Same news, different views: The BBC's design at home and abroad

Introduction

It's perfectly normal for news websites to have different layouts and styles. Image and paragraph width, choice of typeface (Serif vs Sans-Serif), use of colours, horizontal page-alignment, position of the byline, location of the search field etc. All these features differ between news publishers, but, they are typically consistent within a single publisher.

Apart from consistency providing the reader with a more user-friendly experience, it also helps to build brand recognition, and, maybe even more importantly (at least from a cost point-of-view), it's simpler to design, build, and support one solution than it is two, especially when you consider that many of the choices are subjective. For example, does it really matter if the byline is above or below the header image?

This is why I'm confused as to why the BBC News site went to the trouble of creating a different design for its international audience. I understand that differences around content were required (due to rights issues etc.) and that some layout changes would be required (as the international version is ad-supported), but why change the typography, layout, colours etc.?

Page Layout

In the image below you can use the slider to compare the UK version with the international version. I guess we (in the UK) like colour, and the rest of the world… doesn't?

Features

Even though the BBC is very insistent that UK users now register when using the website, the site lacks the ability to save articles. Yet this is a feature in the international version. Saving articles on a news site isn't the most common feature, and I tend to save useful articles to a Feedly board anyway, so this isn't an issue for me, but it's still a strange inconsistency.

The international version also has a share button (as do almost all news websites), which is missing from the UK version. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I suspect it's because the international version is ad-supported, and the BBC wants to encourage sharing to increase traffic to the site. But, it's such a useful feature (after all, sharing is caring), and it's such an easy feature to implement, it seems like a very odd omission to me.

Typography

In the UK we get a sans-serif font, narrow paragraph width, and for some reason, a grey background (ok, I know, I use an off-yellow background, so who am I to criticise). The international version gets a larger serif font, wider paragraph, and a white background.

There is some consistency—unfortunately. Across both versions the BBC still refuses to use real quotes (“ ”) and em dashes (—), and instead uses typewriter style quotes (" ") 🤢 and en dashes (–) 😱.

Conclusions

The international version of the website is operated by BBC Global News Ltd., the for-profit BBC subsidiary, which also operates the BBC World News television channel.

This commercial distinction likely explains many of the differences. The international version, with its revenue-generating objectives, employs more reader-friendly typography (serif fonts are generally considered easier to read in longer articles), offers social sharing to increase traffic, and provides article-saving functionality to encourage return visits. Meanwhile, the UK version, funded by the license fee, doesn't have the same commercial pressures.

What remains puzzling is why the BBC maintains two entirely different design systems rather than a single flexible system that could accommodate both commercial and non-commercial needs. The development and maintenance costs for dual systems must be substantial, and the brand inconsistency seems counterproductive to the BBC's global identity.

Why does this bother me so much that I wrote a blog post about it? To be honest, I much prefer the international version, and I do pay a license fee to the BBC, so I guess I'm just a little jealous!