Does the BBC need a re-brand?

The Victorians were very good at that. Let's not pretend that a heightened morality has never existed. The Victorians were extremely prudish, and were not adverse to extreme censorship - much worse than anything today.

Don't talk rubbish. I don't think I even have to explain why you're talking a load of cack.

What makes me laugh is the enormous double standard in that, like anything, what is at this moment a social hot potato will soon become the acceptable butt of jokes. The Holocaust, 9/11, the Moors murders, Fred West, AIDS, phone hacking, the IRA and the Troubles, Windrush, WW2, the London Riots.... all topics which have provoked, if the Mail/Sun/Express etc. are to be believed, moral outrage amongst the populus. Yet watch any episode of HIGNFY, QI, Mock the Week, 8 out of 10 Cats, Room 101.... in fact any panel show or talk show etc. and you will find at least one controversial topic being treated in the lightest way possible. The Savile jokes will have a very very short trip from Sickipedia to mainstream acceptability, mark my words.




Please give examples. If you are referring to covering up table legs, that's a myth. Victorian society may have been moral by today's standards, but they had nude bathing, porn, erotic magazines, rampant prostitution, they removed the death penalty for homosexuality, and even Victoria herself liked collecting male nude art.

Yes, like Gary Glitter jokes are. But that doesn't mean they have a place on kids TV. Putting aside all stuff about faux tabloid outrage, surely you can see how inappropriate that Tweenies now is?

Mrs Browns Boys would never have been commissioned in today's....

Great post. It's one thing not to repeat anything which featured Saville himself, but to basically try and edit him out of television history isn't going to help anyone. It's the same with the whole issue over his Knighthood (even though he technically lost it when he died) - that isn't about any kind of justice for the victims but instead about the state trying to remove the fact that they gave a prolific paedophile such an honour.


Trying to get this back on topic and a rebrand has nothing to do with the issues the BBC have had over the last year - the public are wise enough to see beyond all that and in general they judge the BBC by what happens on screen rather than what happens off. Reduced licence fee or not though eventually the BBC will have to spend a fairly significant sum (to the press) on a rebrand. It's not any kind of vanity exercise - it's just a fact that for whatever reason at this point in time the branding on most channels seems to be showing it's age a bit and looking a bit tired.

Anyone can copy and paste facts from Wikipedia out of context. I can summarise Victorian morals for you - basically, Victorian morals were much, much stricter than those of today, or those of previous eras. Because of such strict morals, "immoral" things were driven underground and became more extreme. Most of the body of the article is poorly sourced, including the bit you quoted.

As regards the rest of your post, I have to say that none of the topics you've mentioned would be acceptable subjects for a children's entertainment programme.

Do you really not see the problems with satirising a celebrity who was discovered to be a sexual abuser of adults and children on a childrens' programme?

EDIT:

I don't think David Cameron is trying to obliterate the fact he was knighted from history, is he? Is it really that wrong to symbolically show, as a nation, our disgust at the most prolific sexual abuser ever?

This thread is skyrocketing off-topic, so I'll fix this.

BBCs Channels all need a new look as it is beginning to look very outdated.

BBC 1: One used to be a fresh look around 2006-2010, but now it is as bland and dull as a piece of coloured paper.
The idents have shot down with quality, and its obvious that the design team are having trouble and running out of ideas to incorperate into the circle theme. Proof of this was the 2012 christmas idents, Which were clearly an abomination of the quality of christmas idents they usually did. The 'LOVE 2013' idents were nice but they are using them too much and they are non sensical now its nearly feburary.

This circle theme is clearly not what they should be using for the channel that represents our nation.

They desperately need a rebrand.

BBC 2: Bbc 2s theme; Windows of the world was nice, but now boring.

BBC 3: Needs a refresh as their current one is ugly & tacky.

BBC 4: Old and needs a refresh as it hasn't been updated since 2005.

CBBC: Its okay, Needs a lick of paint to suit its audience so they don't get bored with it.

CBEEBIES: It's brand hasn't been updated since it launched. Needs a Big Rebrand.

By people politely disagreeing with him and saying why. There's way too many forumers, on TV Forum and elsewhere, that jump on any opportunity to be condescending, insulting or just outright hostile.

I, myself, have been on the receiving end of needlessly offensive posts on here purely because I disagree with them over something that's ultimately subjective such as a TV logo or ident.

This sort of behaviour is not really acceptable towards an adult, let alone towards a young teenager. Unless, he's supposed to learn that thät sort of behaviour is acceptable, of course.

Good argument.



Not as good



Subjective



Age is not a reason on its own.



Do children turn off their favourite shows due to the idents? Do you have any evidence that they are bored of the current look?



Since launch there have been several sets of kids born, who have grown up and outgrown the cbeebies target audience. There is no need for a rebrand whatosever. The idents still appeal to the under sixes and it remains a massively successful brand and channel.

Surely therefore there is only one possibility. You wish cbeebies to be rebranded for the benefit of Tumble Tower. In which case I think we can understand your desire to rebrand the whole suite of channels as you're planning to rename them B1 to B7.

TSK

I'm not sure. There's too much of a consensual belief that if an ident package hits a certain age, then it automatically needs replacing. I still think, in this world of many low quality channels with generally low quality presentation, that most of the BBC's presentation is still pretty decent in comparision. BBC Four's were never amazing, in my opinion, but were always just okay. I don't feel much differently now. I wouldn't be gutted if they went, so long as what replaced them was better but I also don't think they're in dire need of removing. BBC Three, I've never liked its "youfe" presenation, despite being in the target age group. BBC Two's idents are still nice. Not a patch on the classic 2s and the look has been mismanaged badly. Not a fan of the box, although the teal is nice and don't like much of the presenation outside the idents. The BBC One idents are good for their age. I'm not a fan of the Love 2013 thing. Especially after the rather dull Christmas ident, there's just too much red. CBBC is fine to me. Not sure about CBeebies.

I think it's spelled "yoof"

A nice little snippet from Popbitch on the other thing that is being discussed.

>> Bad impression <<
Savile haunts everything

If the simple mistake of showing
an old episode of the Tweenies
with a character dressed as Jimmy
Savile can be enough to provide a
front page splash for the tabloids,
then the red-tops already have
tomorrow sewn up.

This morning a re-run of the Gadget
Show had a segment testing out some
high-quality telephones by getting
impressionist Phil Cornwell to ring
up the presenters. First up, Phil
called Suzy Perry, engaging her in
conversation as Jimmy Savile.

Then again, this was on Dave rather
than the BBC, so without the added
value of giving the beeb a kicking,
perhaps the papers won't care.

Exactly. I wouldn't know. It's a very BBC/London thing to me and not really a part of my world.