TV Home Forum

ITV logo discussion

all the change, and no pudding pops

BA
bilky asko Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
itv's like pepsi, they're constantly changing
*
only difference is that itv doesn't have a 32-page document explaining how the universe is relative to itv

Although Pepsi has a recogniseable logo which has been in place since the 50s, and looks like before that had a recogniseable logo which was just tweaked over the years, ultimately sitting alongside the logo which would then dominate the next 70 years for a few years before being updated.


Not only that, but the Pepsi-Cola logo (from 1940 in that image) can still be found on UK cans near the ingredients list.

Avatar Credit: © Independent Television News. Avatar Subject: Jonathan George Snow HonFRIBA
MP
MatthewPrower
DTV posted:
...ITV's logo problem is deeper than their lemming-like following of design trends. The Pepsi logo, as mentioned above, is also repeatedly refreshed due to changing design fashions, but retains a core pattern and colour palette throughout in a way that ITV doesn't. There is no ITV colour, no ITV shape, no ITV font, no ITV anything. The only constant are the letters ITV and it is why ITV has got a far weaker brand, in design terms, than the BBC or Channel 4 (TBF this is also, in part, due to the genius of the late, great Martin Lambie-Nairn).


hmmm

...do you think superunion (the group lambie nairn merged into) might be able to construct a long lasting identity for ITV?
MD
mdtauk London London
TV is different from some other products in that the contents changes constantly. When the Audience changes, and the product changes, then shouldn't the branding also change to reflect these things.

ITV's content produced today, is very different from two decades ago.

Pepsi and Coca-Cola are relatively unchanged products, so the branding has to remind people of the familiar.
DT
DTV Meridian (South) South Today
TV is different from some other products in that the contents changes constantly. When the Audience changes, and the product changes, then shouldn't the branding also change to reflect these things.

ITV's content produced today, is very different from two decades ago.

Pepsi and Coca-Cola are relatively unchanged products, so the branding has to remind people of the familiar.


But surely this is the distinction between short-term and long-term branding. Your short-term brand responds to changes in audience/content, but your (more minimal) long-term brand stays the same and should form the basis of your short-term brand. In TV channel terms - the short-term brand would be ident/presentation packages and the long-term brand would be the colours and/or symbols that identify that ident package as being for that channel.

And I disagree that this is a TV thing - plenty of TV channels have strong long-term brands despite changing content. BBC One has changed at least as much as ITV in the last 24 years, but has retained a number of key branding elements across several rebrands. And in the US, NBC and CBS are often referred to as the peacock or eye networks because of long-running symbols. Hell, even ITV has the clockface of Big Ben for its news programming - which has gone through, not just visual-style changes, but presentation-style and format changes over many decades. It's not impossible for a TV channel to have branding elements that can survive for decades - many manage it, but ITV seems to struggle to hold on to even a colour for more than a decade.
Rijowhi and LondonViewer gave kudos
MP
MatthewPrower
y’know, you both raise some points about the ITV brand

honestly it’s just kinda odd considering both the BBC and channel 4 have managed to build on top of their established identity whilst ITV keeps building new ones from scratch
Rijowhi and ToasterMan gave kudos
MD
mdtauk London London
DTV posted:

But surely this is the distinction between short-term and long-term branding. Your short-term brand responds to changes in audience/content, but your (more minimal) long-term brand stays the same and should form the basis of your short-term brand. In TV channel terms - the short-term brand would be ident/presentation packages and the long-term brand would be the colours and/or symbols that identify that ident package as being for that channel.


Up until the consolidation of the ITV franchises, each region had a distinctive brand they had cultivated and refreshed over the years.
ITV could have come up with a symbol or icon that would represent the main brand, and adapt it for each channel. But they chose not to. For good or for bad, they instead decided to focus on a stylised representation of the initials.

Any symbol they may have picked would be competing with all the previous franchise symbols, so that may be why they decided to move away from that approach.

DTV posted:

And I disagree that this is a TV thing - plenty of TV channels have strong long-term brands despite changing content. BBC One has changed at least as much as ITV in the last 24 years, but has retained a number of key branding elements across several rebrands. And in the US, NBC and CBS are often referred to as the peacock or eye networks because of long-running symbols. Hell, even ITV has the clockface of Big Ben for its news programming - which has gone through, not just visual-style changes, but presentation-style and format changes over many decades. It's not impossible for a TV channel to have branding elements that can survive for decades - many manage it, but ITV seems to struggle to hold on to even a colour for more than a decade.

The BBC has had the convention of placing their Initials into shapes (usually blocks or squares). But it was never applied in a consistent way until the 90's The channels also had their own identities (BBC Two less so until the 90's) which were crude in the early days, and were refreshed and re-interpreted over the years. There was never a single visual symbol which was retained without change.

TV Branding has tended to come along with a fresh channel controller, or content refreshes. Occasionally it is to reflect a change of audience, or an expansion of services.

Channel 4 has taken a US like approach with a distinctive visual which, whilst depicted in fresh ways, retains a core design.

ITV is consistently ahead of Channel 4 in its audience share and advertising revenues, which would suggest it has the more successful brand approach (but its far more complex a subject to analyse). To my eye, the current ITV logo is distinctive and fits the image people have of the network. It is also a group of channels I never watch.

In fact, pretty much everything TV related I watch, comes from iPlayer and Netflix these days. So this may change my perception of the brands, and it may be a direction that the industry is moving in. Content over Channel.

If Content becomes the defining factor for branding channels, then a strong "Masterbrand" will matter more when content is viewed outside of the Broadcaster's streaming services.

Newer posts