Kunst post_id=38300 time= user_id=1292 Wrote:As some other people, I think the BBC iPlayer brand is quite dated, especially the "I" part, of course.
I don't know how to change, but something that could focus more on BBC would be nicer.
Overall, in the current world where OTT is the norm, I find all that "iPlayer" thing unnecessary.
Traditions change, not necessarily everything successful has to stay the same, it'll take time for people to memorize the new name, but in the end, it pays off.
I think All 4 is better than 4OD, anyway. "OD" is more restrictive, as iPlayer is
I also don't like the pink theme of iPlayer at all, especially since it's also used by Three.
Would dropping the "i" in the name help?
Probably removing the useless I would help, but then "BBC Player", as an identity, would be "longer" than "iPlayer".
I can't imagine too many people calling it BBC Player in "normal" conservations.
But, just like ITV, C4 and C5 did, the emphasis would start being on the main brand then on "ITV Hub, All 4, My5", which are "sub-brands", at most.
So, let's watch it on the BBC app/websit, and things like that , would become more frequent, which is what will inevitably HAPPEN.
There's no easy way out, but the way I see it, it's just a matter of when.. iPlayer, while being of course successful as a brand, again, wouldn't work too much as a detached identity from the main "BBC" one in the streaming era.
Another "problem" is that, probably, BBC doesn't want to freely (too much) discriminate between linear users and OTT users (while commercial operations can freely work it around), so iPlayer works as a compromise "non-discriminatory" brand, until its death.
Therefore, the way I see it, BBC iPlayer is just a compromise, like Oneness!
And ITV Hub, All 4, My5 are all more "modern" and readier for the future brands than BBC iPlayer (because of them being shorter and associated with the channel) especially once you add the "BBC" to it
Unsurprising since they're all newer, having originally been called ITV Player, 4 On Demand (4OD), and Demand 5.
JAS84 post_id=38328 time= user_id=881 Wrote:Unsurprising since they're all newer, having originally been called ITV Player, 4 On Demand (4OD), and Demand 5.
Add to that that it's not just a matter of age, it's also a matter of prestige.
Everything the BBC does is very influential, much more than the commercial broadcasters.
Everything the BBC does is also under scrutiny, especially in economic terms. So, they feel probably OK with keeping the successful iPlayer compromise (successful, but still a compromise!) they have created, because anything else would be somehow seen as a waste of money.
I mean, the WHOLE world is based on compromises, it's highly imperfect (sorry for this "philosophical" way of thinking
)
For me, the main things wrong about iPlayer (at least from a foreigner's point of view, who's not accustomed to the use of "iPlayer" in normal conversation) is that not only it sounds like an Apple product, at least in 2021, but also that "I" strongly refers to the Internet, and, although fossilized it's become, it's not OK for what should be their bread-and-butter, in 2021
Sure, iplayer is an ancronistic name but so is Netflix now and I can't see that being renamed anytime soon.
Blobs post_id=38332 time= user_id=758 Wrote:Sure, iplayer is an ancronistic name but so is Netflix now and I can't see that being renamed anytime soon.
But Netflix is not backed by any other "company", it's pretty much its own thing
.
BBC iPlayer isn't, it's just your current way of watching the BBC content on non-linear devices, these days
.
It'll only makes sense to maintain mentions of it or any other sub-brand, until streaming won't become the norm (even before the death of linear TV, which I hope won't happen too soon), and we're somehow getting there.
I don't see strong comparisons with products such as Amazon's Kindle, which someone has mentioned (not here).
Oh wait, you probably mean that "Netflix" is "internet flicks",. yes
Although you might argue that an Internet connection is needed anyway, whether you watch it on TV or on a smartphone.
But that sounds better as a fossilized term than iPlayer to be honest
It just sounds an unnecessary use of a "I"
Think there are similarities between BBC iPlayer and BBC News 24, in that both are/were most commonly referred to without the BBC. You could almost imagine “iPlayer” being a more valued and respected brand than “BBC” with some age groups.
I think they’d be mad to drop iPlayer as a name, but I almost feel there’s an inevitability to it too.
all new Phil post_id=38339 time= user_id=865 Wrote:Think there are similarities between BBC iPlayer and BBC News 24, in that both are/were most commonly referred to without the BBC. You could almost imagine “iPlayer” being a more valued and respected brand than “BBC” with some age groups.
I think they’d be mad to drop iPlayer as a name, but I almost feel there’s an inevitability to it too.
People, especially English speakers (fewer and more chopped syllables due to historical developents) often naturally try to abbreviate terms, it's part of our nature, not to be blamed.
Even by "informal" British media announcers (definitely more informal than let's say, the French media, where things are repeated ad nauseam!), "natural" usages sometimes win over more complicate one, rather than the opposite, like seen with ITV, a welcome development too IMO.
BBC One might be probably referred by some people as "BBC", and maybe "BBC Two" as "two".
Definitely iPlayer has built its identity (as I mentioned before), but yes, inevitably, they'll inevitably get rid of it, although of course people will keep referring it as such for some time.
And since it's the BBC, and not iPlayer corporation, BBC might rightly want to keep the association alive also within the "yoof" community
Moving away from this iPlayer name debate, I’m interested to know how long this rebrand has been in the making.
On the one hand, it would make sense that in the advent of Reith it’s been the desire to move the blocks to that font, perhaps in a major rebrand.
But if that were the case, why did News, Sport and other services get “Reithed” ahead of such a rebrand, the former not more than two years ago? All the while, the BBC News website keeps Gill on its header.
Maybe I’m looking for a coherent answer and there isn’t one - perhaps it’s all just a bit of a mishmash of designs that someone’s finally taking the reins of to bring into some coherent branding exercise.
But if anyone in the know has any insight into how this came about and when I would be interested to hear.
It also strikes me as bad planning that they’ve only recently given BBC Local Radio, sorry, Local BBC Radio stations new logos and branding in Reith with the Gill Sans logo.
Well, those will probably stay the same, just with the blocks updated.
JAS84 post_id=38365 time= user_id=881 Wrote:Well, those will probably stay the same, just with the blocks updated.
With the additional cost of having branding, stationery, signage, etc. replaced again.