Branding
can
change perceptions. Look at BBC2. In 1991, they didn't change their schedule, but replaced the boring TWO symbol with the innovative 2s. Ratings for the channel rose, just because they changed their image.
Indeed it can. If it was generally accepted that it didn't, we wouldn't bother with it.
Branding
can
change perceptions. Look at BBC2. In 1991, they didn't change their schedule, but replaced the boring TWO symbol with the innovative 2s. Ratings for the channel rose, just because they changed their image.
Indeed it can. If it was generally accepted that it didn't, we wouldn't bother with it.
Of course it can, but it's what the brand is like that matters. The 1991 example was when BBC2 was seen as stuffy and unwelcoming, and it changed that perception. To me, ITV is considered cheap and tacky to a certain extent, and this logo only reaffirms that image rather than tries to counter it.
Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just a perception. If ITV wish to keep their content as it is - which in some cases is working for them - then this logo represents this. I'm not convinced it is going to change hearts and minds like BBC2 did in 1991.
Looks tacky to me too. And tacky or not, it won't age gracefully and will need replacing again in a few years. It really is bizarre because I thought the current logo was futher dumbing down of the station when I first saw it but now that I know what's replacing it, it looks positively highbrow.
The logo may appear tacky to some, but then again, tacky is exactly what ITV is. So an appropriate pairing which does nothing for me personally, to dis-spell my impression of the network.
People look at the BBC logo as being timeless and modern and will last decades, but that is as much to do with BBC as an institution, its values, and its output.
ITV once was seen as a network with a good mix of quality and entertainment, news and factual. But they have shifted their strategy firmly towards the entertainment, and it makes sense that if they see no problem with that impression, that the brand should be adapted to suit the audience they value.
The logo may appear tacky to some, but then again, tacky is exactly what ITV is. So an appropriate pairing which does nothing for me personally, to dis-spell my impression of the network.
People look at the BBC logo as being timeless and modern and will last decades, but that is as much to do with BBC as an institution, its values, and its output.
ITV once was seen as a network with a good mix of quality and entertainment, news and factual. But they have shifted their strategy firmly towards the entertainment, and it makes sense that if they see no problem with that impression, that the brand should be adapted to suit the audience they value.
I wouldn't say the strategy has changed THAT much in recent years. I'm A Celebrity, X Factor and BGT (and their variants) have been around for the last decade, gameshows have always had a strong place in the ITV schedule and Corrie and Emmerdale have been on since 1960 and 1972 respectively.
News output is largely the same, Tonight's still on and Exposure broke possibly the most significant news story of the year.
I'm not saying entertainment doesn't play a huge part in ITV's schedule, but I think the variety between entertainment and factual is still fairly strong.
They cancelled Afterlife - a show I loved! - in order to schedule more Britain's Got Talent. I am still sore about it.
I think back to classic ITV shows, and there is nothing left that I would consider watching. Greats like Sherlock Holmes, Afterlife, Rumpole, Poirot, Thunderbirds, etc.
The only drama left I care about is Law & Order UK. There is nothing else now.
They cancelled Afterlife - a show I loved! - in order to schedule more Britain's Got Talent. I am still sore about it.
What a stupid statement - I thought you were brighter than that mdta. You're basically saying they cancelled a show (that aired in the autumn) for "more" episodes of a show that hadn't even launched here when Afterlife ended. Ultimately it was axed because the lead actor quit, so appreciate a show that ended in it's prime rather than withered on for a series or two too many.
I have to admit that the quality of drama on ITV has been better in last couple of years and this last season (i.e. autumn) has had the best to date with Monroe, DCI Banks, Mrs Biggs, Homefront to name a few. Just a shame that Monroe doesn't get a third run - but if it had not been against New Tricks I honestly think it would have carried on.
The output of current affairs has been better and increased especially with The Agenda and Exposure.
Plus their output of more detailed and more engaging documentaries has been amazing and few very of the pop-art documentaries such as ...From Hell which they had a few years ago. Earlier in the year they had the excellent Up series returned to the channel (and a brief stint on BBC last time round) and inside life of Strangeways and of course the Jewish community in Manchester, as well as Long Lost Family which is back next year.
And in terms of entertainment even that has been more varied and tried to experiment with a few concepts - although it is time that X-Factor, DoI, and BGT were used less frequently and of course the number of soaps has decreased, on the channel, over the last decade - although over reliant on Emmerdale and Coronation street sometimes.
All in all I do believe that ITV is far better now than what it was 10 years ago when it basically had Bad Girls, Footballers Wives and the soaps with no hard hitting documentaries and only "light" news. But there is still room for improvement, though. But there again no channel can be perfect all the time.
As regards to the new logo - I like it and fits in well with the new look ITV.
It really is bizarre because I thought the current logo was futher dumbing down of the station when I first saw it but now that I know what's replacing it, it looks positively highbrow.
For 'highbrow' read boring, non-descript. It lacks identity.
Last edited by Square Eyes on 26 November 2012 9:45pm