CW
I have to admit that the current idents are pretty good (for modern idents anyway), and the apparent change back to five in the lettering is a good move - the previous idea of associating the brand by the font and positioning was an interesting twist but it doesn't really fit in now that they've gone multichannel.
In general though, I've never ever warmed to 'five'. Everything about it's introduction was wrong. Those random shots of people with red hair and those stupid two tone pastel animations were cack even in an era of cack idents. Other embelishments like those horrible endboards (which sadly still survive), the tacky looking website with the cheap sounding .tv url (for some reason, a .co.uk or .com TLD always seems more professional to me) and the contrived explanation for it happening (I can still remember the 'Channel 5 is a name. Five is a brand' marketing speak which completely ignored the fact that the original ident set had 'five' written as lowercase letters alongside the 5-in a circle logo, and an awful lot of trailer VOs and CAs referred to it as 'five' rather than 'channel five' anyway) all made it a very weak package.
What was particularly bizarre about it is that the shift was supposed to represent C5 entering a more mature era compared to it's earlier tacky days, yet the old brash presentation was long gone by 2002 anyway and had allready been replaced by something much more classy whilst the original five presentation set was possibly even cheaper and tacky looking than the 1997 C5 look was!
Although things have largely improved I still don't buy 'five' as a credible brand at all. As I mentioned above, the pitch may have been that 'Channel 5 is a name. Five is a brand' but it's also true that Channel 5 was a name and '5' *was* a brand. And it's inescapable that 5 in a circle in a square and the colour bars device were icons with which people can identify, yet 'five' is a just a word. One word. And if a picture is worth a thousand of them, an icon must still be worth a hundred.
Well if you're respecting my opinions I'll respect yours, but can I pose the same thing to you - how cheap does a word passing as a corporate logo look?
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
I've never been a fan of the channel's presentation since it changed to five, I think it's pretty poor considering what it replaced, which was excellent.
I have to admit that the current idents are pretty good (for modern idents anyway), and the apparent change back to five in the lettering is a good move - the previous idea of associating the brand by the font and positioning was an interesting twist but it doesn't really fit in now that they've gone multichannel.
In general though, I've never ever warmed to 'five'. Everything about it's introduction was wrong. Those random shots of people with red hair and those stupid two tone pastel animations were cack even in an era of cack idents. Other embelishments like those horrible endboards (which sadly still survive), the tacky looking website with the cheap sounding .tv url (for some reason, a .co.uk or .com TLD always seems more professional to me) and the contrived explanation for it happening (I can still remember the 'Channel 5 is a name. Five is a brand' marketing speak which completely ignored the fact that the original ident set had 'five' written as lowercase letters alongside the 5-in a circle logo, and an awful lot of trailer VOs and CAs referred to it as 'five' rather than 'channel five' anyway) all made it a very weak package.
What was particularly bizarre about it is that the shift was supposed to represent C5 entering a more mature era compared to it's earlier tacky days, yet the old brash presentation was long gone by 2002 anyway and had allready been replaced by something much more classy whilst the original five presentation set was possibly even cheaper and tacky looking than the 1997 C5 look was!
Although things have largely improved I still don't buy 'five' as a credible brand at all. As I mentioned above, the pitch may have been that 'Channel 5 is a name. Five is a brand' but it's also true that Channel 5 was a name and '5' *was* a brand. And it's inescapable that 5 in a circle in a square and the colour bars device were icons with which people can identify, yet 'five' is a just a word. One word. And if a picture is worth a thousand of them, an icon must still be worth a hundred.
Quote:
I agree; reading this thread, I can only but respect the opinions of the people who liked the old 'Channel 5' branding. How cheap does a numeral 5 in the outline of a simple shape look?
Well if you're respecting my opinions I'll respect yours, but can I pose the same thing to you - how cheap does a word passing as a corporate logo look?
