BBC Two: new idents from Sunday 18 February

Why is that so unreasonable? The BBC is pushing for a higher licence fee yet a number of viewers feel the fee is too high already. Whenever there is a rebrand of either BBC1 or BBC2, the cost always seems to be substantially more than last time round and the branding package is used for increasingly shorter periods. OK, costs go up with time as does everything else. Spending more on more frequent rebrands won't curry favour with critics of the licence.



Actually I didn't know such agencies were used for trails, and as you can guess I find that more alarming than ad agencies being used to design station idents. That would certainly explain why certain programmes are over-promoted...

That would be an argument for not rebranding the output ever again, this would certainly not be a good idea. The fact that commercial channels spend money on rebrands shows that they are viewed to be important, and increase the performance of a channel, and when the cost/use is worked out, i'm sure they are very cheap.


That is down to the IMHO ill concieved opinion that fewer trails shown more frequently is more effective, and that is the BBC's own decision - something introduced after a branding agency had produced a rebrand.

But the main point here is that the difference between Lambie-Nairn and this agancy, is probably very little in the approach they will take to produce the new presentation. I'd be very suprised if they just got an advertising director to manage the whole thing, they may even employ someone who previously worked for Lambie-Nairn - besides much of the creative control, will rest with the BBC.

You're not seeing my point. You have distinguished between an advertising agency and a design agency, and suggested that an advertising agency should not be used. You have not provided any reason for this. You are then confusing this point with the issue of cost - this is a debate in itself. But to keep it in this context, you are wildly assuming that because the advertising agency is an advertising agency the cost is more expensive. Where is your evidence for this? My point is that each of the agencies put in for the bid and AMV won out. They will not be costing any more than the next best; they will have satisfied the criteria specified by the BBC and the cost, in all likelihood, would have been a major factor of the specification.



I presumed you did know since I presumed you'd have done your research and watched an AMV showreel. They created the Rush Hour promo for BBC One, but they also created a trail for a BBC Two documentary on the Nazis. Do some more internet research and you will see that a wide variety of agencies (and I'm talking advertising agencies here) have produced various programme trails for the BBC. And other channels.

The key point I am making - which you seem to twist, avoid or completely miss - is that advertising agencies bidding for and producing work for broadcasters, including the BBC, is far from rare. And yet you seem to have developed an allergy as soon as you realise that one will be producing idents. I am asking why.

And without getting too personal and off-the-track, I struggle to have a debate with you about anything, Simon, since it is like talking to a brick wall. As soon as you discover something new, it's as though you try to find the faults. And when you are questioned about those faults, you take the Daily Mail steamroller approach.

I've been reading the comments on this thread, and IMO, it's good they hired a Advertising company, is that the point of a ident? To Identitfy therefore it would be good if they made the BBC 2 Idents sit up and get your attention.

Obviously I can't say for certain that an advertising agency WOULD be any more expensive. But they could be; there is a noticeable difference in the type of organisations that BBDO work for compared with that of Lambie-Nairn. BBDO do more "traditional selling".

That explains my hostility towards the ad agencies. If people more used to selling lottery tickets or Guinness take over the channel branding itself, it might result in BBC2 having a more commercial feel.



The use of BBDO was mentioned in the press blurb that accompanied the launch of Rush Hour. Aside from that I genuinely did not realise the extent of the role played by Abbot Mead Vickers and its competitors.

Any recommendations where exactly I should search?

Well at least we are a step further into the rebrand anyway.

TBH I'm quite glad that an ad agency is doing the idents as I feel not only will it give something different compared to the usual branding companies but will also help the channel branding further as the whole idea of an ad is to promote its cause.

I think that the Two has to stay because it is so iconic and hasn't really changed since it was first introduced. Though we did see the globe disappear, another iconic symbol, I think that what an earlier post suggested may have some influence - the globe was changed to incorporate the balloon as well and perhaps was too much of a change, though this is merely a suggestion.

I somehow doubt that we will see the ident package this year as if we are now in July and the production company has only just been decided then there can't be enought time to produce quality idents by the end of the year, definitely not by the same time as the BBC One rebrand.

Of course, you could also argue that making special idents for Christmas doesn't "curry favour with critics of the licence".

You never know! If they do keep the "2" symbol, then there will be no need for any market research. This may speed the process up.

If you go on their website it may give you a clue on what sort of designs they do. Their website seems very relaxed and "chilled".

Even if it is more expensive than last time round, it's still going to be a mere drop in the ocean compared with the cost of filling the gaps in between the presentation!

Don't know if this has already been mentioned but they have already done work for BBC2.

Yep, it has see the previous page.

See my signature.

The BBC is awash with cash. Even more so now that they've given 2,000 people the sack. Their top suits have just awarded themselves an inflation hammering pay rise and they're continuing the very expensive transition of BBC radio stations 'oop north'.

Don't think for a moment that the BBC is strapped for cash!

If the new idents on BBC Two end up costing £1.5m, then that's less than half of the cash that BBC One p*sses away every day !