I was watching an old Liquid News report on the new BBC Two Idents, and they said that when the new twos were released in 1989, the audience share went up quite a lot. Also when Channel 4 introduced new idents, even though their programming hadn't changed a bit, they got higher audience shares.
In my opinion, idents are one ingredient in the making of a channel, but one of the most important. The idents, even in favour of the programme, decide the channel's image and personality. On paper, when you think of a channel, you are supposed to conjure up an image of that channel's personality.
It was a fact that when BBC Two conducted research 13 or so years ago, they found that the general public saw it to be dull and boring. And without making any substantial changes in its programming content, they replaced the idents. The boring TWO letters on white background were ditched and out came the very clever and at the time cutting edge idents - these put a bit of personality into the channel, it its whole image changed.
Perhaps there could be an argument that in today's world of branding, idents have less effect than they would have done 15 years ago. But I'd still argue that idents are vitally important to a channel. I could write a thesis on this you know. But I'll spare you.
A good ident really shouldn't be noticed - only bad idents will stand out!
I can see what you mean, but I would debate that point actually.
If I were in charge of a channel's idents, I'd want them to be noticed. I'd try to make them an actual focal point instead of the bits between programmes. I'd make my target getting the idents talked about among people who really couldn't give a toss about them.
I was watching said article and it said that each ident cost £30,000 to make. I cannot understand how it could cost that much! In one of them, the 2 just jumps around a lot, i could do that for a tenner!
A good ident really shouldn't be noticed - only bad idents will stand out!
I can see what you mean, but I would debate that point actually.
If I were in charge of a channel's idents, I'd want them to be noticed. I'd try to make them an actual focal point instead of the bits between programmes. I'd make my target getting the idents talked about among people who really couldn't give a toss about them.
So, in that respect, Lorraine Heggessey has succeeded in the dancer idents. Whether people like them or not, the fact is people talk about them. Therefore, an instant identity for BBC1 as everyone knows what channel the dancers are representing. Actually quite a clever piece of marketing. Which proves that idents don't have to be popular, but just have to serve the cause of identifying a channel.
However, that said, I think for BBC1 to be recognised worldwide, then an NBC style logo needs to be devised. I understand that if people don't notice it then it is working. It's only when recognised symbols are removed or changed the lack of identity begins.
I believe that changing the idents and presentation of a channel can make a difference, but only if it's a very radical, noticable change for the better, i.e. "TWO" to "2" in 1991. There are only a limited number of good new ideas that can be had in relation to idents/presentation, and IMO most (if not all) of them have been used up by now.
These days, it seems that TV companies are absolutely obsessed by what has happened to the ratings of certain channels when they have overhauled their idents/presentation in the past, and are therefore determined to keep on rebranding/revamping their channels until they get it right. But, they won't get it right, because most of the good ideas are either taken, or have been scrapped long ago and they're too embarressed (or whatever) to put them back into use.
TV companies also seem to fail to realise that the most successful idents/presentation packages in the past were either very expensive, or they looked very expensive. Cheap (or cheap-looking) presentation just won't work, IMO.
A good ident really shouldn't be noticed - only bad idents will stand out!
I can see what you mean, but I would debate that point actually.
If I were in charge of a channel's idents, I'd want them to be noticed. I'd try to make them an actual focal point instead of the bits between programmes. I'd make my target getting the idents talked about among people who really couldn't give a toss about them.
So, in that respect, Lorraine Heggessey has succeeded in the dancer idents. Whether people like them or not, the fact is people talk about them. Therefore, an instant identity for BBC1 as everyone knows what channel the dancers are representing. Actually quite a clever piece of marketing. Which proves that idents don't have to be popular, but just have to serve the cause of identifying a channel.
The dancers have certainly been successful in that respect. It got to the stage where the balloons had become a part of the furniture. By dropping the balloons in favour of the dancers, people did talk about the idents.
You have to remember that the vast majority of the viewing public don't care an ounce about idents. In the case of the dancers, only the Daily Mail, viewers who write to Points of View on a regular basis or those who visit this forum would bother to complain or praise the dancers. But to the "normal" viewer, the idents were different to the balloons.
Quote:
However, that said, I think for BBC1 to be recognised worldwide, then an NBC style logo needs to be devised. I understand that if people don't notice it then it is working. It's only when recognised symbols are removed or changed the lack of identity begins.
I'm not quite sure what you mean there. BBC One doesn't NEED to be recognised worldwide - it is a domestic channel, and domestically it is a part of life anyway.
NBC does need to be recognised worldwide because that IS the company. BBC One doesn't, because it is just one small branch of a massive and world famous organisation - the BBC. And the BBC has already established its reputation through all of its output.
