This is what $8000.00 get you (for a logo design)

[J-hop]

City staff asked the creative agency that offered the lowest bid on the contract to design something that would be clearly legible on municipal signage, social media accounts, websites and other places.

I feel that when it comes to things like creative/artistic design if you select the bottom bidder by default you are pretty much guaranteed a bottom of the barrel product...

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

They pointed out that even before the logo was voted in, they were already using it on stuff

Seems par for the course from a marketing/communications department. Gotta be ready to launch the brand as soon as possible. you'd just look foolish if you waited for something as trivial as approval.

[toastgremlin]

$8000 feels cheap for a logo. Where you really pay the money is in the endless meetings where middle managers debate if it can be made "bluer."

[revelations]

Originally posted by toastgremlin
$8000 feels cheap for a logo. Where you really pay the money is in the endless meetings where middle managers debate if it can be made "bluer."

Thats exactly what i was thinking.

[Seth1968]

During Wednesday's meeting, fellow NPA Coun. Melissa De Genova said she'd been sent several versions members of the public had recreated on their own, and wondered about the consultation process behind the design. She said she herself was able to replicate the logo using Microsoft Word (see below for CTV's similar replica) and wondered why the design cost the city $8,000, and why it wasn't done in house.

Director of Corporate Communications Rena Kendall-Craden responded that the design was more than just selecting a font, and that those hired in the contract had first identified the qualities they wanted it to represent. They also had to figure out what would be legible on small screens.

What would be legible on small screens? Well, any 10 year old could answer that for free.

It's a small example of government corruption, waste, and inefficiency. It happens thousands of times a day at each level of government, and most of it goes unnoticed by the general public.

[A790]

Originally posted by toastgremlin
$8000 feels cheap for a logo. Where you really pay the money is in the endless meetings where middle managers debate if it can be made "bluer."

$8k is an expensive logo, but it's not an expensive brand.

People look at the simplicity of the logo and assume it was thrown together in five minutes. In reality, there was probably a lot of meetings, calls, and back and forth- that's where costs add up.

You hit the nail on the head.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by A790

$8k is an expensive logo, but it's not an expensive brand.

People look at the simplicity of the logo and assume it was thrown together in five minutes. In reality, there was probably a lot of meetings, calls, and back and forth- that's where costs add up.

You hit the nail on the head.

I agree with this, but their old logo was fantastic. There was zero reason to change the logo besides some jerkoff trying to justify his job.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Is this just a thing where the leaders of large cities are just idiots?

Yesterday on the news here they basically pointed out this was a huge waste of money, and they also asked people on the street, locals, tourists, students, etc... which logo they preferred... not one picked the new logo

They basically wrapped up the story with "the vote is tomorrow, and we trust the city isn't that stupid"

Gets voted in today, 7-2

They pointed out that even before the logo was voted in, they were already using it on stuff

First announcement... replacing the signs in and out of the city will cost 150K

The public who isn't subject matter expert but think they are, are dumb.

Paying $8K for a new branding is dirt cheap. Especially if it's going be a decade before you revisit it.

[ExtraSlow]

Good point about the difference between a logo and a brand. I know when i bought mine, my graphic designer produced a fifteen page document of "brand standards" which has ended up being really helpful. It's not just so simple as "buying a logo".

[asp integra]

Didn't this happen here a few years back but the cost was way more?
I thought this re-design was in the hundreds of thousands???

[suntan]

Can we make the hat fuzzier?

[msommers]

I think they used the spray can in Paint for that hat!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[civic_stylez]

Do you know what $470,000.00 gets you in Calgary?

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I agree with this, but their old logo was fantastic. There was zero reason to change the logo besides some jerkoff trying to justify his job.

Maybe. I mean, I'm not going to comment re: the need for a new logo since that doesn't really matter in the context of the conversation. Somebody was commissioned to created a new logo and that's what they did. From that perspective, need is irrelevant.

Their old logo was certainly better in my onion.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


No, what is dumb is asking a designer to give you a new logo and they come back with nothing but generic text with fonts from is MS word. That isn't even acceptable on Fivver. You don't have to be a subject matter to know that tax payers were utterly scammed, likely by one of Gregors personal hippie asshole friends.

What is also dumb is how much it is going to cost to re-brand the city signage, documents, brochures, business cards, vehicles, web sites, etc. when you already have a perfectly good, modern, and recognizable logo for the city.

I promise you: that's not how it went.

What likely happened is that the designer was commissioned and had an exploratory meeting. This meeting was probably two hours or so.

After that, 3-6 designs were likely made and sent to stakeholders. Chances are those stakeholders wanted to see the drafts on signage, promo materials, etc., so renderings and whatnot were created for each.

Then, a bunch of department heads and people who really have no skin in the game but still want to be involved (for optics or whatever) get involved. More meetings take place. Each meeting is likely $400 or so in billable time, but that doesn't matter.

More back and forth, revisions.

Finally, you settle on a final product that looks like it came from fiverr (for whatever reason). Everyone approves, everyone signs off. Done.

And that's how a text-based logo that looks like it took 5 minutes actually took 60 billable hours to complete.

Hence, $8,000 logo.

I've seen things like this happen so many times that it's not even funny.

[suntan]

That fancy little abstract graphic in the old logo would turn out poorly in B&W. Also hard to do for signage.

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by A790

Maybe. I mean, I'm not going to comment re: the need for a new logo since that doesn't really matter in the context of the conversation. Somebody was commissioned to created a new logo and that's what they did. From that perspective, need is irrelevant.

Their old logo was certainly better in my onion.


I promise you: that's not how it went.

What likely happened is that the designer was commissioned and had an exploratory meeting. This meeting was probably two hours or so.

After that, 3-6 designs were likely made and sent to stakeholders. Chances are those stakeholders wanted to see the drafts on signage, promo materials, etc., so renderings and whatnot were created for each.

Then, a bunch of department heads and people who really have no skin in the game but still want to be involved (for optics or whatever) get involved. More meetings take place. Each meeting is likely $400 or so in billable time, but that doesn't matter.

More back and forth, revisions.

Finally, you settle on a final product that looks like it came from fiverr (for whatever reason). Everyone approves, everyone signs off. Done.

And that's how a text-based logo that looks like it took 5 minutes actually took 60 billable hours to complete.

Hence, $8,000 logo.

I've seen things like this happen so many times that it's not even funny.

This sums it up perfectly. Welcome to government contracts.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


What would be legible on small screens? Well, any 10 year old could answer that for free.

It's a small example of government corruption, waste, and inefficiency. It happens thousands of times a day at each level of government, and most of it goes unnoticed by the general public.

Funny you say that. I was looking at the city's mayor and the city council and all but a couple look over 50. The average tech interface ability and knowledge of people over 50 I'd say is somewhere in the range of 20% (at best) that of the average of people half their age.

It will be interesting to see in government and all other aspects of society how the efficiency changes with the exiting of the generation that still has a high % of hunt and peckers

[toastgremlin]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb



This sums it up perfectly. Welcome to government contracts.

Welcome to any contracts. Holy shit I hate discussing design with managers and engineers.