New BBC Logo

[BBCMeridian]

Of course it still works!

It sticks out like a sore thumb having everything else in Reith and the main logo in Gill Sans.

It doesn't stick out, many other agencies around the world use a different font from the one on their logo. An example let's look at Netflix, a few years ago Netflix also created their own font called Netflix Sans, but the Netflix logo is still in Bebas Neue

I'm sure we will all get used to the new logo, it just needs time.

[Blubatt]

I think part of the problem is that the logo, having come in during 1997, means that there is a chunk, a good chunk at that, of people who only know the BBC logo being the one still used (for now, at least). I am one of them. Im 24, going to be 25 next year, and all of my life, that has been the BBC logo I remember and associate with the BBC. There are probably many people a little older than I, and obviously younger people than I, who will only know this version of the BBC.

[orange]

It doesn’t matter if you get used to it or not - as much as i’m welcoming BBC finally refreshing their identity, the best design choices aren’t usually the ones you have to let grow on you. It’s just awkward and clunky, Reith unfortunately makes things look cheapened and if i’m honest, a little tacky, unless they’re using the Serif variation. I’m excited for everything else and i’m happy they’re finally experimenting more with the blocks in other applications as a dynamic part of the brand, it really is just the logo that gets under my skin a little. It’s not bad at all, but it isn’t good either. It’s awkward.

[thomalex]

A key part of the new logo seems to be to create something which is more flexible (can change colour, grow, shrink etc.) whereas the previous logo was static. I understand why they've changed it.

[SteveRW]

I think part of the problem is that the logo, having come in during 1997, means that there is a chunk, a good chunk at that, of people who only know the BBC logo being the one still used (for now, at least). I am one of them. Im 24, going to be 25 next year, and all of my life, that has been the BBC logo I remember and associate with the BBC. There are probably many people a little older than I, and obviously younger people than I, who will only know this version of the BBC.

I'm 52 and every part of life from the way we treat each other and the technology is totally different to how it was 27 years ago when I was your age. Things change. Having things remaining the same because 25 year olds might not like things to be different is not a reason to keep things in place. Otherwise nothing would ever change and we'd all still be going to workhouses if we were skint! A prime example is the BP logo. All my life until I was 30 it was a recognisable shield. Everyone knew the logo and which company it represented. Then they changed it to am odd sunflower. That was radically different. The BBC are not making radical changes. The main elements of their logo - the blocks - are still being used. I personally think most people won't notice much at all. The majority of people don't even care too much about idents and TV presentation. Even though these things are important.

[Brekkie]

It's not so much good and bad logo, it's familar and unfamilar. If the switch was the other way it would probably look like the boxes are far too small for the new lettering.

[Moz]

It's not so much good and bad logo, it's familar and unfamilar. If the switch was the other way it would probably look like the boxes are far too small for the new lettering.

They do need to nudge those Bs ever so slightly right though.

[TVGuy]

It doesn’t matter if you get used to it or not - as much as i’m welcoming BBC finally refreshing their identity, the best design choices aren’t usually the ones you have to let grow on you. It’s just awkward and clunky, Reith unfortunately makes things look cheapened and if i’m honest, a little tacky, unless they’re using the Serif variation. I’m excited for everything else and i’m happy they’re finally experimenting more with the blocks in other applications as a dynamic part of the brand, it really is just the logo that gets under my skin a little. It’s not bad at all, but it isn’t good either. It’s awkward.

I also think the logo isn’t bad, but it isn’t great. It’s just ok for me, at least when it’s not animated. When it is animated, it’s better. See the BBC News Beta to see the blocks animate when you swipe up or down.

[TheMightyTRex]

Exactly 24 years ago today the BBC introduced the 1997 Logo to television screens

And now it’s about to change again this month. I hope the rebrand goes well

I hope that the BBC realizes the utter madness that they are going to do, new idents for BBC One oh yes please but that new logo is awful

in your view. I like it.

[neonemesis]

This circular argument is making me dizzy.

[Flux]

A key part of the new logo seems to be to create something which is more flexible (can change colour, grow, shrink etc.) whereas the previous logo was static. I understand why they've changed it.

The previous logo was static because the rules around it made sure it remained static. It has nothing to do with the design of the logo itself. All the animations I've seen created around the new logo could very easily be used on the old logo to the same effect.

For the record, I like the flexibility they're approaching it with and agree with you that they've obviously approached this rebrand with a view of giving the BBC Logo a lot more freedom in the way it's animated. That's what's selling this rebrand to me and making me excited about it. But talking pure black and white design - dimensions, vectors and layout - there is nothing in the new logo itself which is more flexible for animation than had they continued using the current (1997) version of the blocks.

[Transmission]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who doesn't have any particularly strong opinions about the logo, it's taking a bit of getting used to but it's basically fine.

Much more interested in all the other stuff that's coming with it.

[Moz]

It's not so much good and bad logo, it's familar and unfamilar. If the switch was the other way it would probably look like the boxes are far too small for the new lettering.

They do need to nudge those Bs ever so slightly right though.

The logo is already in use - that won't be done.

It’s in use for a couple of overseas services which could easily be tweaked.

[orange]

They do need to nudge those Bs ever so slightly right though.

The logo is already in use - that won't be done.

It’s in use for a couple of overseas services which could easily be tweaked.

Adjusting it would be good yes, but be a little more realistic haha. I think probably by now if they’re rebranding later this month that they’ll have so many elements like signs and print outs all ready to go and preparing the staff to use the new logo that they won’t even think about touching it for a good bit of time, even if it is a slight adjustment.

[neonemesis]

It’s in use for a couple of overseas services which could easily be tweaked.

If the logo being in use for a "couple of overseas services" represents a pilot, then you may be right. If (as is more likely, given the expected launch time frame) the logo is approved and the overseas services were simply step one in the rollout plan then and tweaks would be an absolute no-go, given my experience of working with brand departments in big companies.

Any logo is a primary brand asset, it will have been debated at length and agreed by multiple stakeholders, right up to the top. That process is expensive and time consuming.

To change the current course, even by a few pixels would need a really significant business case. All the people who approved it last time will need to be convinced to change their minds (therefore tacitly admitting that they missed something first time round). The creatives might be able to be convinced by font spacing, but I can't see anyone in the 'business' or a bean counter being convinced to reopen a decision that has been made.