TV Live Forum

It's an odd move when the branding is all over the place anyway. When those original BBC Anything guidelines were first followed, everything looked really clear, there was a real definition about the parent brand. It's a shame we lost that over time.

James Martin post_id=26060 time= user_id=872 Wrote:It's an odd move when the branding is all over the place anyway. When those original BBC Anything guidelines were first followed, everything looked really clear, there was a real definition about the parent brand. It's a shame we lost that over time.

That could work well in this day and age cuz of the minimalism trend ( although maybe that `s on its way out )

brioalex post_id=25990 time= user_id=1062 Wrote:To be fair, I actually really quite like the motion that goes with the new logo. If this translates through to the channel branding then I don't think it's too offensive at all.

It looks very BBC Three.

paul_hadley post_id=26066 time= user_id=905 Wrote:

brioalex post_id=25990 time= user_id=1062 Wrote:To be fair, I actually really quite like the motion that goes with the new logo. If this translates through to the channel branding then I don't think it's too offensive at all.

It looks very BBC Three.

Giving me war flashbacks to the controversy over the 2016 “ II! “ logo

brioalex post_id=26001 time=1625510712 user_id=1062 Wrote:I created a quick mockup with the new blocks against some concept channel branding I did last year and yep it's certainly going to take some getting used to compared to the 1997 BBC blocks but they do at least work.



As controversial as it might be BBC Studios won a D&AD award last year for its BBC Select branding. So it looks like this is definitely sticking around... https://www.dandad.org/awards/profession...bc-select/

It would be appreciated if we could refrain from posting mocks in this thread please. Don't want things like this turning up on Google and have people think they're the real thing...

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26067 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:Giving me war flashbacks to the controversy over the 2016 “ II! “ logo

What controversy?

Rob post_id=26097 time= user_id=2 Wrote:

brioalex post_id=26001 time=1625510712 user_id=1062 Wrote:I created a quick mockup with the new blocks against some concept channel branding I did last year and yep it's certainly going to take some getting used to compared to the 1997 BBC blocks but they do at least work.



As controversial as it might be BBC Studios won a D&AD award last year for its BBC Select branding. So it looks like this is definitely sticking around... https://www.dandad.org/awards/profession...bc-select/

It would be appreciated if we could refrain from posting mocks in this thread please. Don't want things like this turning up on Google and have people think they're the real thing...

I’ll take that as a compliment No worries Rob, won’t happen again.

Honestly, when I first saw the logo on BBC Select, I thought it looked afoul, but that might of just been because of the color scheme. My one complaint now is that the text is way too small and leaves a lot of space. Besides that though, I think this is a decent logo.

Rob post_id=26098 time= user_id=2 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26067 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:Giving me war flashbacks to the controversy over the 2016 “ II! “ logo

What controversy?

Logo was VERY badly-recieved ?

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26105 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:

Rob post_id=26098 time= user_id=2 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26067 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:Giving me war flashbacks to the controversy over the 2016 “ II! “ logo

What controversy?

Logo was VERY badly-recieved ?

In addition, lots of jokes were made about it - "Roman numeral Two!" for example

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26105 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:

Rob post_id=26098 time= user_id=2 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26067 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:Giving me war flashbacks to the controversy over the 2016 “ II! “ logo

What controversy?

Logo was VERY badly-recieved ?

I wouldn't have called it a controversy.

Rob post_id=26108 time= user_id=2 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26105 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:

Rob post_id=26098 time= user_id=2 Wrote:What controversy?

Logo was VERY badly-recieved ?

I wouldn't have called it a controversy.

That was exaggerating

Lyric W. post_id=26106 time= user_id=921 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26105 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:

Rob post_id=26098 time= user_id=2 Wrote:What controversy?

Logo was VERY badly-recieved ?

In addition, lots of jokes were made about it - "Roman numeral Two!" for example

Jokes which the BBC, wanting to be "hip" and "with it," then proceeded to join in on, using a clip which... you know, it looks very familiar. Kinda like it's shown up earlier in this thread.

https://youtu.be/2svzkviLark

But of course, the BBC Three logo proved it was more than just a punchline and has stayed with the channel to this day, even as they plan a move back to broadcast.
Hopefully, the new logo for the corporation will also manage to do much the same. Personally, I feel as if the blocks having a bit more room to breathe isn't that bad of an idea. The only real gripe I have now is one which has been echoed up and down these pages - Make the letters bigger. I think that'd help it be a little more confident in a way.

The new BBC logo will not work well with the current sports package.







The letters in the logo are two thirds of the size they are now and will disappear into nothingness if not enlarged substantially.

Even with the current logo package, it doesn't really look like the master logo has been prioritised.

johnnyboy post_id=26117 time=1625558408 user_id=925 Wrote:The new BBC logo will not work well with the current sports package.







The letters in the logo are two thirds of the size they are now and will disappear into nothingness if not enlarged substantially.

Even with the current logo package, it doesn't really look like the master logo has been prioritised.

I am going to assume the whole box type package is going to be scrapped across the board in favour of something else, hopefully!

It is very old