JO
It's noticeable, to me anyway, that you hardly ever or never see such inconsistency on ITV, Sky, Channel 4 or any other UK broadcaster.
It's true that smaller broadcasters are not likely to have many departments creating such graphics in the first place which is clearly the cause of the mistakes, but on the other hand an organisation like ITV is approaching the same size and yet has a nice, clear, consistent system which works.
I don't think the issue is just that various departments contribute to making on-screen presentation (e.g. BBC One, BBC News, BBC Sport, BBC nations/regions etc.), though as I say that's a big part of it. I think it's also that the branding system itself is poor. Across the BBC, every department has its own look and feel, and they're all very different. Thinking about a typical junction on BBC One you might get trailers for BBC Sounds, BBC Sport, BBC One, BBC Two, BBC iPlayer and BBC Four (say), and all of them have very different logos, typography, colours, layouts and so on. There's just no consistency, save the BBC logo itself.
Don't get me wrong – I love lots of the individual identities. The stuff done by Mother for BBC Radio 1 and BBC Sounds is gorgeous, in my view. The BBC Sport stuff is brilliant. I love BBC Two. I still really like the trailer designs for BBC One. But there's no 'BBC look'.
It's often quoted on here, but Lambie-Nairn was onto something when they criticised the 90s BBC for having a different logo for every department and section, and no consistency. It happens all over the place, but when every team wants their own identity to stand out you end up with a great big mess. The problem is when nobody steps in to say 'no, you need to stick with the corporate look'. Ultimately, I really believe that when the whole organisation falls into line, the customer (the viewers) benefits hugely, and so does the BBC. I happen to think that the ITV brand is beautiful and strong, and that's partly because it's uniform. If that 'BBC identity' is front and centre, the customer is left in no doubt that the BBC is valuable, and begins to associate the whole range of products with something they really appreciate. And actually, its arguable that the desire to start selling bits off ('let's sell off Radio 1/BBC Three' you sometimes hear) would be less strong when they're viewed as part of a whole.
It's quite possible to be consistent and have strong sub-brands. Look at ITV, look at Sky… look at Under Consideration's Brand New for plenty of examples of sub-branding.
Possibly a lot to extrapolate from a simple error in generating a wrong trailer design, but it got me thinking: really it comes down to a poor brand identity and nobody holding the reins from on high. As I say, it's also because somebody didn't think to nail that particular instance and match it to what exists, but I think that's part of my previous point about nobody really managing all this stuff.
It's true that smaller broadcasters are not likely to have many departments creating such graphics in the first place which is clearly the cause of the mistakes, but on the other hand an organisation like ITV is approaching the same size and yet has a nice, clear, consistent system which works.
I don't think the issue is just that various departments contribute to making on-screen presentation (e.g. BBC One, BBC News, BBC Sport, BBC nations/regions etc.), though as I say that's a big part of it. I think it's also that the branding system itself is poor. Across the BBC, every department has its own look and feel, and they're all very different. Thinking about a typical junction on BBC One you might get trailers for BBC Sounds, BBC Sport, BBC One, BBC Two, BBC iPlayer and BBC Four (say), and all of them have very different logos, typography, colours, layouts and so on. There's just no consistency, save the BBC logo itself.
Don't get me wrong – I love lots of the individual identities. The stuff done by Mother for BBC Radio 1 and BBC Sounds is gorgeous, in my view. The BBC Sport stuff is brilliant. I love BBC Two. I still really like the trailer designs for BBC One. But there's no 'BBC look'.
It's often quoted on here, but Lambie-Nairn was onto something when they criticised the 90s BBC for having a different logo for every department and section, and no consistency. It happens all over the place, but when every team wants their own identity to stand out you end up with a great big mess. The problem is when nobody steps in to say 'no, you need to stick with the corporate look'. Ultimately, I really believe that when the whole organisation falls into line, the customer (the viewers) benefits hugely, and so does the BBC. I happen to think that the ITV brand is beautiful and strong, and that's partly because it's uniform. If that 'BBC identity' is front and centre, the customer is left in no doubt that the BBC is valuable, and begins to associate the whole range of products with something they really appreciate. And actually, its arguable that the desire to start selling bits off ('let's sell off Radio 1/BBC Three' you sometimes hear) would be less strong when they're viewed as part of a whole.
It's quite possible to be consistent and have strong sub-brands. Look at ITV, look at Sky… look at Under Consideration's Brand New for plenty of examples of sub-branding.
Possibly a lot to extrapolate from a simple error in generating a wrong trailer design, but it got me thinking: really it comes down to a poor brand identity and nobody holding the reins from on high. As I say, it's also because somebody didn't think to nail that particular instance and match it to what exists, but I think that's part of my previous point about nobody really managing all this stuff.
