UKTV Rebrand and new channel

I'm not aware of anyone who regularly uses '+1' channels to watch the same thing again, although perhaps you do from what who have said above.

They are intended as a time-shift for those who were unable to watch the original parent channel broadcast.


The concept of a play on on words really just went right past you didn't it!

Yet another tumble tower-ish post by Chie there.

I am amused at how 'Really' has been described as being "zeitgeisty" - does this mean after a couple of years or less the branding will suddenly become passe?

Another thing that has puzzled me...

Home, Really, Alibi, GOLD, Eden: their logos all feature the channel name inside a circle.

Yet; Yesterday, Dave and Watch don't follow this.

They've clearly given these channels single-word names, to try and make them all appear as a family - and yet made roughly half the channel's logos completely different to this consistent other half.

Either make the entire family of logos have a common visual style, or make them all disparate and unique. It surprises me how they (Red Bee) have decided to flip-flop between the two in this way, as if they can't make their own minds up.

In terms of their work generally they do seem to move between sensible and poor ideas - the half-muddled state of the rebranded UKTV channels, in a way, seems to reflect this.

I think you're reading too much into it. The fact that some of the channels have a logo that fits into a geometric shape is no big deal and certainly not a linking device between them.

The channels have different names and styles because UKTV have realised that they don't all have to be named 'UKTV <insert genre>' they obviously don't want them to be an obvious family any more... and there's no reason that they should be

Normally I'm able to understand the disagreeing poster's POV, but I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from with this one.


Putting the issue into perspective, I would say you have overlooked or downplayed the facts here. 'Geometric shape' could account for any manner of square or triangle and so forth. That is not the case here - it's not even remotely that broad. All five logos mentioned place the names inside circles, fact.

And then we come to this: if the circle was not intended to be a linking device, it, then, has no functional purpose - and so you imply it was mere coincidence that they chose a circle five times respectively for five logos. I must confess, I do find such a coincidence difficult to believe!


True, the rebranded channel names collectively are not linked by an exact matching word anymore, but I have already stated they are linked, by use of a single word for each logo. Thus, in being linked this way, it becomes apparent this was to make them collectively share a common trait - in essence, being a family. When it comes to cross-promotion, you cannot deny it has its advantages.

You say they 'obviously' don't want them to be an 'obvious' family anymore - but if that was case, surely they would not have bothered with the single-word connection, made them entirely disparate in name and logo traits and thus severed the 'family' ties altogether? But they have not done that.

To take the single-word name approach with a view to it 'not being an obvious family' renders the whole idea pointless, does it not? The whole point of a channel family is to have a clear and consistent trait(s) across the board, otherwise they cease to be a family.

So your statement, and the idea itself of an un-obvious family, is rather contradictory. If it genuinely wasn't to be obvious, the idea would then have to be far more disparate across channels - subsequently, people wouldn't make the connection because it wouldn't be obvious enough , and to add to that, cross-promotion wouldn't be complimentary. I don't know about you, but comparatively I cannot see the merit in any of that - and thus, I don't think that's what UKTV were aiming for at all!

The key thing is, though, would Joe Public realise that Watch, Dave and Eden are part of the same family of channels if there weren't any cross-channel promotions?

I'm not sure they would.

And the use of the single word names in your argument is tenuous to say the least - does that mean that Discovery and Magic are part of the same family too, as they use just one word for their names? I think they might have chosen one word names because they are snappier and easier to remember than the likes of UKTV G2 etc

can I ask what does dave stand for

Don't Ask Vaniloquent Enquiries

I'm rather glad you raised this, as it does allow me to make a distinction on exactly what I was getting at within the context of the original circular logos debate! Both your points I absolutely agree with - I'm sure I myself originally responded to the very first news of the single-name rebrand with the same criticisms, citing the many other unconnected channels also using single words.

So if anyone assumed I was actually sticking up for the naming conventions of the new UKTV, I am in fact rather unkeen on them - but that is purely a case of personal taste, irrelevant to the point of debate which I'm referring to.

And this is a key point; when I talk about the UKTV channels being a family (connected, however weakly in branding strategy terms, by single words) I am not so much talking about Joe Public's perception, because that's subjective - I am instead focusing on UKTV and / or Red Bee's own position on whether the channels are a family - this is the only position we can really take as official.

In this respect, I believe they are a family; and putting personal views aside, I am certain that the naming convention is a reflection of this, as othewise this decision would've been effectively for no gain; it's a logical indicator that their intention was (and is) to keep them connected with one consistent attribute (or more, which I'll come on to). It is the values defined by the agency in collaboration with the broadcaster that are definitive.

This of course all comes back to my original point (and what I should stress was my main point from the start) - we now have five of the logos in this new family that are all encased in circles, while the rest are not - this is strange, as it clearly suggests intentions for logos that visually compliment each other (to reinforce the family - another shared attribute), yet leaves a completely separate camp of logos which don't follow any same style.

So the main issue is figuring out why the comparatively 'matching' circular logos of GOLD, Home, Really etc, are being placed alongside the unrelated designs of Watch, Dave or Yesterday. That is what I'd really like help with here. It seems incredibly nonsensical, as if they were in two minds (or more) on the aesthetics and somehow ended up trying to juggle all of it, instead of plumping for the one idea.

Hope that clears things up!

So the unusual naming of the channels still kind of links them together in a way? ( )

It seems to me the circles might have been an afterthought to try, as you say, to link the channels visually. You can see this on their website - http://uktv.co.uk/ - which attempts to shoehorn all of the channels' logos into a circle (more successfully with Dave, Blighty and Yesterday than with Watch).

Until Eden launched I believe the site left the Dave logo as it is on-screen, circle-less.

Perhaps part-way through the branding process it was decided that circles might be a good way of giving the channels' branding a loose consistency, by which point most had already been designed? Gold and Alibi might have just happened to be circular already. Maybe the plan is to gradually refresh each circle-less channel with their circular counterpart? I guess we'll see when they announce the new name and logo for UKTV Food. If it's not circular, then, well...I'm stumped!

I think that would work well as an on screen 'what's on now across the UKTV network'. They should extend Watch's eyeball to fill the whole circle and place 'Watch' underneath the iris.