)
GM
Tut-tut, dbl. Your grammar is a bit hard to understand tonight.
Anyway, I think stv's graphics are a massive improvement to what he had with Scottish/Grampian. And, just because the S looks like the British Steel logo, doesn't mean it is a copy-cat. It is only a letter.
dbl posted:
Which would of been better if they hadn't of designed such a cheap looking promo endboard and copycat-logo.
Tut-tut, dbl. Your grammar is a bit hard to understand tonight.
Anyway, I think stv's graphics are a massive improvement to what he had with Scottish/Grampian. And, just because the S looks like the British Steel logo, doesn't mean it is a copy-cat. It is only a letter.
JO
The worst of the Jan-Nov 2006 idents has to be the bloke with the rose awaiting his date, just pointless. Then again the whole set was
Andrew Tyne Tees posted:
Well the current Channel 4 brand is excellent! Also I like the November 2006 - present ITV1 package too. However the January - November 2006 package was a disaster!
The worst of the Jan-Nov 2006 idents has to be the bloke with the rose awaiting his date, just pointless. Then again the whole set was
OH
ohwhatanight
Founding member
I think a lot of people would agree that the last ITV1 batch were poor.
To me an ident should enforce a brand and identity and include a distinctive logo and jingle.
The previous set of ITV1 idents didnt satisfy this criteria on any counts. I get a feeling the new S4/C idents will also fall into the same category.
I feel the current set are a step in the right direction with the 'brand-identity' just evolving now without any major relaunches in the future. They will just appear like last time!
To me an ident should enforce a brand and identity and include a distinctive logo and jingle.
The previous set of ITV1 idents didnt satisfy this criteria on any counts. I get a feeling the new S4/C idents will also fall into the same category.
I feel the current set are a step in the right direction with the 'brand-identity' just evolving now without any major relaunches in the future. They will just appear like last time!
DJ
Nope you are wrong, the Logo, Graphics, and Idents are the BRAND, so when they change, it is a Re-Branding.
If the Channel name changes, its a Re-Launch.
No, YOU are wrong. Check the dictionary definiton for rebrand linked in my previous message.
Definition: to take an improved product, rename it and market it as new.
Thus, a channel is only rebranded if it's name is changed. BBC One was relaunched with new idents and graphics,
but NOT rebranded. The last rebrand for ITV's main channel wasn'tt with the most recent batch of new idents, but
when it became known nationally as ITV1, and dropped the regional station names. Channel 4 has had several
new graphics/idents packages over the years, but it has never changed it's name.
When only the logos/graphics/idents of TV channels are changed, but not the channel names, they're updating the
existing brands. They're simply changing the design of the packaging, Like if Kellogs decide tochange the look
of Corn Flakes packets, or if Heinz decide to use a different font on tins of Baked Beans.
martinDTanderson posted:
Nope you are wrong, the Logo, Graphics, and Idents are the BRAND, so when they change, it is a Re-Branding.
If the Channel name changes, its a Re-Launch.
No, YOU are wrong. Check the dictionary definiton for rebrand linked in my previous message.
Quote:
Definition: to take an improved product, rename it and market it as new.
Thus, a channel is only rebranded if it's name is changed. BBC One was relaunched with new idents and graphics,
but NOT rebranded. The last rebrand for ITV's main channel wasn'tt with the most recent batch of new idents, but
when it became known nationally as ITV1, and dropped the regional station names. Channel 4 has had several
new graphics/idents packages over the years, but it has never changed it's name.
When only the logos/graphics/idents of TV channels are changed, but not the channel names, they're updating the
existing brands. They're simply changing the design of the packaging, Like if Kellogs decide tochange the look
of Corn Flakes packets, or if Heinz decide to use a different font on tins of Baked Beans.
JO
Well, lets start from the top. (s=succesful rebrand U=unsuccesful rebrand)
BBC1- Greatly improved from the dancers but some of them do get boring after a while, but at least we now have a symbol. S
BBC2- A quite good and amusing set but unfortunately it had the impossible task of replacing the previous set. The unrelenting yellow and the rather samey scenarios havent helped their cause either. U
ITV1- I dont like the yellow logo, IMO they should have kept the old one; this one looks like it has been created in ten minutes. However, i really like the present itv1 idents but IMO they would be better if each one had their own tune, but they are a gigantic improvement from the disastrous previous set. Unfortunately i dont feel they improved on the blocks. U
C4- The best idents on British television at present? A fantastic replacement to the nice but rather boring squares, highly imaginative scenarios combine with amazing 3D computerized graphics. S
five- IMO five has never had a good identity, the 5 in the circle looked a bit tacky and i dont care much for the 'five' idents either. The first wave of 'five' idents were more imaginative than the current set, eg bugs carrying the letters 'five' so its a big U for five. U
So 2 Successful rebrands and 3 unsuccessful rebrands (or
relaunches ) hardly jobs well done by branding agencies...
BBC1- Greatly improved from the dancers but some of them do get boring after a while, but at least we now have a symbol. S
BBC2- A quite good and amusing set but unfortunately it had the impossible task of replacing the previous set. The unrelenting yellow and the rather samey scenarios havent helped their cause either. U
ITV1- I dont like the yellow logo, IMO they should have kept the old one; this one looks like it has been created in ten minutes. However, i really like the present itv1 idents but IMO they would be better if each one had their own tune, but they are a gigantic improvement from the disastrous previous set. Unfortunately i dont feel they improved on the blocks. U
C4- The best idents on British television at present? A fantastic replacement to the nice but rather boring squares, highly imaginative scenarios combine with amazing 3D computerized graphics. S
five- IMO five has never had a good identity, the 5 in the circle looked a bit tacky and i dont care much for the 'five' idents either. The first wave of 'five' idents were more imaginative than the current set, eg bugs carrying the letters 'five' so its a big U for five. U
So 2 Successful rebrands and 3 unsuccessful rebrands (or
relaunches ) hardly jobs well done by branding agencies...
PO
Nope you are wrong, the Logo, Graphics, and Idents are the BRAND, so when they change, it is a Re-Branding.
If the Channel name changes, its a Re-Launch.
No, YOU are wrong. Check the dictionary definiton for rebrand linked in my previous message.
Definition: to take an improved product, rename it and market it as new.
Thus, a channel is only rebranded if it's name is changed. BBC One was relaunched with new idents and graphics,
but NOT rebranded. The last rebrand for ITV's main channel wasn'tt with the most recent batch of new idents, but
when it became known nationally as ITV1, and dropped the regional station names. Channel 4 has had several
new graphics/idents packages over the years, but it has never changed it's name.
When only the logos/graphics/idents of TV channels are changed, but not the channel names, they're updating the
existing brands. They're simply changing the design of the packaging, Like if Kellogs decide tochange the look
of Corn Flakes packets, or if Heinz decide to use a different font on tins of Baked Beans.
Before you tell people they are wrong in such a high-horse way, try using another dictionary rather than limit yourself to what is available online.
My 2005 Oxford Dictionary of English defines "rebrand" as a "change of corporate image (a company or organization)", which is a little broader than the narrower definition that you've chosen to be so bloody pedantic about. I think the Oxford dictionary picks up the way most people think of a rebrand.
As this is not the "Use of the English Language Forum" that some people would like it to be, I'll return to the main point of this thread.
Most rebrands these days are pointless yes, with Channel 4 being the most successful as they have a clear logo. The other main channels don't (apart from BBC2's 2). BBC1's would have been more successful if the 1990s "1" had been placed in the centre of the round swirl (which doesn't last long enough on-screen) rather than "one" which looks to me like Sky's "one". ITV's brackets logo is just dull and must've been dreamed up last minute on the way out to the pub on a Friday lunchtime.
These days, the marketing people seem too obsessed with creating moods and feelings - rather than getting across a brand with a simple logo or slogan.
DJGM posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
Nope you are wrong, the Logo, Graphics, and Idents are the BRAND, so when they change, it is a Re-Branding.
If the Channel name changes, its a Re-Launch.
No, YOU are wrong. Check the dictionary definiton for rebrand linked in my previous message.
Quote:
Definition: to take an improved product, rename it and market it as new.
Thus, a channel is only rebranded if it's name is changed. BBC One was relaunched with new idents and graphics,
but NOT rebranded. The last rebrand for ITV's main channel wasn'tt with the most recent batch of new idents, but
when it became known nationally as ITV1, and dropped the regional station names. Channel 4 has had several
new graphics/idents packages over the years, but it has never changed it's name.
When only the logos/graphics/idents of TV channels are changed, but not the channel names, they're updating the
existing brands. They're simply changing the design of the packaging, Like if Kellogs decide tochange the look
of Corn Flakes packets, or if Heinz decide to use a different font on tins of Baked Beans.
Before you tell people they are wrong in such a high-horse way, try using another dictionary rather than limit yourself to what is available online.
My 2005 Oxford Dictionary of English defines "rebrand" as a "change of corporate image (a company or organization)", which is a little broader than the narrower definition that you've chosen to be so bloody pedantic about. I think the Oxford dictionary picks up the way most people think of a rebrand.
As this is not the "Use of the English Language Forum" that some people would like it to be, I'll return to the main point of this thread.
Most rebrands these days are pointless yes, with Channel 4 being the most successful as they have a clear logo. The other main channels don't (apart from BBC2's 2). BBC1's would have been more successful if the 1990s "1" had been placed in the centre of the round swirl (which doesn't last long enough on-screen) rather than "one" which looks to me like Sky's "one". ITV's brackets logo is just dull and must've been dreamed up last minute on the way out to the pub on a Friday lunchtime.
These days, the marketing people seem too obsessed with creating moods and feelings - rather than getting across a brand with a simple logo or slogan.
JO
Have to say I agree with you on most points except:
BBC 2 - I wouldn't say it was a complete unsuccesful rebrand, there are some rather good ones there (Invisible walls, book reading, morris dancing, etc) but it was just a lack of them. The rest of the presentation pack hasn't been too bad either. I would say semi-succesful.
ITV 1 - Again it started off unsuccesfully but the idents are now rather good, and again I would say semi-succesful, but I think that it was a shame that the trailers & next slides weren't updated like the idents & break bumpers, they could have adapted the endboards so that they had part of the ident as the background for example.
plucky duck92 posted:
Well, lets start from the top. (s=succesful rebrand U=unsuccesful rebrand)
BBC1- Greatly improved from the dancers but some of them do get boring after a while, but at least we now have a symbol. S
BBC2- A quite good and amusing set but unfortunately it had the impossible task of replacing the previous set. The unrelenting yellow and the rather samey scenarios havent helped their cause either. U
ITV1- I dont like the yellow logo, IMO they should have kept the old one; this one looks like it has been created in ten minutes. However, i really like the present itv1 idents but IMO they would be better if each one had their own tune, but they are a gigantic improvement from the disastrous previous set. Unfortunately i dont feel they improved on the blocks. U
C4- The best idents on British television at present? A fantastic replacement to the nice but rather boring squares, highly imaginative scenarios combine with amazing 3D computerized graphics. S
five- IMO five has never had a good identity, the 5 in the circle looked a bit tacky and i dont care much for the 'five' idents either. The first wave of 'five' idents were more imaginative than the current set, eg bugs carrying the letters 'five' so its a big U for five. U
So 2 Successful rebrands and 3 unsuccessful rebrands (or relaunches ) hardly jobs well done by branding agencies...
BBC1- Greatly improved from the dancers but some of them do get boring after a while, but at least we now have a symbol. S
BBC2- A quite good and amusing set but unfortunately it had the impossible task of replacing the previous set. The unrelenting yellow and the rather samey scenarios havent helped their cause either. U
ITV1- I dont like the yellow logo, IMO they should have kept the old one; this one looks like it has been created in ten minutes. However, i really like the present itv1 idents but IMO they would be better if each one had their own tune, but they are a gigantic improvement from the disastrous previous set. Unfortunately i dont feel they improved on the blocks. U
C4- The best idents on British television at present? A fantastic replacement to the nice but rather boring squares, highly imaginative scenarios combine with amazing 3D computerized graphics. S
five- IMO five has never had a good identity, the 5 in the circle looked a bit tacky and i dont care much for the 'five' idents either. The first wave of 'five' idents were more imaginative than the current set, eg bugs carrying the letters 'five' so its a big U for five. U
So 2 Successful rebrands and 3 unsuccessful rebrands (or
relaunches ) hardly jobs well done by branding agencies...
Have to say I agree with you on most points except:
BBC 2 - I wouldn't say it was a complete unsuccesful rebrand, there are some rather good ones there (Invisible walls, book reading, morris dancing, etc) but it was just a lack of them. The rest of the presentation pack hasn't been too bad either. I would say semi-succesful.
ITV 1 - Again it started off unsuccesfully but the idents are now rather good, and again I would say semi-succesful, but I think that it was a shame that the trailers & next slides weren't updated like the idents & break bumpers, they could have adapted the endboards so that they had part of the ident as the background for example.
BR
I'm sure I'm not the only one getting pretty tired of the petty squabling on the rise around here for things which have little to do with the topic being discussed!
Back on topic - two main reasons I think. Firstly, it's down to marketing and branding companies now - rather than a small department (or individual) within the company itself - who would probably naturally come up with something simple and obvious - which works much better!
Secondly, multi-channel means it's not just one logo they have to consider.
ITV is a good example - most people agreed the new look ITV1 was pretty awful in January, but the rest of the package, especially ITV2 and ITV3, was widely praised.
I think the reason C4's branding has worked so well as they haven't become bogged down in having a standardised logo across all channels. Each channel has their own identity - with their own logo, all based around the number 4, but not around the C4 logo itself!
Back on topic - two main reasons I think. Firstly, it's down to marketing and branding companies now - rather than a small department (or individual) within the company itself - who would probably naturally come up with something simple and obvious - which works much better!
Secondly, multi-channel means it's not just one logo they have to consider.
ITV is a good example - most people agreed the new look ITV1 was pretty awful in January, but the rest of the package, especially ITV2 and ITV3, was widely praised.
I think the reason C4's branding has worked so well as they haven't become bogged down in having a standardised logo across all channels. Each channel has their own identity - with their own logo, all based around the number 4, but not around the C4 logo itself!