Important enough for organisations such as ITV and Channel 4 (and many others) to follow such rules quite meticulously. Channel 4 has always been outstanding in this regard.
To the point where I was asked to remove a trailer image from the Gallery because the programme's title had been broadcast incorrectly aligned - against the C4 guidelines.
Important enough for organisations such as ITV and Channel 4 (and many others) to follow such rules quite meticulously. Channel 4 has always been outstanding in this regard.
To the point where I was asked to remove a trailer image from the Gallery because the programme's title had been broadcast incorrectly aligned - against the C4 guidelines.
Ha. Excellent! I knew they were fussy but that's quite the demonstration of their high standards. Could be doing with people like that at the BBC.
Someone (you I assume) obviously has far too much time in their hands
What a load of trivial pedantic whinging
Everything discussed on this forum, and other Pres related sites, is trivial and an awful lot of it is pedantic. But then, that's the point of niche forums surely, and why we keep logging on. Without trivia and pedantry this site wouldn't exist.
Important enough for organisations such as ITV and Channel 4 (and many others) to follow such rules quite meticulously. Channel 4 has always been outstanding in this regard.
To the point where I was asked to remove a trailer image from the Gallery because the programme's title had been broadcast incorrectly aligned - against the C4 guidelines.
Ha. Excellent! I knew they were fussy but that's quite the demonstration of their high standards. Could be doing with people like that at the BBC.
I do believe ch4 has done that to the ident central aswell. Has anyone seen the new up to date sytle guide?
One great thing about this ident package seems to be the number of design houses that are willing to post the clean originals on Vimeo, something you don't see Martin Parr doing, perhaps because his idents are just a tad worse...
Whilst I may not personally agree with everything Mike says in his reviews, I do think it's good that he's actually saying it. With all rebrands and refreshes now, broadcasters (not just the BBC) essentially spoon-feed glowing PR pieces to the design publications (The Drum, Campaign Live etc), who'll happily pick up and just run with them rather than rocking the boat in order to maintain their relationship with the broadcaster. So it's good there's at least some viewpoints looking at some of the things with branding that are a bit off (and doing so in a good traditional written way as opposed to just another Youtube video with a ropey microphone).
Would anyone really want a situation where only the good things that the broadcaster wants to see are the only views ever put out?
Having read the article, I agree with the sentiment but I think it could have been more concise. Using so many video examples and describing each one of them in detail is unnecessary IMO, I would have chosen a few particularly bad ones to make my point. I would have made the tone a little less serious, but that's just me. But I'm glad we have someone doing a blog about this kind of stuff, I've often wanted to do one myself but I end up hating everything I write.
You do wonder how so many inconsistencies and different versions can exist, when other broadcasters manage to be consistent and use the same template each time. Perhaps it's because BBC Two's endboards are a bit more complex with multiple animations to choose from.
