OGC unveils new logo to red faces – Telegraph — Ooops! Maybe keeping things under wraps for so long is not a good idea.
It cost £14,000 to create, but clearly no-one at the smart London design outfit that came up with the new logo for HM Treasury thought to turn it on its side.
The logo, for the Office of Government Commerce, was intended to signify a bold commitment to the body’s aim of “improving value for money by driving up standards and capability in procurement”.
Instead, it has generated howls of mirth and what is likely to be a barrage of teasing emails from mandarins in other departments.
According to insiders, the graphic was already proudly etched on mousemats and pens before it was unveiled for employees, who spotted the clanger within seconds.
 Oooops! Office of Glandular Control? |
Found by rumblestrip.
#30–Catshit==one definition of marketing is “creating a demand for something you didn’t know you needed” or if you are more antithetical “creating a demand for something you don’t need at all.”
Logos.
Think about it for more than a flash. Do you care at all? Are they helpful at all? Less than 1% of logos have more than 1% impact on anything?????
Here is a most excellent logo for DU===”DU”. or, spell it out in script in Red Letters. Oops, someone beat me to it. (Although I have to admit, I don’t like the “r”)
bobbs: I can’t believe it really works that way… except for the billions spent in the name of democracy.
That’s the whole point about logos: Getting the warm-fuzzies when thinking about it in a flash. Maintaining that brand recognition is bigger than religion because people vote for it with their $.
RBG
#33–RBG==I don’t people do think about logos–even in a flash. Yes–MacDonalds Arches when in a strange city which is why I left a 1% margin for certain types of functionality.
but “any” logo would do, no matter how bad.
Logos indeed are manufactured by the overpaid and overhyped marketing department for- – – – themselves. I’ve never met anyone in marketing that wasn’t a puke==even the ones that actually understood the business better than management, they are still pukes.
Don’t think I’m jealous. I don’t think I’m jealous. I’m really not jealous.
People think of logos because they can quickly find what they are looking for and know what they are getting. It’s a comfort factor. It’s like looking for the men’s washroom sign. What a drag if washroom doors had to list every language. Shell Oil no longer even uses the word “Shell” on their logo.
But any logo?
Not that I’m the argumentative type, but a case could be made that a logo needs to follow certain principles to maximize its success.
For example, it shouldn’t have lines that are too thin so it works on TV. And the examples above perfectly illustrate why you can’t give enough thought to a logo.
But most importantly, logos, like ads, have been (or can be) exhaustively tested in buyer-response scenarios. That is, ads are sent out as split runs with just one change – such as the headline or logo – to see which produces the greatest buyer interest. Like-wise clicking on fake internet products. The jury (buyers) have already rendered their verdict on this one.
Bonafide Marketing Pukes live and die for this kind of “scientifically quantifiable” marketing. (And, of course, still we get products like sleeping pills for kids.)
Certainly you can get lucky with any logo. And businesses can be successful in spite of their logo. But usually a well-designed logo can provide an additional, often quantifiable, measure of success.
For further information, drop in amd say a big hello to the friendly people at your local Ad Agency or visit this helpful site:
“What makes a great logo.”
http://tinyurl.com/y9ojz9
RBG
#35–RBG–nice link. Very seductive.
I think Dan Rather started that one.
F-you-ka
RBG