New SA Logo

[rev]

83 logos in there, when I looked, and only 5 of them showed South Australia's location within the rest of Australia, which was what the brief was, as far as I'm aware.

Of those 5, I prefer what we've ended up with, especially if it is not always red, but if "Australia" is an iconic photo. Red is fine for a small logo at the bottom of an A4 magazine page.

WHAT THE HELL is with the butterflies? That guy has uploaded a zillion logos with a butterfly.
And lizards..dream time themed lizards...could work, but none of those work.

Some of the butterfly logos look quite good. I quite liked some of the lizards too, particularly the map one.

What do butterflies have to do with our state though? It's not something that identifies SA..

Here's the Welcome to Adelaide sign leaving the airport(via instagram).

[Nathan]

Hey Nathan - I need a logo, could you make about 10 and then I'll pick the one we like and then pay you for that one.

Heh heh. Scarily you do get some people try that on, which is when you have to repeat the explanation that it's as much about the process as the end result, and that's what they're paying for.

Here's the Welcome to Adelaide sign leaving the airport(via instagram).

I arrived back into the airport just a few hours, hoping I wouldn't see that. The inside of the airport is already plastered with it, large signs near pretty much every gate. Waaaaaay too heavy handed.

[SRW]

Hey Nathan - I need a logo, could you make about 10 and then I'll pick the one we like and then pay you for that one.

Clever way to illustrate Nathan's point, Mono.

Crowdsourcing will never be a reliable way to deliver a credible branding because, to make any sort of living, designers will necessarily spread themselves thinly between several projects, giving none the analysis and consideration required. The less scrupulous of designers will repeat visual devices across multiple projects, resulting in even poorer outcomes, which explains the plethora of butterflies over at 99 Designs...

[dsriggs]

What do butterflies have to do with our state though? It's not something that identifies SA..

I assume it's something about Sleepy Old Adelaide coming out of it's cocoon or something.

[stumpjumper]

I agree. Way too many butterflies.

Why not leave out the 'butter' and just feature ordinary flies?

[Aidan]

WHAT THE HELL is with the butterflies? That guy has uploaded a zillion logos with a butterfly.
And lizards..dream time themed lizards...could work, but none of those work.

Some of the butterfly logos look quite good. I quite liked some of the lizards too, particularly the map one.

What do butterflies have to do with our state though? It's not something that identifies SA..

That's a good question, and it made me think of Murray Bridge, as ISTR there was a butterfly house at Murray Bridge South. Looking on Google Maps to see if it's still there, I was unable to find the answer. Instead I was surprised to see Puzzle Park, as I thought I'd read here that it had been demolished - yet there it is on a 2013 photo looking intact.

But if that specific connection is gone it isn't necessarily a problem - after all, what do jigsaw puzzles have to do with Victoria? I can't think of any connection besides the logo, yet the advertising campaign was a triumph!

Here's the Welcome to Adelaide sign leaving the airport(via instagram).

It doesn't seem to work at all well in this context. But at least the font they used doesn't make us look silly.

[Aidan]

As for crowd sourcing becoming more ubiquous, I take it you'd be happy to work with no guarantee of payment? Just getting trivial amounts of money, which don't even meet minimum wage, becomes a competition. You'd really accept that as a professional? And can't you see that all it would lead to is people applying the least amount of time and effort to any job (why spend more time than the bare minimum on something you'd unlikely get any money at all for)? If you've engaged someone to do a job, they should be compensated for doing it - full stop.

As a transport engineer I have to say it would actually be a vast improvement on the current situation where work depends on winning large tenders, but reports go unscrutinized and departmental decisions go unchallenged, as there is neither the financial incentive to identify improvements nor any procedure to take advantage of potential improvements if someone does find them.

The reason the amounts of money available for designing logos are trivial is because the work is trivial - it's something that lots of people could do, and it's unlikely to make or save the client a lot of money. More specialized crowdsourcing tends to involve a lot more money, as sites like Kaggle prove. And spending the bare minimum of time is unlikely to get good results - and results, not effort, are what the client is after.

[Nathan]

The reason the amounts of money available for designing logos are trivial is because the work is trivial - it's something that lots of people could do, and it's unlikely to make or save the client a lot of money. More specialized crowdsourcing tends to involve a lot more money, as sites like Kaggle prove. And spending the bare minimum of time is unlikely to get good results - and results, not effort, are what the client is after.

I'm sorry, but graphic design is certainly NOT trivial and not something "lots of people could do". Having a pirated copy of Creative Suite does not make you a designer, just like a set of kitchen knives doesn't make you a chef, a calculator make you an accountant, and playing SimCity does not make you an expert urban planner. It shows you have a serious misunderstanding on what branding and graphic design is for, and the expertise needed to do it well. Your understanding of design is the reason I have such a problem with crowd sourcing sites — they devalue the work of professional designers and give clients a completely wrong impression of the services involved.

You've clearly never had any interaction with a designer, or been involved in a project, as you've chosen not to back up your earlier claim that designers charge "artificially high prices".

[Aidan]

The reason the amounts of money available for designing logos are trivial is because the work is trivial - it's something that lots of people could do, and it's unlikely to make or save the client a lot of money. More specialized crowdsourcing tends to involve a lot more money, as sites like Kaggle prove. And spending the bare minimum of time is unlikely to get good results - and results, not effort, are what the client is after.

I'm sorry, but graphic design is certainly NOT trivial and not something "lots of people could do". Having a pirated copy of Creative Suite does not make you a designer, just like a set of kitchen knives doesn't make you a chef, a calculator make you an accountant, and playing SimCity does not make you an expert urban planner

That much is true, but you miss my point.

You don't need to be a chef to cook a meal.
You don't need to be an accountant to balance the books.
You don't need to be a graphic designer to design a logo.

When I needed a business logo I designed my own. And no, I didn't use a pirated copy of Creative Suite.

Urban planning's likely to be a bit different because of the high value of the results and the very limited opportunities for changes. But most logo design doesn't make or break the product - and if the logo isn't that good, it can always be changed later.

It shows you have a serious misunderstanding on what branding and graphic design is for, and the expertise needed to do it well. Your understanding of design is the reason I have such a problem with crowd sourcing sites — they devalue the work of professional designers and give clients a completely wrong impression of the services involved.

My misunderstanding??? I'm well aware that graphic design is for a lot more than just logos. Your complaint about them devaluing your services does more to give clients a completely wrong impression than I ever did. You provide many services, some of which require more expertise than others. Crowdsourcing devalues the ones that anyone can do. Are you really unable to effectively communicate the value of the rest?

[Nathan]

You still seem to think that is a distinct service called "logo design", that generates just a logo and calls it a day. It is a vast over-simplification of the process. A logo is just the central of a much bigger visual identity system (which for a small business, might be small, but certainly never limited to just "a logo", to ones that are comprehensive on an almost encyclopaedic level - since not only do you have consider a large already existing array of applications - but also anticipate future needs - and they have to work together cohesively). There is also a lot of strategy done before a single pencil is ever brought to sketchpad. In fact let me emphasise strategy. Good branding is never about sticking a pretty picture on your business card. A company does not have a logo because it has to. Good branding is always about communication. It's about representing the values and goals of the company. It can affect public perception not just on what the company does, but also the kind of culture to expect, the level of professionalism, and the market they're aiming at (along with countless other qualities, which is why strategy and discussion with the client is so important as the first stage of any project). These may seem immaterial, and they can be if the service or product you offer fails to deliver on promises your brand makes, but they really do have an affect on the way people perceive a company.

I have never ever worked on a project, or known any other designer who has, that is just "a logo". For something like the SA branding, most of the budget would be spent on strategy and then brand rollout (applications, collateral, brand book, standards manual, etc.). Sure you can scribble something up and stick it in your letterhead word template and call it "a logo", and pat yourself on the back on money well saved (although you did just spend a bunch of time instead of actually doing your own job) — but it's unlikely it would have the strategic and creative thinking behind it (not the technical execution) that a professional would have given, nor the further development of an overall visual identity.

It's also not as simple as just changing the logo again later if it isn't that good. Firstly, why not do it right the first time - such a waste of money re-engaging the entire process unnecessarily (that's not to say don't consider rebranding if there's a genuine need to, like a change in a company's goals). Secondly, if you are constantly changing your identity then all that does is present your company as indecisive and unsure of yourselves — not qualities anyone wants to project to clients — and you never let the existing identity gain any traction within the marketplace.

[[Shuz]]

It seems blatantly obvious, even to Blind Freddy, that strategy is the last thing that these 'professionals' thought of and used when coming up with new state logo. The whole thing has been an absolute farce and an absurd waste of $1.4m of taxpayer's money.

And to put the icing on the cake, the Liberals and Stephen Marshall are in support of retaining it!

It's just ludicrous. I have yet to come across anyone whom I've had a discussion with that likes it. The majority even questioned that there was nothing wrong with the SA: A Brillaint Blend logo and slogan.

[monotonehell]

It seems blatantly obvious, even to Blind Freddy, that strategy is the last thing that these 'professionals' thought of and used when coming up with new state logo. The whole thing has been an absolute farce and an absurd waste of $1.4m of taxpayer's money.

And to put the icing on the cake, the Liberals and Stephen Marshall are in support of retaining it!

It's just ludicrous. I have yet to come across anyone whom I've had a discussion with that likes it. The majority even questioned that there was nothing wrong with the SA: A Brillaint Blend logo and slogan.

Now that we are starting to see the implementation (ie strategy) eg the airport photos above, I would have to disagree with you Shuz. What we've seen has been the public's kneejerk reaction to just the logo. The "I could have done better" brigade have come out in force. Not one of them have looked at the research or strategy behind it. Less rage and more observation is in order.

[Nathan]

It seems blatantly obvious, even to Blind Freddy, that strategy is the last thing that these 'professionals' thought of and used when coming up with new state logo. The whole thing has been an absolute farce and an absurd waste of $1.4m of taxpayer's money.

And to put the icing on the cake, the Liberals and Stephen Marshall are in support of retaining it!

It's just ludicrous. I have yet to come across anyone whom I've had a discussion with that likes it. The majority even questioned that there was nothing wrong with the SA: A Brillaint Blend logo and slogan.

As I said much earlier, I too believe the true problems with this rebranding stem back from the initial strategy stage. The original thing that sparked this whole thing was someone telling the premier they didn't know where SA was. Nice catalyst to begin a discussion, before delving into deeper issues about what the real goals should be and what the best way is to position our state, but it appears the brief itself never evolved beyond that - hence the ho-hum and very literal result. Since we don't know what actually happened - this could have been a failing on the part of Cato Partners, or it could have been the fault of the client (whoever in government was handling the project) - as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Sometimes you do have to really battle a client to try and get them to go down the recommended path, and sometimes you have to eventually relent when it's clear the client is not prepared to budge despite their best interests (this is more common when bureaucracy rears it's head into a project, and design by committee forces a watered down solution). For all we know, Cato may have tried to engage them into discussing things deeper, but the government insisted that the location of SA was the real problem and that's what they wanted solved. (This doesn't excuse the technical failings with it, I think the logo and associated branding is badly done, but that's a separate issue and secondary to the strategy failings.)

To be fair though, the new brand isn't a redesign of the Brilliant Blend branding. Brilliant Blend was specific to the Tourism Commission, whereas the new brand is much more far reaching. Personally, I prefer the Brilliant Blend - it was much better resolved, and had a stronger concept. However, the goals of the rebranding are clearly different than what was needed for the Tourism Commission when that was done (as misguided as they are).

[Wayno]

The original thing that sparked this whole thing was someone telling the premier they didn't know where SA was. Nice catalyst to begin a discussion, before delving into deeper issues about what the real goals should be and what the best way is to position our state, but it appears the brief itself never evolved beyond that - hence the ho-hum and very literal result.

sorry mate but that's pure speculation - unless you were a fly on the wall.

[Nathan]

The original thing that sparked this whole thing was someone telling the premier they didn't know where SA was. Nice catalyst to begin a discussion, before delving into deeper issues about what the real goals should be and what the best way is to position our state, but it appears the brief itself never evolved beyond that - hence the ho-hum and very literal result.

sorry mate but that's pure speculation - unless you were a fly on the wall.

Yes, of course it is. Hence my very next sentence "Since we don't know what actually happened...". I thought I was pretty clear that it was my inference based on what was publicly said, the end result, and my own professional experience.