JO
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.
The point is Chie (if that is your real name
), Sky has a very harsh reputation and isn't generally liked the British public, it's seen by many as big business at it's worst or the guys who stole the football. So using a capitalised logos isn't going to help this image.
The BBC argument doesn't stand up as the BBC brand alone just links the services together it isn't used as sole tool to sell a product, the Sky corporate logo is. Anyway the letters B, B and C are quite friendly and cuddely unlike the letters S, K and Y.
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.
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.
The point is Chie (if that is your real name
), Sky has a very harsh reputation and isn't generally liked the British public, it's seen by many as big business at it's worst or the guys who stole the football. So using a capitalised logos isn't going to help this image.
The BBC argument doesn't stand up as the BBC brand alone just links the services together it isn't used as sole tool to sell a product, the Sky corporate logo is. Anyway the letters B, B and C are quite friendly and cuddely unlike the letters S, K and Y.