JAS84 post_id=51420 time= user_id=881 Wrote:BBC Studios logo at the end was updated as well. If DW can do it, why can't other shows? Especially the live ones.

NancerOnTheLIVEForum post_id=51427 time= user_id=1794 Wrote:

JAS84 post_id=51420 time= user_id=881 Wrote:BBC Studios logo at the end was updated as well. If DW can do it, why can't other shows? Especially the live ones.

I think it's because Doctor Who is one of their most popular shows

Josh post_id=51416 time= user_id=955 Wrote:Must be the first show to use the new logo as of yet:

GraphicsMan post_id=51393 time=1635694891 user_id=1031 Wrote:There's also another factor, which is that for the commercial sector most people don't really care about such things as the budgets for such things come out of the company profits. And nobody thinks in one sense about how commercial television is funded and where their money is coming from.

However, the BBC has to justify every penny of its spending due to being funded by the licence fee. So that immediately puts the BBC at a disadvantage. Do a huge splash and get accused of wasting funds. Do a slow roll out and also get accused of wasting funds.

Whilst some of the slow roll out does look sloppy and like the BBC either doesn't care or has forgotten about something, when you have the inside knowledge of what more of the full plan is over time it does actually make some sense.

I think the phrase that sums it up quite nicely is evolution not revolution.

Internationalman post_id=51546 time= user_id=2360 Wrote:

GraphicsMan post_id=51393 time=1635694891 user_id=1031 Wrote:There's also another factor, which is that for the commercial sector most people don't really care about such things as the budgets for such things come out of the company profits. And nobody thinks in one sense about how commercial television is funded and where their money is coming from.

However, the BBC has to justify every penny of its spending due to being funded by the licence fee. So that immediately puts the BBC at a disadvantage. Do a huge splash and get accused of wasting funds. Do a slow roll out and also get accused of wasting funds.

Whilst some of the slow roll out does look sloppy and like the BBC either doesn't care or has forgotten about something, when you have the inside knowledge of what more of the full plan is over time it does actually make some sense.

I think the phrase that sums it up quite nicely is evolution not revolution.

Exactly. If anything, when they are doing this gradual rebrand, the BBC are definitely in the better timeline. The 1997 logo was condemned by the British public, wondering if their license money was used to spend it. Today, the public criticism was there, but it was minimal. Even GMB, which did a "scathing" takedown of the BBC logo, and then did a silly mock on their part, was also not that grand. Basically, the BBC did this: Imagine the BBC 1997 blocks as an decoration on top of a house. The BBC wants to revamp its image and has the new blocks in a bag that it wants to bring out, but wants to learn from its past mistake, as everyone knows the guy, and sees the decoration on top of the house, and it doesn't want universal shame over the new, small logo change, so it conducts an experiment to slowly replace the old 1997 decoration by slowly taking out one block and installing the newer block, and letting it stay there for a while. Eventually, people start noticing, and they bully the BBC about it, but eventually it subsides, and everyone doesn't notice as they get used to the change. Then the BBC again slowly replaces another block, and another until the 1997 blocks are finally out of the picture and everyone gets used to it. That is the ideology of the rebrand in a nutshell.

I know, it's a silly ideology.

SteveRW post_id=51554 time= user_id=2173 Wrote:

Internationalman post_id=51546 time= user_id=2360 Wrote:

GraphicsMan post_id=51393 time=1635694891 user_id=1031 Wrote:There's also another factor, which is that for the commercial sector most people don't really care about such things as the budgets for such things come out of the company profits. And nobody thinks in one sense about how commercial television is funded and where their money is coming from.

However, the BBC has to justify every penny of its spending due to being funded by the licence fee. So that immediately puts the BBC at a disadvantage. Do a huge splash and get accused of wasting funds. Do a slow roll out and also get accused of wasting funds.

Whilst some of the slow roll out does look sloppy and like the BBC either doesn't care or has forgotten about something, when you have the inside knowledge of what more of the full plan is over time it does actually make some sense.

I think the phrase that sums it up quite nicely is evolution not revolution.

Exactly. If anything, when they are doing this gradual rebrand, the BBC are definitely in the better timeline. The 1997 logo was condemned by the British public, wondering if their license money was used to spend it. Today, the public criticism was there, but it was minimal. Even GMB, which did a "scathing" takedown of the BBC logo, and then did a silly mock on their part, was also not that grand. Basically, the BBC did this: Imagine the BBC 1997 blocks as an decoration on top of a house. The BBC wants to revamp its image and has the new blocks in a bag that it wants to bring out, but wants to learn from its past mistake, as everyone knows the guy, and sees the decoration on top of the house, and it doesn't want universal shame over the new, small logo change, so it conducts an experiment to slowly replace the old 1997 decoration by slowly taking out one block and installing the newer block, and letting it stay there for a while. Eventually, people start noticing, and they bully the BBC about it, but eventually it subsides, and everyone doesn't notice as they get used to the change. Then the BBC again slowly replaces another block, and another until the 1997 blocks are finally out of the picture and everyone gets used to it. That is the ideology of the rebrand in a nutshell.

I know, it's a silly ideology.

Flip the coin over and a cynical half of the population might notice that the rebrand was more sticky plaster rather than substance and that criticism will ultimately come from those who think the money, their money, was wasted on incompetence and a rather bodged job. This supports my view that they should have waited until the New Year for the TV on screen changes because while of course the media would run its "The BBC uses taxpayers money etc" headlines, criticism would be short lived because the viewers would actually see something modern and fresh and would give the assurances of actually getting something for their money.

Moz post_id=51863 time= user_id=746 Wrote:Two weeks on.

HURRY UP WITH THE NEW IDENTS!