Sky's Branding

This new logo is so similar to the existing one for the difference to be almost un-noticable. I really don't get what you are on about. Am I missing something, or are you just insane?

The ad never did use the new logo, that isnt apparently going to be made public until the pre-christmas advertising...

So that isn't the new logo then... even though it is slightly different?

The website uses the new logo, the advert on TV does not...

If you think the change to the logo is so insignificant then what was the point in changing it? Do you think they just woke up one morning and thought 'oh let's tweak the logo a bit'? Of course there's a reason behind it.

Chie, what on earth makes you qualified on how Sky's target customer base will perceive their branding? What makes you qualified? What research have you done? Or are you just trying to cling onto 1994?

What a stupid thing to say.

What qualifies *anyone* on here to say anything about branding and presentation?

Professional Experience, Learning Knowledge, Personal Opinions.

You said your piece as if it were fact, of course I assumed it was mearly your opinion, as you had no qualifiers to state it as fact.

I didn't say there wasn't a reason behind it, I just said that it was so small to be of relevance

They don't need a reason, any change is just part of the evolution of the logo they've had for over 20 years. In fact it might just be just a quirk of the graphic designer involved

Except they have stated a specific goal and reasoning for this change in logo. They want to portray a warmer and more trusting image - they want to be as trusted as the BBC.

There are a couple of points to consider...

- Does the new logo fullfill the brief?
- Are Sky right to be shifting their image/market/brand to this new goal?
- In your opinion, is the brand well thought out?


The first point can be answered with impirical evidence, and opinion. The second is all down to opinion, which could include business and branding knowledge. The third we cant answer yet, because the new branding hasn't come into force yet.

In my opinion it is a fact.



Well that's a bit silly. It's quite clear we're talking about corporate logos here - not channel logos.

I'd like to know if the members of the public who take part in market research and narrow focus groups are appropriately 'qualified' to criticise branding and presentation - either positively or negatively - and if they aren't, then why on earth do broadcasters rely on them to determine their branding strategies? (Rhetorical question.)

It's also worth noting that somebody who was 'qualified' (in what?) decided it would be a really good idea to screw up BBC Two's on-screen identity, produce the current ITV1 idents that most people on here seem to think are crap, ruin Watchdog and "sensationalise" ITV News. But hey, their decisions were based on market research, so they can just absolve themselves of any responsibility. It's what the public (who largely don't know what they're talking about because they're not 'qualified', remember) wanted!

If the way I've worded this makes it sound like I'm talking out of my posterior then I do apologise, I'm recovering from man flu, but I definitely believe in my points.