UKTV Rebrand and new channel

You find the fact that some of them utilise the most basic geometric shape difficult to believe? 3 of the UKTV channels use it, the other 4 do not (the newest 2 are still works in progress - the final identity does change a bit as we've seen in the past). That's a tenuous link at best

In fact, so basic a graphical device it is that 2 of the biggest broadcasters in the country have put their logo in circles: Five and BBC1,




Except when you consider all the other channel that just use one word for a name - Five, Fiver, Bravo, Challenge, Living, History, Bio(graphy), Discovery, Kiss, Magic etc.

Again as a purposeful link between the channels it's a tenuous and unreliable one



Yes they have, the casual viewer won't make a connection between Watch and Eden as far as they're concerned they're two seperate channels. Not the situaton when everything was prefixed with 'UKTV'



If they're going to have a common trait they'd have made it more obvious than some of the channels using circles!



It's not contradictory at all - the single word and the circle link are tenuous and not unique to UKTV. The network, which has been so rigid in it's commonality over the past 12 years, is now a collection of totally separate brands.

UKTV are quite obviously moving away from a 'family' of channels in the audiences perception. Of course they are still a family of channels but only in terms of ownership only, but that's of no consequence to the audience - most of whom think they're Sky channels anyway!

There is a marginal advantage in being a network named 'TV COMPANY [insert channel name]' people are just as likely to think 'UKTV Documentary's crap so I won't bother with UKTV Gold' as they are to watch one because the other's to their liking, more so I'd think

Although it could just be that having different shapes moving round like that would look less athestically pleasing

Sorry, but that's not what I've been trying to explain - I find the fact that to put five of their logos within circles and it somehow not be a deliberate move toward a planned unification of logos difficult to believe. Think of the issue not being the choice of shape, but instead, its use in multiple logos to form what appears to be a complimentary set, despite other rebranded channels already not following this. Do you believe this to be the most sensible approach to branding?

I say that if you're going to rebrand five of the channels with complimentary logos, the logical next step is to make sure all the other channels have similar logos to form a coherent set with each channel in the network supporting the other. Why haven't they done this?



I am quite aware! One might say the circle is, compared to a few years back, more 'in fashion' now. It wouldn't surprise me if there were plans to encase these UKTV logos in circles across the board, which is a key part of what this discussion covers - to ascertain the intention.

On a side note, when I look back at Peter Fincham trying to sell BBC One's then-new Circle concept on Breakfast as a nod to the channel's heritage, I realise how insignificant that was. In the grand scheme of things, the design is no more relevant to BBC1 than any other channel.




I've already stated in this topic that I agree with that as I have done for years, so it is certainly not something I am contesting - but it is not relevant within the context of the broadcaster / agency intentions with which this point deals. The link - however tenuous you and I believe it to be - is there and is a constant. Not being a consistent aspect, and not being reliable as branding; those are not one and the same. I was stating the case that it was not the intention of Red Bee or UKTV to have completely unconnected channels, which ties in with the main issue of the circular logos.

What it really comes down to is this: it simply doesn't make sense for channels that are part of the same network to have a complimentary set of logos that is only 'half completed' before going in a completely different direction. It's very confused right now. But the inclusion of the circular bunch does suggest the intention at some point (past or future) of making a visual connection.

Maybe the coming months will shed more light on this, but right now having what is essentially two different logo concepts alongside each other is a real branding muddle.

Well it obviously was otherwise they'd have started off with a common, rigid theme like they did when UKTV launched in 1997. This is a long term, strategic relaunch such things aren't left to chance or changed half way through. UKTV have shown no intention to wanting to link the channels in terms of branding since the start of the process



You're right, to do that doesn't make sense. Hence it's probably just a bit of co-incidental lazy design!

Remember that the logos unveiled for the two newest channels are just roughs. The press logos when the others were announced were different to what ended up on screen




They've more than 2 logo concepts.... each channel has different branding and is based around it's own unique concept.

Why is having 8 or 9 different channels with totally different branding 'muddled'. Is Bravo/Challenge/Trouble/Living a 'branding muddle'? What about CNN/Cartoon Network/Boomerang/TCM... is that 'muddled'?

It's not clear enough now to say for sure on that, but perhaps 'no intention' of wanting to link them is a statement that is not reflected in the latest logos - if anything, they suggest the opposite. Based purely on what is now known to us at this point, I would say there has been intention to link the channels, but I know where you're coming from as this is where the confusion lies in (what I see as) this grey area - with the design choices sending out mixed messages here and we're both seeing it slightly differently.

If they haven't changed strategy at any point and this is in fact an unaltered representation of their original plan, then Red Bee were seemingly deeply flawed in their approach.

I would probably have been in general agreement with you on the 'linked or not?' issue, had the further two circular logos not come to light - but I can't help but put them side by side with the existing three within that similar bunch and draw a conclusion that it was a deliberate decision to produce the complimentary design. This decision would never have been made if they were dead-set on a completely disparate, unconnected set of designs.

I'm also not too dissuaded from this view by the presence of the logos on the UKTV homepage that have all been placed within circles. We can confidently state that two of the UKTV logos will give way to ones that will fit perfectly within these 'placeholders' - but as this is only online and not on-screen, I can understand that it's at present perfectly reasonable to discount that example. However, note that when channels like Eden are in downtime, they display some of the logos - this is taken straight from off-air:



I'm sure they could have put Blighty in a rectangle if they had wanted to - if anything, a rectangle is the proper shape for that logo; it's a flag. But it's placed within a circle, as is Yesterday. So you need to then understand why the decision was made. I believe they wanted them to fit together. This is not something I'd expect in a strategy to keep the logos entirely unconnected and unique.

Whichever way you look at it, there are aspects here that don't make sense - for me, perhaps worryingly so. Well-defined ideas with a clear direction across the board makes for good branding. I'm not quite seeing that.

If you're of the view that it was always the intention for the channels to be completely separate, then they've either a) created five complimentary logos without this connection crossing their mind even once, or b) consciously made the decision knowing full well they are visually linked ("we want these channels to be un-linked, but we've created five logos that look like they belong together"). Where's the logic in that?

Conversely, if you're of the view that it was always the intention to link the channels together, the five circular logos make sense, and this particular visual approach is reinforced in the online branding of the channels shown collectively - but this becomes obscured by the presence of the disparate branding sported by some of the other rebranded channels, leaving their stance uncertain and again, seeming illogical.

So, if it's indeed laziness on Red Bee's part, then isn't that slightly worrying, coming from the agency that was previously commissioned to rebrand virtually all major BBC and ITV television channels? They are meant to be one of the top agencies in the field. Questions must be asked of their method in this case, if nothing else.


I remember it well, although I doubt any change will be particularly severe - things such as the basic shape will probably remain, even if we see (for example) changes to the typefaces.


Yes sir! Much more than 2 concepts - you'll have to put that one down to a brief lapse in vocabulary!

So, let's clarify that - replace 'concepts' with 'camps'. Define the two 'camps' as being the complimentary circular logos on one side, and the collectively disparate logos - as you say, the unique concepts - on the other.

Regarding the debate on the intentions - 'to link or not to link?' - this is probably a point that can be contested until the cows come home - so while I'm tempted to 'agree to disagree' on that, it's also good that we've generally agreed on the other points.

All that aside, my general feeling about this is: Red Bee, what are you doing!?

you can hardly blame the agency for the rebranding.

i sense a change of heart from the uktv camp...

No, the designers design according to the briefs and wishes of the client, and they'll keep designing and redesigning until the client's happy or the client goes elsewhere!

I don't know about a change of heart - the channels are still being re-formatted and renamed as they were when they started the process

there's rumblings that having set out to make each channel unique they're now wondering what makes them a cohesive set...

rumblings from where?

The only rumblings I've heard have been on this thread, and they are based on assumptions.

when you work in the industry, it's really quite a small place.

I do and it is!