23-11-2022, 07:48 PM
(23-11-2022, 06:28 PM)Keith Wrote: As the old and new logos are relatively similar if they were to replace them all within a couple months you'd have headlines of "BBC spends £xx thousands to change the font on its signage".
Much better to roll it out slowly over a couple financial years. Also, in 1997 the new logo was a lot more noticeably different to the one it was replacing.
Fundamentally if it is possible for an old and a new logo to coexist then you didn't need the new logo. If you are happy with the old logo remaining a key part of your brand (including adorning your headquarters) then you are outright admitting that there is no need for the new one.
While there might be a political rationale behind a slower wider physical rollout (some regional signage in 1997 wasn't changed immediately), this isn't what I was talking about. Changing it on endboards would cost next to nothing and changing the front-of-house signage on NBH should have been a key priority. There is no political reasoning behind this, just very poor planning.