TV Home Forum

The state of TV fonts

RD
Roger Darthwell London London
a new font that had no reason to exist whatsoever

Except to supposedly save the BBC money.

And you really believe them? I stopped believing that a long time ago, and if you want I can explain you why
JO
Joe

It’s an odd position to take over a typeface.
Brekkie, dbl and Roger Darthwell gave kudos
RD
Roger Darthwell London London
Joe posted:

It’s an odd position to take over a typeface.

It's not only about a typeface mate
SE
TheSebastian
a new font that had no reason to exist whatsoever

Except to supposedly save the BBC money.

And you really believe them? I stopped believing that a long time ago, and if you want I can explain you why


Please do explain

Fonts are creative intellectual property that need to be licenced for use in other creative intellectual property. This costs money unless you use a font with an open source licence.

Just because it comes free on a device used for creating something doesn't mean its free to use on everything or free to copy to another device for creating a new piece of work.

In simple terms, you can use one device to make a page (a single creative work) to be printed millions of times in a magazine. If you make a webpage you aren't making a single creative work, just the instructions for a device to make a page - each one creating its own individual creative work from the instructions.

I'm not an automatic defender of the BBC, but on this project I've seen a careful staged rollout with visuals getting updated rather than a wasteful 'big bang' day. Does the font have flaws? Yes. Do they invalidate the whole project? No.

Cost of font use aren't something the BBC has made up like it has some of its bizarre internal markets in the past. All works of visual and audio creativity have intellectual property rights and the owners can legitimately charge for use. It's the foundation of creative industries.
AndrewPSSP, AlfieMulcahy and Steve in Pudsey gave kudos
RD
Roger Darthwell London London
Except to supposedly save the BBC money.

And you really believe them? I stopped believing that a long time ago, and if you want I can explain you why


Please do explain

Fonts are creative intellectual property that need to be licenced for use in other creative intellectual property. This costs money unless you use a font with an open source licence.

Just because it comes free on a device used for creating something doesn't mean its free to use on everything or free to copy to another device for creating a new piece of work.

In simple terms, you can use one device to make a page (a single creative work) to be printed millions of times in a magazine. If you make a webpage you aren't making a single creative work, just the instructions for a device to make a page - each one creating its own individual creative work from the instructions.

I'm not an automatic defender of the BBC, but on this project I've seen a careful staged rollout with visuals getting updated rather than a wasteful 'big bang' day. Does the font have flaws? Yes. Do they invalidate the whole project? No.

Cost of font use aren't something the BBC has made up like it has some of its bizarre internal markets in the past. All works of visual and audio creativity have intellectual property rights and the owners can legitimately charge for use. It's the foundation of creative industries.

You wanted an explanation, I am giving it to you. The thing is I have a serious trust issue with the BBC, and I am acutely aware with what I am going to say I will probably be accused of being repetitive but I don't care. So this new font was introduced with the excuse to ''save money'' and do you know what the BBC also did 4 years ago using the same excuse? Closing BBC3's TV channel!, but only in 2019 the BBC announced the launch of this BBC Scotland channel with a £32million budget, and I thought to myself...hold on a minute, didn't the BBC explained that BBC3 was closed in order to save £30million due to ''budget cuts'', and I became really angry, because I realized that they lied, they shamelessly lied. So this is more of a trust issue for me, I always think that the BBC shamelessly lied about the closure of BBC3...using the excuse of ''saving money'' and now they want to use the exact same excuse for the introduction of this new font? I don't believe them...and this saddens me. But this is not the end of the story, you see 2 years ago when this font was introduced.....a guy on Twitter which I knew, wrote that a friend of his who works at the BBC revealed to him that in reality the BBC had absolutely no problems to maintain Gill Sans as it's typeface! Thus proving to me that they lied as well on this one, what happened later is that this guy on Twitter later deleted that revelation saying that, just as TheSebastian wrote, that the BBC might have paid for the use of Gill Sans, so I confronted him by asking him if his friend had actually lied to him when he said that the Beeb had no issues in maintaining Gill Sans as their typeface....he replied to me by saying ''Not necessarily''. So I have explained everything now...and I know I am going to be attacked to be this, I will get accused of being repetitive, but I had to get all of this off my chest. My apologies if someone will be offended in any way, and I want to stress this, you guys like the new reith font? That's fine by me, Thank you PS sorry for the long post
KK
KolonelKlink London London
But this is not the end of the story, you see 2 years ago when this font was introduced.....a guy on Twitter which I knew, wrote that a friend of his who works at the BBC revealed to him that in reality the BBC had absolutely no problems to maintain Gill Sans as it's typeface! Thus proving to me that they lied


Ah well, case closed Rolling Eyes
SE
TheSebastian
Let's agree to just deal with the issue of fonts rather the the rest. It's perfectly possible for everything you believe about the wider BBC to be true (I have no comment) but to be wrong on the font issue.

Gill Sans is still the BBC logo font. Elsewhere it's use has been variable, news didn't use it widely until 1999 rebrand then stopped several times; channels and shows even more intermittent. Its a font that doesn't work well on small screens, and has limited usable variations in the family.

Channels and brands used a wide variety of commercial fonts - that were needed creatively both for style and usability.

The BBC took a decision to commission a font. Thats not unusual for a large organisation, let alone a multi billion pound one.

Fulll font families cost money. That's undisputed and very simple fact. That's not a BBC claim, it's a real world reality..

Now, without knowing the full cost I can't say when the BBC would start saving compared to commercial font use, but whether its 3 years or 8 years there is no doubt that it will. Again, not a BBC claim but a real world reality
RD
Roger Darthwell London London
Let's agree to just deal with the issue of fonts rather the the rest. It's perfectly possible for everything you believe about the wider BBC to be true (I have no comment) but to be wrong on the font issue.

Gill Sans is still the BBC logo font. Elsewhere it's use has been variable, news didn't use it widely until 1999 rebrand then stopped several times; channels and shows even more intermittent. Its a font that doesn't work well on small screens, and has limited usable variations in the family.

Channels and brands used a wide variety of commercial fonts - that were needed creatively both for style and usability.

The BBC took a decision to commission a font. Thats not unusual for a large organisation, let alone a multi billion pound one.

Fulll font families cost money. That's undisputed and very simple fact. That's not a BBC claim, it's a real world reality..

Now, without knowing the full cost I can't say when the BBC would start saving compared to commercial font use, but whether its 3 years or 8 years there is no doubt that it will. Again, not a BBC claim but a real world reality

Thank you very much for what you wrote
RD
Roger Darthwell London London
But this is not the end of the story, you see 2 years ago when this font was introduced.....a guy on Twitter which I knew, wrote that a friend of his who works at the BBC revealed to him that in reality the BBC had absolutely no problems to maintain Gill Sans as it's typeface! Thus proving to me that they lied


Ah well, case closed Rolling Eyes

What do you mean with this?
DO
dosxuk Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
The BBC wasted time and money on this new font, while instead they could have used Gill Sans Nova, which is the perfect evolution of Gill Sans, also I don't understand their reasoning of keeping the BBC blocks in Gill Sans, even after that reith font is introduced, but I do respect your point of view


You realise they would have to pay a significant sum of money to licence the use of Gill Sans Nova, on a recurring basis.

There are no licence fees associated with a logo that you own the IP to, so there is no cost to the BBC to carry on using the Gill based blocks. Many companies have logos containing letter shapes from a different font to that they use for writing.

The BBC have calculated that it will save money over time to own the rights to their own font vs licencing them commercially. You may consider that money saving a waste of time and effort but apparently their financial controllers disagree with your expert option.
RD
Roger Darthwell London London
The BBC wasted time and money on this new font, while instead they could have used Gill Sans Nova, which is the perfect evolution of Gill Sans, also I don't understand their reasoning of keeping the BBC blocks in Gill Sans, even after that reith font is introduced, but I do respect your point of view


You realise they would have to pay a significant sum of money to licence the use of Gill Sans Nova, on a recurring basis.

There are no licence fees associated with a logo that you own the IP to, so there is no cost to the BBC to carry on using the Gill based blocks. Many companies have logos containing letter shapes from a different font to that they use for writing.

The BBC have calculated that it will save money over time to own the rights to their own font vs licencing them commercially. You may consider that money saving a waste of time and effort but apparently their financial controllers disagree with your expert option.

In this case please tell me how much money did the BBC paid for the use of Gill Sans in all the years it has been used? If font royalties was the problem then in this case they should have ditched that font years ago already, right? and I have never considered money saving a waste of time and effort, because what the BBC are doing right now is anything but saving money. Still, it's not an issue for me that you like the reith font, everyone is entitled to it's own opinion, I am just stating the obvious
MD
mdtauk London London

I found it funny that Martin referred to Chadwick as "sober" Very Happy

...I know, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I just found it funny

I tried to pick wording which was objective and without opinion. Sober fit the bill imo.
AlfieMulcahy and Roger Darthwell gave kudos

Newer posts