(Horrible). 
SB
Just so that you can see the updated logo, compared with the old one.
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/images_copy1.jpg
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/logofreeview.gif
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/images_copy1.jpg
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/logofreeview.gif
GE
Looks cheap?
Maybe this is why:
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/logofreeview.gif
http://easyjet.com/common/img/splash/Splash_EN_logobottom.gif
thegeek
Founding member
Blob posted:
lol, whats with the 60's font in the logo. It makes it look a bit cheap imo, i suppose its free tv though, maybe its intentional
Looks cheap?
Maybe this is why:
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/logofreeview.gif
http://easyjet.com/common/img/splash/Splash_EN_logobottom.gif
MI
OK so they've updated the site look, but as for the content...well....
The Smile TV page still references Shortcutters and Quizworld, as opposed to Party People
It has two lots of children's channel logos in the channel menu
Old-style BBC logo
Teachers' TV hours not updated
BBC Parliament quoted as being on channel 85
and various other little mis-informations. Not good for an organisation backed by public service broadcasters and the UK's biggest digital TV company.
The Smile TV page still references Shortcutters and Quizworld, as opposed to Party People
It has two lots of children's channel logos in the channel menu
Old-style BBC logo
Teachers' TV hours not updated
BBC Parliament quoted as being on channel 85
and various other little mis-informations. Not good for an organisation backed by public service broadcasters and the UK's biggest digital TV company.
CW
To me, they seem to have taken a retrograde step (and no pun intended with the odd 60's style font). My long held viewpoint was that it was a bit stupid (well, daft actually) to launch the direct replacement to analogue terrestrial under a brand name, because attaching a brand to a method of receiving TV instantly makes it appear as a bolt on additional product on top of 'normal telly'.
Just as in the 90's people might say 'I haven't got Sky I've only got normal TV', you *still* find people saying 'I've got Freeview in my front room but I've only got normal TV in my kitchen'. With the collapse of ITV Digital and the widescale introduction of DTT not linked to a pay TV company, the opportuntity to cement DTT as the 'normal telly' of the future was squandered by coming up with some naff brand name.
For us pres fans, it also lead to various annoyances such as Digitalspy-like trolls being incapable of telling the difference between Freeview and DTT which lead to much ridiuclous circular debate about incredulous children ranting about the scandal of Top Up TV's pay TV service 'launching on Freeview'.
On the front line of now having to actually sell brown goods, there is actually huge confusion about Freeview and analogue switchoff...market a TV as being 'digital' and people ask if that means they'll still get Freeview, conversely market it as having 'Freeview built in' and people ask if 'that means it'll be ready for when they switch everything over'.
People might be quite comfortable now about understanding that Freeview means they only have to get a little box and pay nothing else to get some more TV channels, but people on this forum would probably be quite surprised that people do not realise that it is the direct replacement for 4/5 channel analogue terrestrial television.
DTV services were quite right to take Freeview in a different direction after 4 years, but IMO they've gone the wrong way. They should have moved to diffuse the idea of Freeview being an add on package of channels (which IMO should have lead ultimately to scrapping the Freeview name alltogether), yet instead they seem to have sunk their teeth in even further into the 'brand named package of channels' approach, now coming up with touchy feely terms like the 'Freeview family' and speaking of channels 'just moved in' - and also made the ultimate claim of pretending to be in control of the channels on DTT by claiming that they have 'gathered some of the best TV, wrapped it up, and called it Freeview' (a direct quote from their website).
As was said by the person that I've quoted - crunch time is now approaching. The death of decent technical standards for broadcast TV is only round the corner (sorry, the wonderful switchover to flawless digital and that nasty analogue rubish being switched off will thankfully happen soon). Just when they needed to break the misconception that Freeview is yet another bolt on optional product which those content with 4 channels need not worry about, they've instead cemented it.
As nice as that website looks as a website (new logo aside - 'what were they thinking' is the only statement that springs to mind), they've jumped completely the wrong way on this one.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
All this "Free TV Land" stuff is stupid - and unneccessarily confusing to the people they now need to be targetting who possibly don't really know what they require.
To me, they seem to have taken a retrograde step (and no pun intended with the odd 60's style font). My long held viewpoint was that it was a bit stupid (well, daft actually) to launch the direct replacement to analogue terrestrial under a brand name, because attaching a brand to a method of receiving TV instantly makes it appear as a bolt on additional product on top of 'normal telly'.
Just as in the 90's people might say 'I haven't got Sky I've only got normal TV', you *still* find people saying 'I've got Freeview in my front room but I've only got normal TV in my kitchen'. With the collapse of ITV Digital and the widescale introduction of DTT not linked to a pay TV company, the opportuntity to cement DTT as the 'normal telly' of the future was squandered by coming up with some naff brand name.
For us pres fans, it also lead to various annoyances such as Digitalspy-like trolls being incapable of telling the difference between Freeview and DTT which lead to much ridiuclous circular debate about incredulous children ranting about the scandal of Top Up TV's pay TV service 'launching on Freeview'.
On the front line of now having to actually sell brown goods, there is actually huge confusion about Freeview and analogue switchoff...market a TV as being 'digital' and people ask if that means they'll still get Freeview, conversely market it as having 'Freeview built in' and people ask if 'that means it'll be ready for when they switch everything over'.
People might be quite comfortable now about understanding that Freeview means they only have to get a little box and pay nothing else to get some more TV channels, but people on this forum would probably be quite surprised that people do not realise that it is the direct replacement for 4/5 channel analogue terrestrial television.
DTV services were quite right to take Freeview in a different direction after 4 years, but IMO they've gone the wrong way. They should have moved to diffuse the idea of Freeview being an add on package of channels (which IMO should have lead ultimately to scrapping the Freeview name alltogether), yet instead they seem to have sunk their teeth in even further into the 'brand named package of channels' approach, now coming up with touchy feely terms like the 'Freeview family' and speaking of channels 'just moved in' - and also made the ultimate claim of pretending to be in control of the channels on DTT by claiming that they have 'gathered some of the best TV, wrapped it up, and called it Freeview' (a direct quote from their website).
As was said by the person that I've quoted - crunch time is now approaching. The death of decent technical standards for broadcast TV is only round the corner (sorry, the wonderful switchover to flawless digital and that nasty analogue rubish being switched off will thankfully happen soon). Just when they needed to break the misconception that Freeview is yet another bolt on optional product which those content with 4 channels need not worry about, they've instead cemented it.
As nice as that website looks as a website (new logo aside - 'what were they thinking' is the only statement that springs to mind), they've jumped completely the wrong way on this one.