|You are in: Talking Point|
Tuesday, 2 April, 2002, 08:46 GMT 09:46 UK
What do you think of the BBC's new image?
The globe that has been the symbol of BBC One since the channel began in 1964 is being replaced by clips of dancers wearing red.
In the search for something more vibrant and cosmopolitan, the corporation has unveiled eight clips, or "idents", which will replace the current scenes of hot air balloons.
The new clips feature people dressed in red in front of some of the UK's most stunning urban and natural settings.
BBC One Controller Lorraine Heggessey said the new clips were intended to capture "the new spirit" of BBC One and reflect its new, dynamic identity.
What do you think of the TV Channel's new branding?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Change for the sake of change is a waste of time and money, but at least they have not changed the name to something Italian sounding - the real mark of a company going downhill fast !
The BBC should have the guts to ignore the backbiters who do down this country with their empty talk of "dumbing down" and "political correctness", rather than going through this bizarre exercise in "here we are, come on slag us off".
Has the BBC ever received any complaints from members of ethnic minorities to the effect that the Globe idents were discriminatory, un-inclusive or offensive? If so, than perhaps a re-branding could be justified. If not - and I suspect that this is the case - then the whole affair is an embarrassing exercise in politically correct nonsense.
I have to say that I think these new idents are boring, uneventful and do not reflect BBC One's image as a modern entertainment channel. It is almost impossible to tell where a trailer has finished and an ident has started, and the red box looks ridiculous in widescreen - the logo needs to be centred. I feel that the idents are too slow and not dynamic enough. I also believe that there is no clock to go along with this new look - a very bad move, the clock both gave an indication that news was coming on, and also gave the channel some sense of authority. The recent BBC One "coming up" trailers, featuring the "1" made up from circles would have been far more reflective of the channel's image if it had been used as an ident. I think the BBC should reconsider this move immediately and listen to the opinions of the viewers.
If one symbol emphasises the diversity of the population of the UK and of the BBC it is the Globe. It covers ALL races, religions, sexes and any other artificial division you want to envisage. This new "brand" only serves to separate each featured group from the whole, "look at me I'm different", rather than integrate.
We have enough pressure groups trying to prove that some minority group is more integrated than another, or less. The BBC should stand for ALL of the peoples of the Earth, as a whole, not as groups. That is for others to do.
Why do people find it so important? The reason you watch a particular channel is due only to the programs they show, and nothing at all to do with the logo they show.
I think that the new idents are good and people from all walks of life in the new idents are a good idea, it shows that we live in a multi-cultural society, but I am going to miss the spinning globe.
The globe represents BBC1. Revamp it if a new image is needed, but dumping it all together is a bad move. Just ask Consignia - The Post Office; British Airways - the tail-fin fiasco; etc. A brand image is so valuable. I bet Coke, Mercedes, Boots, etc. wouldn't drop theirs for anything. A BIG mistake!
Change is good. There are far greater issues to worry about anyway. You go Beeb!!
I guess whatever we'll say, we'll have to live with it. Sad, very sad. The idea of mixing the old ball or balloon from BBC with beautiful shots of UK was just great. Now, people dancing, singing, who are they? Where are they? A disco in Manhattan or Malaga?
I actually think that it's a good move and I like the new images which will soon be broadcast. The only thing which I don't agree with is the amount of money spent to create them - how can it cost so much?
Why are companies so obsessed with wasting money on branding and image? Did the BBC miss how critical the public and the media were of British Airways and later Consignia attempts at this. Are the Beeb so arrogant that they can just waste the money that's provided by the British public, in the hope that we might see better programmes?
Marcus Lodwick, UK
First Mars Bars go, now this. The dancers look cool, but I really, really like the Globe. I'd rather have had a reduction on my license fee.
Ronald J Marsden, USA
Hopefully, this marketing idea will be as short-lived as when the BBC tried changing the theme tune of 'Match of the Day' a few years ago. Keep the globe!
Based on recent utterances from the Governors they should keep the balloons. Plenty of hot air there - they can save a fortune on fuel!
Bit more fiddling while Rome burns. The only improvements people want is in the quality of the programs, and a significant reduction in stupid remarks by BBC highly paid senior executives!
It is very ironic that the BBC should decide to change image just after Consignia finally admitted they had bought a pup of a corporate name and would revert to being the Post Office. Is this decision the brainchild of that gentleman (sorry forgotten his name already) recently appointed Chairman? A retrograde step which the Beeb will regret.
More politically correct posturing from the BBC. Yes, we are becoming a multiracial society, but the vast majority of our people are 'indigenous white', so why do the idents concentrate on minority ethnic groups?
Any chance of Morris Dancers? How about Beefeaters?
No? I thought not.
More waste of the licence payers' money (close to £700K according to the papers today). The BBC needs to employ real people with their feet on the ground rather than having ideas to waste more and more money.
Is it not time the BBC licence fee was scraped and we had adverts for other things rather than free plugs for BBC products on the channels?
Why can't the BBC invest licence fee money on decent programs instead of pointless rebranding?
Whatever way you look at it, there is still no justification for the out of date TV Licence Fee.
I suppose it's the hip-hop ident for Songs of Praise and a bit of ballet for Top of the Pops?
Consignia name change, British Airways tail planes. Ring any bells? If it isn't broke, don't fix it!
Eddie Talbot, UK
The balloons showed the world being brought to the UK - a superb image for the nation's first TV channel.
I'm saddened by the loss of the globe - although it's good to see that the superb scenery associated with the balloon lives on in the new idents.
What a disastrous public relations error, even worse than BA's
dropping the flag. What on earth was the rationale for change other than to waste more of our licence fee which should go instead to making better and more compelling programmes. The globe symbol of the BBC emphasised its world class broadcasting standards, its power and ambition and its commitment to global news coverage. It was classless, genderless and raceless - yet inclusive and inspiring. It spoke to all powerfully and equally. We haven't yet seen the new stuff but you can be pretty sure it will be dropped within five years as obviously strategically clumsy and already past its sell-by date. It sounds like something Channel 4 would rightly have rejected around 1985. How absolutely patronising and offensive for the stuck-up mandarins of the BBC to try and flog us their multicultural values.
Remember whose money it is your spending on projects like this BBC.
Why is such a large amount of the licence fee going towards an unnecessary change of a 5-second clip? Surely it could be spent on something a little more worthwhile. And I liked seeing the part of London I live in under the balloon.
Good god, you mean that's permanent? I thought maybe it was just a temporary change. Too bad. It makes me physically nauseous to think of all the knuckle-head marketing types up in a room thinking, "My! Now don't these dancing fools of many colours say world to you more than that silly graphic of the globe!" Seems to me to be a bit too glitzy and patronizing. While the definition of this new concept of the world will eventually change, the definition of a big, shiny, rocking, globe of the planet Earth will always mean the world! How about some fresher footage of the same images? Update it with a fresh coat of paint, don't knock it down and rebuild it! Let me tell you, I love my country but that is our motto here and it never works. Knock it down and rebuild it.
Bring the globe back! Like the rock of Gibraltar, the chiming of Big Ben, the BBC globe provides continuity and calm to an ever-changing world. Just as there will always be an England, there should always be the BBC and its' trademark globe.
Keep the globe! The dancing clips look like any American advert for soft drinks. Nothing distinctive or inclusive about them at all. The BBC cannot benefit from a dumbed-down Americanised image.
If something has worked well for so many years, why change it?
I'm led to believe that this, as well as "New Coke" and the new Kit Kat wrap, are just an attempt by some people to justify their jobs by doing something (well, anything).
What can be more "all encompassing" than a globe? Looks like the BBC should take a quick look at British Airway's logo fiasco before going too far. But I suspect they will not listen.
I just hope there are a reasonable number of portly office workers in the clips. That is, if inclusiveness is the concept behind these changes.
The BBC is probably the closest thing the world has to global news. Most news outlets, particularly those in the USA, don't report much beyond their countries own borders, or it's countries interests overseas. The globe is by far the best representation of the scope of the BBC's coverage.
It will be a shame to see the globe go but on the other hand it could be quite a refreshing change to see a new BBC image. One soon gets used to the new identity and I'm sure this will be no exception. But I do feel slightly uneasy at the vast amount of money that will go into this re-branding. Is it really necessary?
The BBC is like any other huge corporation and in fact it's even more important for them to keep their image fresh than most others. But of course you're going to get the usual bunch of moaning minnies (waste of licence money etc). When you think of the new services the BBC have (I think bravely) introduced- Five Live- BBC Four- Radio 6 etc. then I'm amazed how far they make the money go.
I don't know anyone who 'hates paying the licence fee' and can someone please explain to me why this move is 'PC' (and what PC actually means while your at it)
James Tandy, UK
What, exactly, could be more cosmopolitan than the globe? A great brand should be able to withstand the test of time and the constant tinkering with the BBC image, that has reached even greater levels in recent years, not only wastes money that should be spent on programming, but undermines the BBC's need to present a consistent and coherent image worldwide.
I saw a few of clips of the new idents on the breakfast programme this morning and I have to say I really quite liked them. Cheerful and interesting.
Also, to those who are moaning, I would say: get a sense of proportion! It's only a video clip between programmes, not the end of the world! If you put as much effort into enjoying life as you put into moaning about it, I'm sure you'd be much happier people...
Another retrograde step. The globe was aesthetically pleasing and offensive to nobody. The fact that no people were shown also made it peaceful. I personally find this change rather condescending - did viewers object previously? You can bet your red cotton socks they will now! Why don't you use our money to provide decent programs instead of wasting it in this needless way?
When I go abroad on holiday I always feel rather envious at the way other countries have kept their identity and traditions. We are rapidly loosing all of ours. What expresses our multi-cultural society more than the globe? Bad mistake I think!
James P, UK
The fact that everybody is forced to pay a TV License for something they don't necessarily actually want is blackmail. The BBC should be owned and run by the people who finance it... us! This debacle is just another inept waste of money, and for what? The BBC is still going to be called the BBC - and it will still be Channel 1 on my TV irrelevant of what gets shown in between programmes. Just a ridiculous waste of license fee payers money!!
I think that maybe if they stopping wasting money on rebranding themselves and used that money to start making decent programmes again then people might start watching more of the BBC. In the meantime, a new fancy logo is just not enough to make me change channels I'm afraid!
If you're finished with the balloon can I have it?
Jon Cooper, UK
Absolutely ridiculous. It looks just like another sop to the PC brigade if you ask me. What a waste of money - and you ask why people hate paying the TV Licence?!
I'm a graphic designer and I believe they have made a depressing mistake. There is no more 'global' symbol than the globe. I smell dumbing-down, too ... they have parochialised the idents.
I liked the globe. It reflects the global perspective of the BBC. Its replacement by these frivolous, meaningless images is typical of the vacuous political philosophy of New Labour. It is reminiscent of that other New Labour triumph, the Millenium Dome. Its portrayal of various minority groups (of whom I am one) has no real meaning and will not alter British society or its attitudes in any way. It is just political correctness run riot.
As a license fee payer, I object strongly to this pitiful and wasteful exercise in social engineering and politically correct propaganda.
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy