edgy, you get what I'm saying. Either that or they simply went with something that looked nice. The designer of the TSW logo admitted he had no idea what the symbol or the ident was supposed to represent but it just looked nice. As for my homeland of Granada, the stripe that took us through most of the 90s didn't seem to have any underlying message or representation. They were just clean, classy, admirable pieces of design, particularly the perspex G from the mid 90s.
Sadly I don't think this is a phase. I doubt marketing people will ever sit down and realise most of what they do and say is bulls**t. Everyday people don't give a flying one about brand positioning or public perception of media companies. They prefer stuff that just looks nice. The concept of the 2s had a meaning, but the individual idents seemed to consist mainly of "this looks good, do that". And they're probably the most fondly remembered ident package, even for people who don't know what an ident is.
If it just 'looks nice' then it's not really branding, it's just very basic design.
Even in your 'glory days' the logos meant or represented something, it was just a lot less thought was put into them. And why would they need to when everything was less competitive? Also the science behind such things has advanced over the years
The problem with giving no thought to branding and just going for something that looks nice is that we sub consciously give things meanings... and you don't want them the wrong connotations to be made.
If it just 'looks nice' then it's not really branding, it's just very basic design.
... which is no different to 90+% of 'branding' today.
A very small number of companies manage to create a coherent, and easily recognisable identity where everything fits together.
The vast majority of companies pay third parties enormous sums of money for what amounts to half a day's basic design coupled with reams of errant bullshine -- and try to justify the costs as 'branding'.
If you haven't got something unique and different to sell in the first place, you might as well give the job to your in-house designers because they won't do a worse job of things.
For all that UTV is amateurish, can anyone really say that ITV has a 'brand' that's any stronger?
I know I am shouting into the void here
but look at this:
That is literally the extent that needs to be gone to in order to better the usual happyland trail style. It's clear, it's classy, it doesn't perma-damage your retinas.
I hope (with zero expectation) someone sees sense and carries on using that style post Christmas.
I know I am shouting into the void here
but look at this:
That is literally the extent that needs to be gone to in order to better the usual happyland trail style. It's clear, it's classy, it doesn't perma-damage your retinas.
I hope (with zero expectation) someone sees sense and carries on using that style post Christmas.
Are the leaves deliberately positioned so the gap between them is a vague '2' or is that merely coincidence?
This is how endboards for trailers used to look. Why can't they bring it back for ONE and TWO so we aren't overloaded with garish colours and a little uniformity can be brought back to the main channels? I must prefer this over what we currently have.
Are the leaves deliberately positioned so the gap between them is a vague '2' or is that merely coincidence?
Paredolia - it looks nothing like a '2' to me.
I can see what DTV is referring to but it's nowhere distinct enough. If that was going to be an ongoing theme in the trailers they'd have an absolute nightmare with that.
