[Moz]

Found this to be interesting. 7 Million for that. They got ripped off. Total W1A stuff.  Art imitates life, it seems.

www.dailymail.co.uk 

£7 is a snip for this genius! Worth ten times that in my view. The icons are now, well, iconic and the masterbrand is probably what Lambie-Nairn meant to do in the first place.

[Lyric]

I've been saying all this time that the BBC needs a brand guardian to maintain all this stuff.

I really wish that could happen.

[orange]

Found this to be interesting. 7 Million for that. They got ripped off. Total W1A stuff.  Art imitates life, it seems.

www.dailymail.co.uk 

I’m not even a complete fan of this rebrand - but it’s a bit hilarious to see someone on here of all places posting a daily mail article that’s complaining about how much a rebrand costs - it’s one of the reasons nothing ever gets changed in the first place.

[fanoftv]

I’ve seen some people mention on Twitter that it doesn’t factor in how much they’ll save from not using Gill Sans. My question is, if they have to pay to have Gill Sans as part of the logo, why is the old logo still around? Though maybe that’s why it’s only cost £7 million so far as there is still a lot of rebranding to do.

[James2001]

Found this to be interesting. 7 Million for that. They got ripped off. Total W1A stuff.  Art imitates life, it seems.

www.dailymail.co.uk 

I’m not even a complete fan of this rebrand - but it’s a bit hilarious to see someone on here of all places posting a daily mail article that’s complaining about how much a rebrand costs - it’s one of the reasons nothing ever gets changed in the first place.

The Mail complain whatever the BBC do, whether it's spending too much money, or not spending anything at all, doing something new, leaving something to get stale, they're never happy even if it contradicts why they hated the BBC the day before.

[Stooky Bill]

I find it odd that the Express has waited till now to report in this, 14 months after I assumed it would. It's in the front page in a very quiet time for news. 

One of the many things they don't say is what wale £7 million could be spent on, that doesn't get you much prime time TV for example

[Roger Darthwell]

I’ve seen some people mention on Twitter that it doesn’t factor in how much they’ll save from not using Gill Sans. My question is, if they have to pay to have Gill Sans as part of the logo, why is the old logo still around? Though maybe that’s why it’s only cost £7 million so far as there is still a lot of rebranding to do.

I am honestly starting to think that they are not saving that much money, given all of the BBC cuts that have been announced for the next few years, in fact I find it very hard to believe that they are saving money at all with this rebrand, when the reith typeface was introduced way back in 2018, the BBC said that the BBC logo itself will not change because it's trademarked, then 3 years later they change the logo with the exact same excuse......

[Lester]

Found this to be interesting. 7 Million for that. They got ripped off. Total W1A stuff.  Art imitates life, it seems.

www.dailymail.co.uk 

Daily Mail posts an anti BBC article. Shock, horror.

[dbl]

I find it amusing they chose now to publish this - slow news day?

[Keith]

I find it amusing they chose now to publish this - slow news day?

Actually for once they're playing catchup with the Express, who had it on their front page. Perhaps ironically I noticed that on BBC News' The Papers section.