Channel 5 logo before and after

One of just a few comments that goes against the grain:

“Richard Desmond’s company produces red-top tabloids, celeb mags and porn channels. They are no doubt aiming to move Channel 5 (which has never been exactly up-market) into a similarly down-market position. Look at some of the other logos.

Daily Star logo
OK! logo
New Magazine logo

“All of them would receive a slating on sites like this, but they work, and they draw in the intended audience (the kind of people who would probably consider most of the logos that receive good reviews on here as too arty-farty). The new Channel 5 logo is perfectly in keeping.”
— Simon

Channel 5 logo

Channel 5 logo

You can see the full evolution of Channel 5’s idents in this archive from 1997 to 2010.

For a channel identity that really works, I’ve always loved Channel 4.

# #

February 14, 2011


So are you saying down-market audiences don’t deserve good design?
I don’t consider this good design, I think the previous two logos have been perfectly acceptable, where as this design seems really quite primitive.

I think a logo has to meet certain needs, audiences and represent the brand, but beyond that your left with aesthetics. I think any logo should aspire to be iconic, memorable, simple and to achieve such would probably aim for some area of uniqueness. The reason I find this design bad is that it isn’t iconic, the formal qualities are gareish and it doesn’t appear as distinct as previously, not that it’s ever been fantastic.

Another problem may be is that channel 5 have jumped around rebranding every few years hoping to grab better audiences? whereas other channels have developed established theirs, keeping something that people at least recognise when they flick over to the channel. I think nearly every time I’ve watched channel 5 it’s had a different logo, as I can’t say it’s popular channel for me.

The gist of the post was about appropriateness. I agreed in a comment above that it didn’t need changed, and you’re right — it’s definitely better to develop an identity rather than rehash it every few years.

Speaking of iconic logos, can a logo be considered truly iconic without the backing of a huge marketing spend?

Changing your branding a bit wont make any difference to how you are perceived unless you change what you do.

Branding is no magic wand. It didn’t make BP an ecologically friendly company, only changing what they do can do that. The brand influences your view of the branding more than vice versa.

Branding should change when the product changes. But there has to be a reason for it. There is a lot of waste by changing something for the sake of changing it.

I see no value in this ‘rebrand’ for viewer or Channel 5.

Its a complete downgrade. It looks like a rushed first brand for the channel. Yes it is meant to be similar. No the old days werent always better. The more recent logo was effective in portraying Five as a better channel and putting it into words seemed to do this. The new logo is almost copying other channels (Channel 4, BBC 1 and 2 etc)

The Five logo is a good evoluiton of the brand was unsure when i first saw it but when its running on screen with the idents it works really well.

Also if you want to a fantastic example of a great but simple style guide check out the E4 one. Its clean, simple and lays out how to work with the brand perfectly so anyone could pick up and create something fitting in with the E4 brand

Share a thought