´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Look!

Eddie Mair | 12:25 UK time, Tuesday, 7 August 2007


fourlog.JPG

radiologos.jpg

Comments

  1. At 12:36 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Geggs wrote:

    Well, 3, 4 and 7 are clever, but the rest show a lack on imagination.

  2. At 12:40 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    They aren't actually bad. I like the cartoon smile on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 7, the quote mark on 4 seems appropriate and 3 looks like one of those clef thingummies.

    Shame Radio 2 looks so boring.

  3. At 12:50 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    So, that's what the Bong stuff was for ...

    Sid

  4. At 12:54 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    WOW.......and just how much did that set us back?

    PM News letter has just Bonged into my inbox...

    "Also: the latest on F&M".........Fetishes and Masochisms?......I really do hope so.

  5. At 01:06 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Was this commissioned before Auntie hit hard times?

    Fun, but - not entirely necessary, surely?

  6. At 01:07 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Tom Harrop wrote:

    So Eddie, just how much did it all cost for these new logo things? I've read today, in my morning paper, that they only cost £1.2 million each. Is that right? Apparently a French firm did them.


    The ´óÏó´«Ã½ its what we do...with your money. :-(

  7. At 01:08 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    SSC (2) Perhaps that is because it is :-o

  8. At 01:09 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    When you scroll these up and down the page the ´óÏó´«Ã½ bit looks like a bar code!

  9. At 01:10 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    SSC;
    "Radio 2 looks so boring".

    So the new logo is entirely appropriate then!

    And PM chappies, your channel logo on the webpage and Blog header are now out of date. See if you can be the first programme on R4 to get updated online. Go on, I dare you!

    Incidentally, at a time of ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff cuts and cost-saving relocations, how much did the advertsing consultancy firm get paid for this lot? What was wrong with the old ones? Will the management trot out the time-honoured and well-worn line about 'updating our brand image to ensure that we stay relevant'. What is the point of a pure rebranding exercise if the underlying content stays pretty much the same? Are they admitting that they got it wrong before and the money spent last time around was wasted, that the branding was not relevant to the content?

    All valid questions, I think?

    Si.

  10. At 01:20 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Sally D wrote:

    Love it love it LOVE IT! although 1, 2 & 5 are dissapointing compared to 4,3 & 7! But then its only 4 that really counts!

  11. At 01:28 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Was there a competition to design new logos?

  12. At 01:38 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Agree with the rest re 3, 4, and 7, but was it really necessary?

  13. At 01:47 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Ian (11): I hope there wasn't, or somebody's head is for the chop!

  14. At 01:55 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Somewhat concerned about the choice of colour for Radio 4 and its political significance ...... Is this just a ploy to curry favour with Mr. Cameron, I wonder? Mind you, Radio 3 may well be Mr. Brown's station of choice.

  15. At 02:00 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Peej wrote:

    You didn't really post these expecting an ecstatic response did you? Nah, thought not. Bet you the froggers could have done the job just as well for the price of a tee shirt with the PM logo.

  16. At 02:03 PM on 07 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Agree with all the above - I begrudge, really, my money going on redesigning logos when I can't access DAB or Freeview. Spend the money on that please so I can actually see what my license fee is funding (2 tv channles and 5 radio stations of which I mostly watch 1 and listen to 2...I hope the rest of the services are making up for it somewhere!)

    I'd like to say Radio 4 was worth it alone but I don't like sharing my morning with Humphries when he's uber jaded.

  17. At 02:17 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Being a listener to the radio, I would not have known these logos were new. Dunno why the "E" had to be omitted from "Extra."

  18. At 02:22 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Is Radio 4 being sponsored by Vodafone?

  19. At 02:29 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Peter Wharton wrote:

    I read on the web today that large bonuses were paid last year in the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Were any paid for these designs?

  20. At 02:33 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Tom (6)

    HOW MUCH.......yes i am shouting......FCOL the 'froggers' would have done just as good a job all for the price of a weekend of beer and BBQ's.....I am so glad my license fee is being spent wisely....and if it was a French firm that did them I am doubly impressed.....

    ttfn.....wotstheFrenchforsarcasmelicious.......init

  21. At 02:38 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Witchi, you can always steam the other stations that are only on DAB/Sat/Freeview....

  22. At 02:48 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    FF (21)

    aahhhh.....steam radio......those were the days.....tickle yer crystal and away you went.....the Home service, long wave......happy days....

    ttfn.......bbcelicious.........wasn'tit

  23. At 02:58 PM on 07 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    FF - I could if I had broadband, but my single person income won't strectch to that... :(

  24. At 03:03 PM on 07 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    AND...
    Why should I pay again (phone line etc) to access something that I have already paid for. Free to air my @rse.

  25. At 03:12 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Don't tell anyone but many, manymany moons ago I did a Marketing Degree.

    I'm steeped in the Importance of Branding, Brand Values, the need to Relaunch regularly, the Subliminal Messages of Visual Cues...

    ..and these are utter dross.

    Perhaps (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should adopt New Labour's policy of 'consulting' the Licence fee payers before making every significant branding decision.

    It would work out a lot cheaper, and at least the money would be spent in the UK.

    Fifi

  26. At 03:36 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Fifi (25)

    ..go Fifi go.....go Fifi go.......go Fifi go....

    and now a quiet word from our sponsors....."

    ........loadsamoney.....

  27. At 03:48 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Was it really necessary? Probably not. But hands up everyone who thinks we should only have what's is necessary ...

    Sid

  28. At 03:54 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Humph wrote:

    25. At 03:12 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Fifi wrote:

    I'm steeped in the Importance of Breeding, Jo Brand Values, the need to Lunch regularly, the Sublime Massages of V. C. Hughes ...

    I need to get more sleep.

    H.


  29. At 04:07 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    Obviously the plan was that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were going to run a listener competition for the logos....

    On the bright side, they clearly didn't employ the same lot that did the 2012 logo.

  30. At 04:08 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Vyle wrote...

    Being a listener to the radio, I would not have known these logos were new. Dunno why the "E" had to be omitted from "Extra."

    I think it is for stylistic reasons, like spelling Vyle with a Y, innit?

  31. At 04:20 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    It's a funny thing, but I don't know anyone who is impressed by new logos. Not one single person I meet ever says "oooh look, they've got a new logo, isn't it spiffy?" about the things. Usual reaction is either "what's that supposed to be for?" (the Olympics one, for instance, got that response from anyone who hadn't been told in advance that it was the New Olympics Logo) or "Oh, is it new? I didn't notice." Once in a while there is the "oh, a new logo, isn't it really silly?" response, as to the telecomm runner with only one foot...

    Next time I suppose it'll be changing the font from Times Roman to Helvetica or vice versa and charge ten thousand pounds per letter for the "rebranding".

    Yes, the three that are actually not just a number in a circle are quite amusing. One of my kids might have thought them up at about the age of fourteen, and we'd have been really impressed.

    *How* much did they cost, again?

  32. At 04:34 PM on 07 Aug 2007, wrote:

    Chris (31)

    ..darn sight more that a beer and a BBQ weekend for the froggers.....bitter and twisted, me, never!......still "its what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does"....

  33. At 05:50 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Oooh! Dot reading from 'Under Milk Wood' made me all warm and curly, and I'm a GURL!

  34. At 08:28 PM on 07 Aug 2007, mittfh wrote:

    Radio 1 would be the hardest to come up with a new logo for - anything that the current crop of teenagers thinks looks cool will look dated in a few months time, such is the nature of pop music...
    Perhaps that's why the logo doesn't appear to have changed from its current incarnation...

    1Xtra - I suppose they had to choose something derived from Radio 1 to illustrate it's derivative nature...

    Radio 2 - perhaps the logo could have been designed with a small hole in the middle of the circle, to emulate a vinyl record, and/or thin concentric circles to emulate vinyl tracks.

    5 Live - I'm sure it wouldn't take too much effort to rearrange the 5 so it looks like a sprinter...

    6 music - This would be even easier to replicate my R2 suggestion.

    I'm no artist (about the limit of my abilities is adjusting the sensitivity of the magic wand tool), so perhaps you could provide somewhere for the more artistic amongst us to suggest alternatives for Radios 1, 1X, 2, 5, 5SE and 6?

  35. At 08:45 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Old Reigatian wrote:

    Google has competitions that schools can enter for their "Google" name artwork for special occasions. It gives school art departments something new and exciting to offer pupils, and there really IS a lot of talent out there. Why doesn't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ try this?

  36. At 10:18 PM on 07 Aug 2007, admin annie wrote:

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that almost all of the comments echo my own immediate reaction - why did they bother and what did it cost? Honestly you would think they had learned by now. Note to ´óÏó´«Ã½ managers - the whole point about radio is that it is only HEARD, not seen. New logos for radio stations are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. Plus most of your listeners are intelligent. Like Fifi - yes, her with the marketing degree says - this is dross, and insultingly it is expensive dross. Why do you keep wasting money this way instead of spending it on programmes; preferably ones that are sensible for radio so this does not include more people going for a walk (Ramblings) or people revisiting their old house (don't know what that is called as it is new). Try some good drama, or more stuff like The Choice. Today's edition was really interesting despite the fact that Michael Buerk appeared to run out of questions five minutes before the end and repeated the same one ad nauseam.

  37. At 11:18 PM on 07 Aug 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Annie (36), Yes it was good this morning wasn't it? (I didn't notice the repitition to which you refer -- probably becasue I was crying buckets-full by then.)

  38. At 09:55 AM on 29 Sep 2007, Susan Hibberd wrote:

    If you look on the homepages of teh four stations celebrating their fortieth birthday you will be able to see their former logos.

    As I sometimes listen to Radio via digital terresstrial I do see the new logos around. What is confusing is that digital radio stations Arn't preceded by "´óÏó´«Ã½ RAdio" in their title Asian Network, 1Xtra, 6Music, and ´óÏó´«Ã½7 /bbc7/help/faqs.shtml

    And the How to Listen advice on all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ National Stations is showing dome of the older EPGS for DTTV, D-SAT and D-CAB tuning details.

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.