+- TV Live Forum (https://www.tvliveforum.com)
+-- Forum: TV Live Forum (https://www.tvliveforum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Presentation (https://www.tvliveforum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: What makes a channel rebrand good or bad (/showthread.php?tid=1040)
Pages:
1
2
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Blubatt - 27-03-2022
With the BBC One Rebrand now seemingly just days away, there is something that has been brought up on the BBC One Rebrand thread that I think deserves its own discussion/debate. What makes a channel rebrand either good or bad? What things have to be done to make it a success or a failure?
Taking the example of two channels, for example, I can give you an idea of what I think makes a good or bad rebranding exercise. For what I consider a bad rebrand, I have to say that CBBC Channel's 2005-2007 idents were, in my opinion, a big downgrade from the 2002-2005 launch idents for the channel. Reducing the number of idents to one from the multiple that they had in the previous look, and smoothing out the blob into what amounts to a jellybean (even changing the cool, blobby 'C' into an Ariel Rounded MT Bold bore) was a massive letdown and downgrade in presentation.
As for what amounts to a good rebranding of a channel, I would have to say that ITV Creates, when it initially launched in 2019, gave the then 6 year old logo that was brought in during the last major rebrand, some new life. It increased the variety of idents exponentially, and replaced (what I consider) a good set of idents with a great set of experiments and 'dicking around' with the logo. I even think it elevated my view of the channel a bit.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - TVGuy - 27-03-2022
Blubatt post_id=75089 time= user_id=1559 Wrote:With the BBC One Rebrand now seemingly just days away, there is something that has been brought up on the BBC One Rebrand thread that I think deserves its own discussion/debate. What makes a channel rebrand either good or bad? What things have to be done to make it a success or a failure?I think a good rebrand for example would be the BBC rebrand. Despite the new logo looking similar to the previous one, it's more refreshed, modernised, and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo. The new icons for the services look nice, with my favourite one being iPlayer, and the TV and Radio Stations logos may be more generic, like BBC Three, or Radio 3 for example, but at least it's all consistent between each other. The app icons for iPlayer, News, and other services when their new app icons are revealed should be more consistent, having the same design to look nowhere near different, while being different services.
Taking the example of two channels, for example, I can give you an idea of what I think makes a good or bad rebranding exercise. For what I consider a bad rebrand, I have to say that CBBC Channel's 2005-2007 idents were, in my opinion, a big downgrade from the 2002-2005 launch idents for the channel. Reducing the number of idents to one from the multiple that they had in the previous look, and smoothing out the blob into what amounts to a jellybean (even changing the cool, blobby 'C' into an Ariel Rounded MT Bold bore) was a massive letdown and downgrade in presentation.
As for what amounts to a good rebranding of a channel, I would have to say that ITV Creates, when it initially launched in 2019, gave the then 6 year old logo that was brought in during the last major rebrand, some new life. It increased the variety of idents exponentially, and replaced (what I consider) a good set of idents with a great set of experiments and 'dicking around' with the logo. I even think it elevated my view of the channel a bit.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - AxiosBrit67 - 27-03-2022
I giving more attention to rebranding of BBC Radio stations due to significant contribution they have to the BBC predate television. There is a mixed example about whether each of radio stations looks good or bad. Good example is how the new BBC Radio logos created more unified and consistency between them. For example, BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live, etc. now having similar look (with having black or white BBC Radio tag) and also for regional and Local radio stations, despite whether BBC Radio 4 Extra logo in full form will be renamed as 4Xtra or not remains a mystery. Additionally, digital and online radio spinoffs now have same colour as their parent station (Like 5 Sports Extra having similar colour light blue as Radio 5 Live)
On bad example, specifically for BBC Radio 3, 4, and 4X, the uniqueness of bass clef and quotation mark were replaced by standard Reith Sans numeral, which make it feel more like 3rd and 4th channel rather than distinct personalities. I think, this is disadvantage of how BBC Radio rebrand makes uniqueness of radio logos become lost.
Interestingly, having BBC One rebrand this April would making the channel the one of two BBC channels that have rebrand twice, the other is BBC Three.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Internationalman - 27-03-2022
A good channel rebrand, to me, is something that looks and feels very premium. A good example is the "flat design" People seem to criticize flat design and oversimplified logos, but the reason designs like that happen is to breathe new life into the idents and give the logo breathing space. 3D logos and brand design, while cool looking and all, would feel cluttered and closed in. A good example of flat design acting like 3D was this design for TNT Latin America by InJaus. I especially love the lighting/shadow effect to give a sense of depth.
https://vimeo.com/310133782
Another great example of good flat design is the VPRO by Thonik. Using a template, they were able to create over a billion versions of the same logo. It is very modern. And the design was from 2010! They were also capable of creating offbeat idents with the logo that matched its offbeat personality.
https://www.thonik.nl/work/vpro/
Furthermore, I wish people would stop overcriticizing "oversimplified logos". They have applied that definition to any brand design they object to, and it's quite mind-numbing. Design is very subjective, every design serves a purpose, and has a meaning, hidden or unhidden.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Roger Darthwell - 27-03-2022
TVGuy post_id=75090 time= user_id=1088 Wrote:Despite the new logo looking similar to the previous one, it's more refreshed, modernised, and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo.I'm sorry, I fully respect your view, but I still fail to see in what way the new logo is ''more refreshed, modernised and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo'' What does this mean? I just want to understand
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Brekkie - 27-03-2022
Firstly it needs to be a good clean break. There should be no remnants of the old logo (assuming a change) and generally speaking the old look left behind, and ideally changes shouldn't just involve old presentation with new logo and font slapped onit, though you can get away with it if your new logo feels integrated into the design. Film4 and More4 are good examples of how to do it and how not to do it respective.
I also think there needs to be some connection between the idents and presentation. That doesn't always mean they're one and the same - indeed that can be a bit boring. However the two should feel like they have a relationship. This for me is where the C4 2015 revamp fails - I think the presentation is, or was at least, excellent - but neither of the main ident designs really worked alongside them This is a case where the same concept for both would have been better, though of course the previous set had no real connections between the two styles either but complemented each other much better.
Finally don't neglect the audio - having a strong and identifiable sonic identity is just as important as the visuals.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - JAS84 - 27-03-2022
I agree about that being an example of how not to do it, More4 should've had new idents made when the logo changed, like E4 did. The logo no longer matches the footage.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - TVGuy - 27-03-2022
Roger Darthwell post_id=75097 time= user_id=1160 Wrote:Well, for starters, it looks more modern, due to the Reith font, It's more refreshed as it's having a similar design to the old logo, while retaining similarities to it, and the reason it fits in with the 21st century, well, it doesn't use Gill Sans font anymore. It's old anyway.TVGuy post_id=75090 time= user_id=1088 Wrote:Despite the new logo looking similar to the previous one, it's more refreshed, modernised, and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo.I'm sorry, I fully respect your view, but I still fail to see in what way the new logo is ''more refreshed, modernised and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo'' What does this mean? I just want to understand
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - CantGetIn - 27-03-2022
This is a very difficult question, especially when in the modern world it is so rare to find a rebrand which is rememberable.
I think back to all the rebrands of BBC one in the past, and how each one seemed to stick in the minds of people, they were distinctive. That really ended for the BBC when they got rid of the dancers, since then its been very forgettable. I understand the dancers were hated by the DG of the time.
It can't really be a question of money, it just seems whoever is in charge is not picking the right ideas. I can't really think of any channels where I can think of the brand currently apart from BBC 2 and Channel 4 which are semi decent. The most modern one (well 10 years old now) has to be Sky Atlantic. That is the last one I thought was good. The BBC haven't managed any good modern brand since BBC 3 blobs. The new version is very much in line with being forgettable I am afraid to say. I would add one of the big problems is that they are thinking too hard, and trying to give them too much meaning. If you think about all of the ones we remember, did they even make sense?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5oH-yHkw24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDANiqfKOjo
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - NancerOnTheLIVEForum - 27-03-2022
TVGuy post_id=75109 time= user_id=1088 Wrote:Roger Darthwell post_id=75097 time= user_id=1160 Wrote:Well, for starters, it looks more modern, due to the Reith font, It's more refreshed as it's having a similar design to the old logo, while retaining similarities to it, and the reason it fits in with the 21st century, well, it doesn't use Gill Sans font anymore. It's old anyway.TVGuy post_id=75090 time= user_id=1088 Wrote:Despite the new logo looking similar to the previous one, it's more refreshed, modernised, and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo.I'm sorry, I fully respect your view, but I still fail to see in what way the new logo is ''more refreshed, modernised and fits in with the 21st century more than the previous logo'' What does this mean? I just want to understand
What is your logic? The old logo fit fine with the 21st century. Plus Gill Sans was literally made to be timeless.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Liam - 27-03-2022
I’ve always found the rebrand of Hungarian Duna / M1 - 5 channels & their radio sisters very pleasing! Scalable, replaceable and (like symbols) easy to understand the logic behind!
https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/M1_(Hungary)
No idea how the idents worked as can’t seem to find any!
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - AxG - 27-03-2022
Liam post_id=75115 time= user_id=941 Wrote:I’ve always found the rebrand of Hungarian Duna / M1 - 5 channels & their radio sisters very pleasing! Scalable, replaceable and (like symbols) easy to understand the logic behind!https://youtu.be/uW8gB05i3Os
https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/M1_(Hungary)
No idea how the idents worked as can’t seem to find any!
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - W. Knight - 27-03-2022
To me, an ident needs to have a recognizable 'central' image. For instance, I prefer Carlton's 1999 offerings over Granada's, as they maintain a centre symbol (the star) to the end, compared to the latter's multiple boxes. In a more recent example, I'm originally doubtful of the new BBC layout, but with the new circle blip on BBC1, I think it forms a solid block at the middle of the screen.
Also, in response to the C4 debacle in another thread, I think the 2015 set is a natural evolution over the 2005 ones, by making the 4 more abstract. It worked in the CGI breakbumpers, but it's sorta lost in the live-action scenes, as it needs to blend seamlessly with the surroundings. Rather, the proceeding giant did that better: it doesn't have the full logo on screen, it blends in with the footage, but it's distinctive enough to think of Channel 4.
And that leads to live-action idents, which should be relatable while distinctive. Like the 2006 STV look, where the symbol is handled (and played) by the actors. Certainly better than the nothingness in the blue squares, and a massive differentiation to the boxed ITV(1) style. A bad example would be Australian ABC's late 90s curves - it had a lot of human interactions, but the closing symbol looked like something straight from MS Paint.
Internationalman post_id=75095 time= user_id=2360 Wrote:A good channel rebrand, to me, is something that looks and feels very premium. A good example is the "flat design" People seem to criticize flat design and oversimplified logos, but the reason designs like that happen is to breathe new life into the idents and give the logo breathing space. 3D logos and brand design, while cool looking and all, would feel cluttered and closed in.I agree. It's good to take things down a notch, which is especially true with channels notorious for aggressive graphics, like TV Globo.
With the old symbols, one can only get so far with technological advances. Yet, breaking it down to shapes a la CBS opens up more ideas in matching pres bits.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Stanley Matravers - 27-03-2022
I consider any package in which the actual main idents don't feature the full channel name and/or logo as such to be pigswill.
Channel 4's 2015 (or whenever it was) ones, with things like the miners, the micro-organism, and the shaman (or whatever that creepy-as-heck dancing person that looked like a humanoid fly was meant to be) were stinkers. I remain flabbergasted that the bound-to-give-people-nightmares Shaman ident was ever approved for broadcast at all (or at least pre-watershed, if it was indeed used pre-watershed?).
I know that they had the pieces of the "4" logo in them (not actually assembled into a finished "4"), but in some of them it was so subtle that "normal viewers" probably didn't even spot them.
I'm sure that the obligatory tossy marketing guff that came which their launch said something about a plan for later additions which would tell an ongoing story. Presumably, the intention was for the "4" to gradually become more apparent? (e.g. the miners eventually assembling the "crystal" pieces into a massive "4", or something?) But none of that ever came to pass, of course. They were a massive step-down from the "floating buildings" etc style idents which each featured (albeit briefly) a clear and large 4.
Introducing programmes with literally just footage of a quarry explosion - not one iota of "pieces of the 4" visible at all - was bizarre. Only the CA voice-over to give any indication of this being a channel ident (and for which particular channel).
The fact that they were replaced by something that was once again totally different (the big metal robot man "4" thingybob), and after not very many years, tells you all that you need to know.
See also the Channel 5 idents that just had "five things" in them (e.g. five dogs in the back of a truck, etc).
In both of these cases, of course, the surrounding pres (breakbumpers, trailer endboards, ECPs, etc) were a billion % better than the main idents (not that that's saying much) with which they were massively mismatched. That Channel 5 now has main idents that *do* take their queue from the surrounding pres is a big improvement.
It does seem weird that when Channel 4 sensibly dropped the abstract idents, they still didn't adopt anything that properly matched the colourful feel of the surrounding pres. The robot man idents feel as mismatched with surrounding pres as what they replaced did.
What makes a channel rebrand good or bad - Blubatt - 27-03-2022
Internationalman post_id=75095 time= user_id=2360 Wrote:A good channel rebrand, to me, is something that looks and feels very premium. A good example is the "flat design" People seem to criticize flat design and oversimplified logos, but the reason designs like that happen is to breathe new life into the idents and give the logo breathing space. 3D logos and brand design, while cool looking and all, would feel cluttered and closed in. A good example of flat design acting like 3D was this design for TNT Latin America by InJaus. I especially love the lighting/shadow effect to give a sense of depth.
https://vimeo.com/310133782
Another great example of good flat design is the VPRO by Thonik. Using a template, they were able to create over a billion versions of the same logo. It is very modern. And the design was from 2010! They were also capable of creating offbeat idents with the logo that matched its offbeat personality.
https://www.thonik.nl/work/vpro/
Furthermore, I wish people would stop overcriticizing "oversimplified logos". They have applied that definition to any brand design they object to, and it's quite mind-numbing. Design is very subjective, every design serves a purpose, and has a meaning, hidden or unhidden.
I think when it comes to simplification is that it can either be a clever trick, or it can be too clever for its own good. I like it when a logo is simplified to its core elements, usually its shape and colour (which is why I prefer the flat, monochrome apple logo to the shiny, metallic one)