Sky's Branding

It would question the editorial policy of Sky News if they changed to a font which promoted them as a "...loved and respected source of entertainment"

No.

Does anyone have anymore information about this rebranding. Their current logo is their longest serving, over 10 years now, I find it hard to imagine the logo being any different now.

I hope they bring in the same guy who designed their current logo and typeface, Miles Newlyn.
http://newlyn.com/work/client/sky

Not that I have anything against Fontsmith, but they do seem to have quite the monopoly on UK Television Typefaces. BBC One, ITV, Channel 4, Sky1 etc...


Also what will channels like, Sky Real Lives, Sky 1 2 3, Sky Arts do as they use the company's logos in theirs, and if the typeface is being replaced, how will it affect Sky Sports, At The Races, and Sky Box Office which all use the branding typeface in their logos?

Have heard nuffink since that initial mention but am keeping a look out as I'm very intrigued.

[quote="mdtauk" pid="634316"]Does anyone have anymore information about this rebranding. Their current logo is their longest serving, over 10 years now, I find it hard to imagine the logo being any different now.
/quote]

Easily. Those of us who are long-standing Sky viewers remember it was not always so and between 1993 and 1998 the company changed logos not less than four times in five years! They changed idents even more frequently and had complete on-air rebrands in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, and again in 1998! Albeit that the 1996 idents were esssentially re-workings of the 1995 ones with different music. Sky in the 2000s has been a completely different animal and while idents have changed from time to time the main Sky logo has been the same since 2000 or so.

If Sky stuck with the same branding and idents for say, 8 years and just left things alone , people might start to like them. The brand seems too confused and unsure of itself because they keep messing things around all the damn time. How can they expect customers to have confidence in the brand.

However why keep a brand for 8 years if the audience and direction of the channel changes. America likes to stick to core brands much more so than Europe, which like to have more progressive branding which evolves over time.

You can argue that the content of a channel is more important to a consumer than the brand, especially with programmes shown individually on-line, and so its about showing the public the content you have first, and where to get it second, and some shows like Frasier, Scrubs, are shown on 3 or 4 different channels so how do you attract viewers then.

I think a 3-5 year cycle is healthy in some ways, especially with the change in technology and pace, just look at iPlayer, 2 years ago it didn't exist, so if we had an 8 year cycle, it wouldn't keep up with the times.


Sky have always focused on the content you get with sky, so its their brand, on images/video of the programmes, sports, movies etc, and a small channel identifiyer at the bottom. As the content shifts, the channel brands need to keep up, but the company brand hasn't had to. Now it has been over 10 years now since sky went all digital and brought in their current branding. Internet was just getting going, no video on demand or digital downloads etc, so the fact the brand is still fresh (following the glass refresh of 2004) is a testiment to the company, but in that time the channels have moved on time and time again.

Sky are now trying to reposition themselves away from a purely technical brand, satellite is now almost as prolific as Terrestrial and much more so than cable, so positioning yourself as the most technically advanced company isnt going to push the company forward. It is now moving to make itself as trusting and a softer reliable brand, as the BBC is viewed with public affection.

Maybe this softer approach will move into its channel brands, I don't think so. But the name sky has been enough to carry these other channels through, and if the channel brands adopt the new sky master brand, it should do it in sympathy with the channel's focus and audience, and not be thrust upon it in the ways prior to 1998. Sky 1, Sky Arts, etc appeal to different people, so why should their idents look the same?

I do see what you're saying.

It just seems that Sky has changed different aspects of its branding so many times in recent years. It's like they're saying 'sorry, the branding we introduced three years ago was crap - here's something better' and this happens every few years time and again. The message these constant changes give is very confusing.

If Sky are never happy with their own branding then it doesn't inspire consumer confidence in the brand. To be honest, the same is true of all broadcasters now. But I wouldn't say Sky is a mainstream broadcaster, so it would make sense for them to stick with the same branding, idents and marketing for 8 - 10 years so that people begin to perceive it as a stable and consistent brand.

You forget that the sky brand has been inplace since 1998, that is over 10 years. The individual channels have maintained the same names, so people can always relate to Sky One, or Sky News as brand names, it is the visual look of the channels which have changed a few times in those 10+ years.

Let us take Sky1 as an example. Sky 1 has had to put up with 4-5 different channel controllers which have tried to target different audiences, and to do they they have sometimes changed the content, but always has been the On-Air look.

This has not always been good for the audience, and is not best practice, but there is no fixed formula, and television has moved on a lot, so the 8 year cycle is not feisable, but Sky 1 as an example has had its own particular problems, but it does feel as if it has its position settled, and the current controller has continued on from his predecessor, but sorted the branding in terms of quality. I do think putting the platform brand at the heart of its new identity has helped, but as it stands it cannot be used in a "professional" format like with Sky Sports and Sky News.

Perhaps the new brand coming in very soon will allow for this much easier...


So basically I am saying - The core brand, which people mainly see has been consistent over the last 10+ years, in a fast changing world, and some of the channels have struggled to find a comfortable place, as well as the musical chairs we have had with channel controllers. And don't forget, Sky News has only had 2 logos since 2001 (3 if you count the update to the 2005 logo) and Sky Sports has been mainly consistent, so its not all been chaotic.

Those people who dislike Sky do so because of far more important reasons than their logo!

I doubt their viewers have noticed or even given it a second thought, to be honest I can't say I'd realised there was a difference until I read this thread.... and I'm still not entirely sure what it's all about

And to the majority of the public, Sky is Sky News and Sky Sport... they are the two most high profile channels

I'd Personally use something for Sky News, like msnbc in america:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpq_8D7IqqE&feature=related