[DTV]

I'm, of course, under no illusion that, even if they had changed the logo, images of the old one would no longer be cropping up. But the BBC's failure to replace what is in effect their master logo after 21 months doesn't even give the press the opportunity and instead ensures that the BBC's brand is repeatedly represented by a logo that was deemed necessary to replace.

Interestingly, the image currently being used on the BBC was clearly taken quite recently as you can see Sunday with LK (including the recent News channel graphics changes) on the big screen in the reception.

[Andrew]

I know I'm banging a broken drum on this, but, with another BBC controversy in the news, I note we are once again seeing pictures of the former BBC logo on the front of NBH being splashed across print and online newspapers (as well as BBC News' own frontpage). I mean, it's not surprising - that is, after all, the main physical representation of the BBC brand, even if it is using a logo that was officially replaced nearly two years ago.

I'm, of course, under no illusion that, even if they had changed the logo, images of the old one would no longer be cropping up. But the BBC's failure to replace what is in effect their master logo after 21 months doesn't even give the press the opportunity and instead ensures that the BBC's brand is repeatedly represented by a logo that was deemed necessary to replace.

They’d use a library picture of the old one even if they changed it

When the Schofield stuff was in the news, many images of a generic ITV logo looked like a photo of the one from the front of The London Studios which was clearly taken a number of years ago

[DTV]

They’d use a library picture of the old one even if they changed it

When the Schofield stuff was in the news, many images of a generic ITV logo looked like a photo of the one from the front of The London Studios which was clearly taken a number of years ago

Hence me explicitly saying that I was under no illusions that changing it would have ensured all media outlets would have gone for the most up-to-date image. But it is the fact that they haven't changed it that means that there isn't even the possibility of them getting a right logo, even if they tried.

As I've said before, it all comes down to the simple binary that changing the logo was either necessary or it wasn't. If you're prepared for your main piece of corporate signage (a sign that is regularly used as a visual shorthand for the whole BBC) to be 'out of date' for at least nearly two years, it's hard to see how it was a necessary change. And I know someone will respond with 'cost pressures', but again, if the rebrand is so necessary, the cost would be fully justified. There's just no justification for the old logo being still up.

[scottishtv]

Going by an email I received, BBC Shows and Tours haven't updated their stuff yet:
 

[ViridianFan]

Hence me explicitly saying that I was under no illusions that changing it would have ensured all media outlets would have gone for the most up-to-date image. But it is the fact that they haven't changed it that means that there isn't even the possibility of them getting a right logo, even if they tried.

As I've said before, it all comes down to the simple binary that changing the logo was either necessary or it wasn't. If you're prepared for your main piece of corporate signage (a sign that is regularly used as a visual shorthand for the whole BBC) to be 'out of date' for at least nearly two years, it's hard to see how it was a necessary change. And I know someone will respond with 'cost pressures', but again, if the rebrand is so necessary, the cost would be fully justified. There's just no justification for the old logo being still up.

I may have gotten this wrong, but wasn’t the plan to keep the 1997 and use it along side BBC Reith? 

I know along side legibility, the other reason for designing their own font was reduced costs but surely as they own the copyright to the 1997 logo, they would no longer be paying to use Gill Sans as its now an image not not a font if that makes sense. I’ve been looking for an answer online but couldn’t find it. 

In one sense I’m not surprised they’re in no rush to change the logo on building etc as it is a much inferior logo. As mentioned further up it’s brought back the issues that the 1997 logo was designed to fix in the slanted logo

[chris]

I’m pretty sure you’re right - when Reith was unveiled they said there were no plans to change the blocks.

[VMPhil]

Also the letters were redrawn slightly for the logo so aren’t taken straight from Gill Sans.

[Roger Darthwell]

I may have gotten this wrong, but wasn’t the plan to keep the 1997 and use it along side BBC Reith? 

I know along side legibility, the other reason for designing their own font was reduced costs but surely as they own the copyright to the 1997 logo, they would no longer be paying to use Gill Sans as its now an image not not a font if that makes sense. I’ve been looking for an answer online but couldn’t find it. 

In one sense I’m not surprised they’re in no rush to change the logo on building etc as it is a much inferior logo. As mentioned further up it’s brought back the issues that the 1997 logo was designed to fix in the slanted logo

You are 100% right, I saw a screenshot of a presentation where it clearly stated that the BBC blocks were to remain unchanged, this rebrand has been an absolute waste of money and resources

[DTV]

I may have gotten this wrong, but wasn’t the plan to keep the 1997 and use it along side BBC Reith? 

I know along side legibility, the other reason for designing their own font was reduced costs but surely as they own the copyright to the 1997 logo, they would no longer be paying to use Gill Sans as its now an image not not a font if that makes sense. I’ve been looking for an answer online but couldn’t find it.

Yes, the decision to replace the 1997 logo was taken incredibly late in the day - the original intention had been to simply gradually rollout Reith as a typeface department by department at the next natural rebrand (as per Sport in 2017 and News in 2019). Indeed, some of the original rollout materials even suggested that replacing the BBC logo was unnecessary and wouldn't be cost effective. You're also right in that the BBC did own the full copyright to the 1997 logo (which, as VMPhil points out, includes slightly redrawn letter forms anyway), so licensing was not an issue. I've always just assumed it was an impulse decision that sort of snowballed.

[Brekkie]

"Late in the day" was still at least 10 months before the logo went to air on BBC channels and now at least two and a half years ago.

I can forgive physical signage being slow to change but no excuse whole elements of presentation still use it, including BBC Politics and production endboards for new shows.