When you think about the BBC, what springs to mind? Breaking News? A trustworthy source for rapidly developing international events? Engaging political debate? I’ve certainly thought all those things in the past. The BBC webpage is the first thing I look at in the morning (even before Facebook!) and the last thing I look at before I go to sleep in the evening. They are one of the only brands that I am emotionally engaged with because of what they represent: integrity, reliability, bravery and that particular flavour of good old fashioned stiff upper lipped British-ness where pride in what they produce and quality reporting is at the core of what they do. When they are publicly criticised or make the odd mistake, they seem to investigate it quite publicly, with BBC bigwigs coming under fire in their very own shows and having to answer difficult questions. They seem relatively unafraid of publicly scrutinising themselves. Of course, in a corporation that big and that diverse, there are skeletons in all sorts of closets around the building, but in general, I like how they conduct themselves.

I came across this story today and it got me thinking – amid the furore of the Jimmy Saville scandal and the pubic resignations going on at Broadcasting House at the moment, how much damage can actually be done to a brand that is such an intrinsic part of our daily lives? Can a corporation as big and as traditionally well loved as the BBC truly be changed by a scandal this big? Are they too big a brand to break? Would sky news survive a scandal as big as this and come out relatively unscathed as the BBC will? I think that while their reputation will certainly take a temporary hit, they will be absolutely fine – they are one of the worlds most trusted brands and there is a real sense of loyalty towards them. They are perhaps the only ‘unbreakable’ brand I can think of. I can’t think of an instance where I would trust a news story from someone else over them…