08-12-2021, 04:10 PM
A bit late to this thread, but, although I do think the 1997 BBC logo is very good, I've never been particularly enthusiastic about a lot of the surrounding branding and I do feel that both rebrand's obsession with uniformity does go too far.
Obviously there are real advantages to having similar styles across all of your products, but there are occasions when you need to let each subbrand have a personality of its own that somewhat deviates from the standard look. The 1997 logo system worked well for television because the logo is subordinate to the idents in terms of branding, so there were alternative means to get across the individual brand of each channel. But in things like radio, the logos just ended up bland and meaningless as there was no surrounding presentation to convey the character of each station. I'm also not sure that the rigidity of the logo system worked well for CBBC.
This is why I generally prefer something along the lines of the 2007 BBC Radio rebrand. All the radio stations had a clear, individual style, but were also clearly related and it easily fitted alongside the wider BBC brand. It's also why I'm not as opposed to the 2001-onwards boxed logos as many other forumers. Although I think they were, in some cases, poorly executed and the BBC logo should have been more prominent, giving each channel a signature colour (and possibly even font) was not a bad idea.
In all, my reaction to the question 1997 vs 2021 is somewhat mixed. I definitely prefer the logo of 1997 and I do have a fondness for Gill Sans (though not Gill Sans Bold and I'm not anti-Reith, it's just not for logos). And sure, 2021 is making some of the same mistakes. But 2021 is also eschewing total uniformity and, although few of them are self-explanatory, I do think that the symbols for services idea could be interesting. 1997 was certainly better executed (both in timing and quality of the work), but rigidity isn't always a strength. It's a hard call.
Obviously there are real advantages to having similar styles across all of your products, but there are occasions when you need to let each subbrand have a personality of its own that somewhat deviates from the standard look. The 1997 logo system worked well for television because the logo is subordinate to the idents in terms of branding, so there were alternative means to get across the individual brand of each channel. But in things like radio, the logos just ended up bland and meaningless as there was no surrounding presentation to convey the character of each station. I'm also not sure that the rigidity of the logo system worked well for CBBC.
This is why I generally prefer something along the lines of the 2007 BBC Radio rebrand. All the radio stations had a clear, individual style, but were also clearly related and it easily fitted alongside the wider BBC brand. It's also why I'm not as opposed to the 2001-onwards boxed logos as many other forumers. Although I think they were, in some cases, poorly executed and the BBC logo should have been more prominent, giving each channel a signature colour (and possibly even font) was not a bad idea.
In all, my reaction to the question 1997 vs 2021 is somewhat mixed. I definitely prefer the logo of 1997 and I do have a fondness for Gill Sans (though not Gill Sans Bold and I'm not anti-Reith, it's just not for logos). And sure, 2021 is making some of the same mistakes. But 2021 is also eschewing total uniformity and, although few of them are self-explanatory, I do think that the symbols for services idea could be interesting. 1997 was certainly better executed (both in timing and quality of the work), but rigidity isn't always a strength. It's a hard call.