Comments on: Branding Australian cities: pride of place or pointless PR?

By: vunny

vunny — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:35:37 +0000

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?

By: deccles

deccles — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:52:33 +0000

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/

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:21:53 +0000

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!

By: AaronH

AaronH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:02:29 +0000

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.

By: nico

nico — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:55:51 +0000

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.

By: deccles

deccles — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:21:30 +0000

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).

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:22:51 +0000

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!”

By: Faz

Faz — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:42:53 +0000

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.

By: Michael Cordover

Michael Cordover — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:10:46 +0000

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.

By: vunny

vunny — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:56:35 +0000

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.

By: raena

raena — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:23 +0000

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:

Cr Doyle said the old logo was produced in a different era - when Joan Kirner was premier and Lindy Chamberlain was being compensated for wrongful conviction.

“If I recall accurately I was listening to MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice, and I still can’t understand that,” he said.

Councillor Doyle listened to MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice?