Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Branding Australian cities: pride of place or pointless PR?
|
Big news in Melbourne today: Mayor Robert Doyle has spent $240,000 on a new logo for the city. This raises some pretty serious questions; namely: Melbourne had an old logo? Apparently so, and it looked like this:
And here’s the new one:
It kind of looks like something from a cheap Cotton On shirt, but in terms of Melbourne PR wankery, it’s got nothing on those insipid ball-of-string ads. Speaking of which, here is the obligatory video clip they’ve made to spruik the new look:
Reactions have been mixed. Currently, 67% of Age readers and 80% of Hun readers have given it the thumbs down. US design blog Brand New stumbled across the story and give their outsiders’ perspective:
Their commenters largely agree, though we did snigger at this scathing review:
At Kodoz Design’s blog, Melbourne graphic designer Marc Katsambis says it’s growing on him:
And a terrible Google Translator version of this German design blog’s thoughts reveals this garbled European perspective:
But just as a point of interest and comparison, here are how other cities in Australia have branded themselves:
Sydney. Hard to hate this, unless you’re one of those anti-Helvetica nuts — clean, modern and bonus points for not taking the easy option of a cheesy Opera-House-and-Harbour-Bridge motif.
Brisbane. Well, it’s very… Queensland. Kind of looks like those faux-vintage tshirts with things like “Jamaican me crazy” written on them, which were sort of hip until Roger David started selling them.
Adelaide. Wow, bland much? I’d insert the obligatory Adelaide-is-boring crack here, but actually, I really would have expected more from the home of the Adelaide Festival.
Perth. Really just the classic coat of arms here — not very cutting edge or much of a “logo” as such, but simple and classy.
Darwin. Quite nice, actually — you don’t really want anything too avant garde from Darwin, and the dragon fly is cute.
Hobart. A bit drab, but the subtle boat and water shape is a nice touch. What do you think? A quarter of a million well spent or just pointless indulgence? |
|
|
11 Comments
I’m pretty sure Hobart City Council’s logo is still this, not that you can tell by the tiny version hidden on their website. I think the one you linked is more like their odd wingy “that’s mel!bourne city” one.
I love this quote from the Age story:
Councillor Doyle listened to MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice?
You pay for designer goods and so you’ll pay for a designer logo. If you pay peanuts you’ll get monkeys. I wish people would stop applying 1980s prices to 2009 services. Personally I love the logo because it’s a great representation of all things Melbourne. Multifaceted and a jewel to those who grow to know and love the city. I also love it because it’s a courageous decision and it’s controversial. It makes people talk, it makes people think, unites and divides as art should and Melbourne is a work of art.
Raena is right.
This is the Council-the-organisation logo (the so-called corporate brand).
What you’ve listed is the Hobart-the-city logo (the so-called destination brand).
We also have a coat of arms if you’re into that.
Disclosure: HCC employee.
It’s a bit a ‘form and function’ thing with graphic design.
You can look at a logo in isolation and give a subjective opinion, but it’s how it works that is the test.
Assuming this is the main logo for the city it’ll have to work in all sort of places on all sorts of media — from street signs to a ‘favicon’ on a website. On that basis, the simpler the better because it will have the most flexibility. How will that logo look in a mono colour through a fax, for example?
On that basis too, you need to reconsider the Adelaide logo. It is simple, clean and versatile. I think the ‘M’ will date very quickly.
As for the money? You have big city pretensions, you pay big city prices. Come to Adelaide next time, the designers are just as good but they’re ‘big city’ up themselves.
i’m graphic design illiterate, so my reaction isn’t sophisticatd… “OH MY GOD! They’ve added colour to the yellow peril and made it their logo!”
I take it Melbourne paid monkeys … (expensive Monkeys). The new Melbourne logo is a very bad conceptual rip off of Daniel Libeskind inspired stuff (ala Fed Square).
I work for Melbourne council and today my fellow workmates and I concluded it was devised via a high school project. It is the only explanation. A very rich 15 year old out there somewhere.
The logo is actually offputting. It just didn’t look right at first glance, and it becomes more repulsive the more you stare at it.
The asymmetry, the almost-but-not-quite parallel lines through one of the diagonals, the choice of colours (ranging from light blue to pinkish-purple) scattered through the logo. Even the shape of the “M” isn’t appealing. It all just seems wrong somehow.
A very clever logo. Cheap at the price too. Think of the ‘I Love NY’ logo which has been celebrated, and remembered for years and helps place NY uppermost (or near the top of the list) when one thinks of global cities. Logos (believe it or not) can help people remember (and relate to) cities and destinations. As a comment on ‘Brand New’ states: “very 21st century” – a good way to be, methinks. The old logo looks like it belongs on fertiliser or a compost additive of some sort.
That said, it is a pity the logo wasn’t designed by a Melbourne designer (we have several eminent ones here). The new logo being designed by Landor, a huge international design company (with an office in Sydney). They have done similar work for Hong Kong, Madrid, Oman and others (http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=ourwork.by_industry&industryid=13). But still… it’s a beaut!
Leunig in today’s AGE has a great cartoon send up of it which would probably sum up most of Melbourne’s opinion about it. http://www.theage.com.au/cartoons/
No logo will ever satisfy everyone and the fact that it causes debate is a good thing. I believe the new logo is a brave decision in spite of the (expected) backlash on its cost, but on the other hand, I do think it’s too easy to cut something down without offering an alternative. Or have we become a city content on mediocrity and the bland?