BBC Rebrand 1997 vs BBC Rebrand 2021

[johnnyboy]

Rob - I wasn't quite sure whether this was worth a new thread or not so apologies if I am wrong.

The old slanty BBC logo with the 3 colour lines under each block is the one I remember plainly from my childhood.

When the 1991 logos launched, I thought the BBC logo in all white looked classy on the idents. I wasn't in love with the logo but I really liked it.

Then in early 1997, rumours began appearing in the press that the logo was due for an overhaul. I wasn't quite sure why they were going to do that at the time but I bided my time to wait to see what it looked like.

I remember seeing it on the cover of a trade mag in the office of the company I was working for at the time and loved it. This was an improvement - this was obviously much better

When the logos went live and there was consistent branding across the channels (including UKTV), I thought it was perfect.

I appreciate that, to many, the 1997 logo looked tired.

But can you honestly say that, one week in, the logo and everything around it is better? For me, the answer is a resounding "no" - it looks like a series of PowerPoint mocks created by someone who is in love with a generic system font.

[Roger Darthwell]

Rob - I wasn't quite sure whether this was worth a new thread or not so apologies if I am wrong.

The old slanty BBC logo with the 3 colour lines under each block is the one I remember plainly from my childhood.

When the 1991 logos launched, I thought the BBC logo in all white looked classy on the idents. I wasn't in love with the logo but I really liked it.

Then in early 1997, rumours began appearing in the press that the logo was due for an overhaul. I wasn't quite sure why they were going to do that at the time but I bided my time to wait to see what it looked like.

I remember seeing it on the cover of a trade mag in the office of the company I was working for at the time and loved it. This was an improvement - this was obviously much better

When the logos went live and there was consistent branding across the channels (including UKTV), I thought it was perfect.

I appreciate that, to many, the 1997 logo looked tired.

But can you honestly say that, one week in, the logo and everything around it is better? For me, the answer is a resounding "no" - it looks like a series of PowerPoint mocks created by someone who is in love with a generic system font.

For me 1997 is the absolute pinnacle of BBC branding, basically everything about it was perfect, the trailers, the endboards, the programme menus, the holding slides....quite literally everything. But as we know the BBC started to move away from the corporate look in the early 2000s, given that this rebrand is needed so that uniformity is return, what happens if the BBC moves away from the corporate style in a few years time and history repeats itself?

[all new Phil]

I didn’t appreciate the 1997 look at the time but I really do now. It was clean and the consistency was perfect.

My worry with the new look is it’s trying to look modern but, when you compare it to what’s already out there, it really isn’t. It’s an improvement on what it’s replaced, but it could be bolder and cleaner.

[VMPhil]

I find it quite striking how similar this rebrand is to the 1997 rebrand. Particularly all the channels being consistent with the typeface - I wasn't expecting that after years of each channel doing its own thing.

The problem is Reith is a really generic looking font and ironically feels less unique than Gill Sans (despite Gill Sans being used by hundreds of different organisations). Sometimes I feel like Reith looks a bit too much like the sort of inoffensive default typeface you get in Microsoft Word. I also don't think they needed to change the logo at all to use Reith. That feels like such a needless change, and it's a much poorer logo technically as a result of the compromises made in order to use Reith.

I also think the trail format of the big BBC logo at the top and channel name tiny at the bottom doesn't really work. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the first things that gets changed.

But elsewhere the changes are quite positive in my view, and I remain optimistic that it will get better and they will iron out some of the issues.

[Spencer]

At the time, I loved the slanted 80s/90s logo and the surrounding branding including the Futura Condensed Bold Italic text. It did feel like the first time the BBC had anything approaching a consistent corporate brand.

When I first saw the 1997 Lambie-Nairn logo in the Radio Times, I thought, ‘What on earth are they thinking?’. I really thought it looked terrible - clearly because it was different to what I was used to. But once I saw it on screen and how it was used, I instantly loved it and thought it was brilliant.

So when I saw the latest logo, and also thought it looked terrible, I kept my thoughts to myself initially. Would it grow on me in the same way?

And I have to say, yes it has… but with reservations.

I loved the Gill logo for its classy, timeless elegance. But equally I recognise that classy, timeless elegance isn’t particularly cool and doesn’t necessarily appeal to the younger demographic to which the BBC desperately needs to appeal.

I do think the new logo looks more modern and hopefully strikes the right note with younger audiences, but I can’t forgive the poor visual alignment of the Bs. That’s a serious, fundamental design flaw that just smacks of shoddy work and a lack of attention detail and to the basics of graphic design. I mean, for a big international organisation’s logo, that’s really, really poor. You’d expect better design quality on Fiverr.

But that big gripe aside, I do quite like how the logo’s being used so far. I think the channels’ presentation and idents look fresher and more up to date. I like the small details like the way the logo bounces and animates on the ECPs, trails and idents. It definitely looks more 2021 and consistent than the mish-mash we had before.

I’m yet to be convinced though that the slow roll-out is a good idea. We’ve been told constantly by insiders on here that the incremental way the logo is being introduced is intentional, but I’ve yet to hear the justification for and reasoning behind this snail’s pace implementation. I know the BBC is a huge organisation, and changing everything overnight would be impractical. But they achieved so much more overnight in 1997 than they did this month.

So overall, I’m pretty positive about the current changes, but I certainly think there are things they could have done significantly better.

[Internationalman]

Rebranding is a task that is difficult if pulled off well. When the 1997 rebrand happened, it was a simple and easy to read, but the BBC logo changed. And people weren’t happy, as they were sad to see the old 1988 logo go. I see it in this rebrand, too. Ever since people got used to the 24 year old BBC Gill blocks, we seem to be wary about any and all changes to the blocks, no matter how minuscule. The debut of the new logo reaffirms this, with people getting angry again, and people using the rumor of the BBC spending millions of money for the new logo, despite the fact that we don’t actually know how true that rumor is. Growing up under the 1997 blocks, I understand some people don’t the new logo, but personally, I really like this rebrand, and as time grows, I realize how similar the new logo, and the font it showcases, Reith, is similar to that of the Gill Sans blocks. People seem to forget that Gill was an inspiration for Reith, and I see it especially in the B. I see the design injects more color that the 1997 rebrand didn’t have, and the fact that the rebrand is slow, ensures both the easing and warming to this new logo as it is rolled out to all of its services, and minor mocking by those who wish the BBC harm, like those “Defund the BBC” blokes. What the BBC should do going forward is to not bow under that pressure, and keep a calm head while the rebrand continues to take effect. In short, I really do have high hopes for this rebrand, and the logo is really good. It isn’t a drastic change from the old one, and it’s flexible and colorful, which I love.

[Brekkie]

The problem is Reith is a really generic looking font and ironically feels less unique than Gill Sans (despite Gill Sans being used by hundreds of different organisations).

I will never understand this argument. For me Gill Sans is the most generic blandest font in the history of television. It did it's job very well but to say it was anything other than bland really is pushing it. Reith may not be spectacular but it really is far from the most generinc looking font out there in TV land, never mind beyond. I think alot of the presentation woes are unfairly landed at Reith's door to be honest.


As for the 1997 v 2021 debate. Like Johnny the slanted logo is the one that defined the BBC for me as a child and the old generic ident, generally only seen on videos at the time, still gives me goosebumps. The 1997 logo seemed a step back in comparison but it's clear now how dated things would have looked in comparison had the slanted logo been retained.

I find the new logo just insignificiant really - it's changed - in someways very noticeably, in other ways not noticeably at all. I don't think it's improved on the logo and I do think the proportions are wrong, but ultimately it is not the factor that determines whether this revamp is a success or not. For me it is the diluted nature of the revamp which makes it a failure - of the elements I've seen there are many I like, especially the animation of the boxes and tidying up the cross channel aspect, but the inconsistency the staggered, somewhat faltering, approach has left us with for seemingly months, not weeks or days, is inexcusible IMO.

The lack of new idents from day one is very disappointing too - the balloons absolutely made us fall in love with the new look very quickly back in 1997 and had the globe remained for a few months with the new BBC ONE logo I'm not sure it would have been deemed as successful, especially if BBC News, BBC Sport and BBC Radio hadn't taken the new branding from day one as well.

[johnnyboy]

The problem is Reith is a really generic looking font and ironically feels less unique than Gill Sans (despite Gill Sans being used by hundreds of different organisations).

I will never understand this argument. For me Gill Sans is the most generic blandest font in the history of television. It did it's job very well but to say it was anything other than bland really is pushing it. Reith may not be spectacular but it really is far from the most generinc looking font out there in TV land, never mind beyond. I think alot of the presentation woes are unfairly landed at Reith's door to be honest.

I do get where you're coming from with this argument, Brekkie. I don't find lower case letters in Gill Sans particularly prepossessing however I do think its upper case letters are classics, timeless, and, dare I say, British?

To me, the "bulge" of the bottom part of the "B" is distinctive and the way the tail on the "R" reaches past the end point of the bulge at the top brims with confidence (you can tell I am not a font artist because I don't know the correct terminology.

If there were ever a thread here on here on MP247 about your favourite letter within your favourite font, the Gill Sans "R" would be it for me and it looked stunning on the old/new BBC FOUR logo.

While Gill Sans has its flaws, I can see no redeeming features stylistically or aesthetically in BBC Reith.

To base the whole redesign based upon the usage of BBC Reith is an awful decision, in my opinion.

If the old slanty BBC logo was also your childhood memory, we may be roughly of the same vintage Brekkie and this may be a case of you being able to move on from the past more easily than me. I can honestly say it doesn't feel like it to me though even if that's what it ultimately is.

[NancerOnTheLIVEForum]

The problem is Reith is a really generic looking font and ironically feels less unique than Gill Sans (despite Gill Sans being used by hundreds of different organisations).

I will never understand this argument. For me Gill Sans is the most generic blandest font in the history of television. It did it's job very well but to say it was anything other than bland really is pushing it. Reith may not be spectacular but it really is far from the most generinc looking font out there in TV land, never mind beyond. I think alot of the presentation woes are unfairly landed at Reith's door to be honest.

I do get where you're coming from with this argument, Brekkie. I don't find lower case letters in Gill Sans particularly prepossessing however I do think its upper case letters are classics, timeless, and, dare I say, British?

To me, the "bulge" of the bottom part of the "B" is distinctive and the way the tail on the "R" reaches past the end point of the bulge at the top brims with confidence (you can tell I am not a font artist because I don't know the correct terminology.

If there were ever a thread here on here on MP247 about your favourite letter within your favourite font, the Gill Sans "R" would be it for me and it looked stunning on the old/new BBC FOUR logo.

While Gill Sans has its flaws, I can see no redeeming features stylistically or aesthetically in BBC Reith.

To base the whole redesign based upon the usage of BBC Reith is an awful decision, in my opinion.

If the old slanty BBC logo was also your childhood memory, we may be roughly of the same vintage Brekkie and this may be a case of you being able to move on from the past more easily than me. I can honestly say it doesn't feel like it to me though even if that's what it ultimately is.

What font would you have chosen instead of Reith?

[johnnyboy]

What font would you have chosen instead of Reith?

Very good question.

As BBC Reith was the outcome of a project for the BBC to create its own font, I don't think selecting a 3rd party font was ever an option on this occasion however.

I would have spent as long as it took to create a much more aesthetically pleasing font that Reith, personally.

[Roger Darthwell]

What font would you have chosen instead of Reith?

Very good question.

As BBC Reith was the outcome of a project for the BBC to create its own font, I don't think selecting a 3rd party font was ever an option on this occasion however.

I would have spent as long as it took to create a much more aesthetically pleasing font that Reith, personally.

I wouldn't have changed it at all

[all new Phil]

I will never understand this argument. For me Gill Sans is the most generic blandest font in the history of television. It did it's job very well but to say it was anything other than bland really is pushing it. Reith may not be spectacular but it really is far from the most generinc looking font out there in TV land, never mind beyond. I think alot of the presentation woes are unfairly landed at Reith's door to be honest.

I do get where you're coming from with this argument, Brekkie. I don't find lower case letters in Gill Sans particularly prepossessing however I do think its upper case letters are classics, timeless, and, dare I say, British?

To me, the "bulge" of the bottom part of the "B" is distinctive and the way the tail on the "R" reaches past the end point of the bulge at the top brims with confidence (you can tell I am not a font artist because I don't know the correct terminology.

If there were ever a thread here on here on MP247 about your favourite letter within your favourite font, the Gill Sans "R" would be it for me and it looked stunning on the old/new BBC FOUR logo.

While Gill Sans has its flaws, I can see no redeeming features stylistically or aesthetically in BBC Reith.

To base the whole redesign based upon the usage of BBC Reith is an awful decision, in my opinion.

If the old slanty BBC logo was also your childhood memory, we may be roughly of the same vintage Brekkie and this may be a case of you being able to move on from the past more easily than me. I can honestly say it doesn't feel like it to me though even if that's what it ultimately is.

What font would you have chosen instead of Reith?

Budmo Jiggler.

[Internationalman]

The problem is Reith is a really generic looking font and ironically feels less unique than Gill Sans (despite Gill Sans being used by hundreds of different organisations).

I will never understand this argument. For me Gill Sans is the most generic blandest font in the history of television. It did it's job very well but to say it was anything other than bland really is pushing it. Reith may not be spectacular but it really is far from the most generinc looking font out there in TV land, never mind beyond. I think alot of the presentation woes are unfairly landed at Reith's door to be honest.

I do get where you're coming from with this argument, Brekkie. I don't find lower case letters in Gill Sans particularly prepossessing however I do think its upper case letters are classics, timeless, and, dare I say, British?

To me, the "bulge" of the bottom part of the "B" is distinctive and the way the tail on the "R" reaches past the end point of the bulge at the top brims with confidence (you can tell I am not a font artist because I don't know the correct terminology.

If there were ever a thread here on here on MP247 about your favourite letter within your favourite font, the Gill Sans "R" would be it for me and it looked stunning on the old/new BBC FOUR logo.

While Gill Sans has its flaws, I can see no redeeming features stylistically or aesthetically in BBC Reith.

To base the whole redesign based upon the usage of BBC Reith is an awful decision, in my opinion.

If the old slanty BBC logo was also your childhood memory, we may be roughly of the same vintage Brekkie and this may be a case of you being able to move on from the past more easily than me. I can honestly say it doesn't feel like it to me though even if that's what it ultimately is.

Is it possible to like both Gill and Reith? Gill absolutely has its charms, but so does Reith. Saying it is bland and has no redeeming value as a font isn’t based on much. Personally, the Reithbrand allows for a full showcase of the Reith font, and I can say it is clean, concise, and has character. The BBC and Dalton Maag, who designed it, has taken a lot of inspiration from Gill and other fonts to come up with the font, which I believe is quite hard, considering there needs to be a similar artistic style for all the letters so that it is cohesive. I like Gill because it’s timeless. I believe the same for Reith. It’s like Helvetica: doesn’t have to have buckets of style in order to be considered timeless.

[Adsales101]

I really don't understand the Gill Sans is amazing argument :?

It's bland, boring, dated and similar to dozens of "out-of-the-box" fonts. Even the upper case B bulge is no different to that found with a lot of other fonts (for example Verdana).

I just about get the "it's clean" argument but then there are hundreds of "clean" fonts.

Leaving all of that to one side, a major TV channel using a licensable font today may as well burn cash. So if no other argument is accepted, Gill Sans had to go for that reason alone.

[Robert Williams]

When it comes to the 1997 vs 2021 rebrands as a whole, 1997 still wins out for me. But since the latest refresh, both the new BBC logo and the Reith font have both been growing on me, and I think the new channel logos, and the text on the trailers, actually look quite smart - for the first time I'm starting to find the old logo and the Gill Sans text both now look a little bit dated in comparison.