This is the new logo, all $240,000 worth (that's how much it cost to carry out preliminary research on the new brand and the cost of the actual design).
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Out with the old and in with the new
The city of Melbourne has a new logo. This is the old one which was designed in the 90s. According to our Lord Mayor, it is 'daggy'.
This is the new logo, all $240,000 worth (that's how much it cost to carry out preliminary research on the new brand and the cost of the actual design).
What do you think?
This is the new logo, all $240,000 worth (that's how much it cost to carry out preliminary research on the new brand and the cost of the actual design).
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
While the old one was daggy, the new one, I'm not so sure about either - surely it'll suffer a shorter lifespan.
At $240,000 it certainly makes for a fairly cheap corporate makeover (I bet Telstra paid more to colout in the vertical bar on their 'T'), however it still doesn't particularly say much about the city - or have I missed the symbolism?
I don't quite get it either. It's nice but not $240,000 nice. Other things in the city already have a similar logo, like the melbourne exhibition centre.
One of my Post Grad lecturers was involved in the development of the old City of Melbourne logo. He used to crap on all the time about how proud he was of that cheesy thing.
On the new logo - I wonder if they're trying to reference Melbourne's image as a cultural, creative and 'innovative' city? Not sure that the average punter would appreciate that though.
Is the new logo all of those Ms?
I don't like either logo.
EK - I agree about the logo perhaps being way too conceptual for most but I think you've nailed it on the head of what they are trying to reference here.
Victor-I think it is just the one M (but maybe with variations?).
Post a Comment