It’s not a logo

logo4

Wellington.Scoop
It’s not a logo.

As a DomPost correspondent has written online:

The new ‘design’ doesn’t contain any design elements at all. Its just text in a row.

logo5

This is what the council first accepted last November, at a cost which the DomPost says was $24,000.

There was much criticism of the cross. Was it a religious icon? Or an Easter hot cross bun?

The cross is now gone. And the council has added its name, making a five-word slogan (or nine words?) instead of the memorable (whether you liked them or not) original three words.

But no design elements at all, apart from the choice of typeface, which is a reminder of the house style of the Guardian newspaper in London. Hardly relevant to a city which keeps telling us that it’s cool.

Where’s the council communications department when it’s needed? Not a word has been issued by Richard MacLean or any of his colleagues, to explain the relevance or significance of the new design. What’s going on between the council and its design advisors. Are there any design advisors?

The only explanation to be found so far comes from Cr Coughlan, quoted by the DomPost and sounding defensive:

“There seemed to be a hue and cry about the logo with the plus on it. If there’s an additional cost associated with [removing it] that’s what happens. At the end of the day I think it’s a reasonable price tag for a reinvigorated brand.”

 

8 comments:

  1. Pauline, 30. April 2014, 12:31

    Having attended the Economic Growth and Arts committee on Tuesday, I was impressed with the presentation by the Friends of Futuna Charitable Trust and the work they do with concerts etc in the chapel. The amount they requested was $5,158.50 and the recommended amount will be $4,000. There were in total 37 requests from similar art and creative groups. I would have preferred the $39,000 logo cost to have been allocated to them, retaining the current logo. What makes the yellow background so expensive?

     
  2. Trish, 30. April 2014, 16:19

    It’s Wellington that we think is fabulous. Not the city council. It looks like a selfie bomb.

     
  3. Ellie, 30. April 2014, 16:59

    Why not reverse it and have the Maori in large type ?

     
  4. Maximus, 30. April 2014, 23:10

    Pauline – and I bet they did their own logo for free as well, and it’s better than this yellow thing. Have the council been taking lessons in how to cock things up? Or are they just born naturals at it?

     
  5. Mr Reasonable, 1. May 2014, 8:32

    Since when did just printing your name constitute a logo? $50k wasted. Wouldn’t have happened under Jack Yan. [via Twitter]

     
  6. City Lad, 1. May 2014, 18:54

    The council should ask the public what they think about this costly strange looking logo. What does the CEO have to say? If he chooses to remain silent on this issue, I recommend that he go to the Central Library and obtain some books on democracy for weekend reading.

     
  7. CC, 2. May 2014, 7:15

    Democracy? Any remaining semblance of that concept was finally extinguished with the re-election of the current Mayor. The real power is vested in the Employers Chamber of Commerce, large scale property developers, the unelected bureaucracy and generally, any Councillor who subscribes to the ideology of selling public assets.

    As for the ‘logo’ – international capital cities use more inspired designs to advertise public toilets, also in two or more languages.

     
  8. BD, 7. May 2014, 4:51

    It would have been far cheaper to use the back of the yellow pages lol

     

Write a comment: