Australia's Centrelink's new "rainbow" logo costed Taxpayers a whopping $4.6 million
25 replies, posted
From this:
[IMG]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/10/27/1226747/559240-b5f52bf6-3e41-11e3-9bcd-10262b6f8853.jpg[/IMG]
To This:
[IMG]http://www.mrnc.com.au/sb_cache/aboutus/id/48/f/centrelink-new-logo.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]IT'S the new Centrelink rainbow logo that cost taxpayers $4.6 million but nobody wants to own up to being the Mr Squiggle who approved the expenditure.
Despite ongoing complaints that Centrelink's call centres are understaffed, leaving families in phone-hold hell when they call the welfare agency, the Department of Human Services
found millions of dollars for the logo update.
Announced by Centrelink on the social media site Twitter in February 2012, with a post stating "We've got a new logo!'', the squiggle came with an eye-watering price tag.
First, departmental officials commissioned a $30,000 study into a new logo in 2010, when the Rudd-Gillard government merged Centrelink, Medicare and Child Support into one
department.
That was in 2010 during the period former treasurer Chris Bowen was the responsible minister.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/centrelink-rainbow-that-cost-a-pot-of-gold/story-fnii5v6w-1226747559992[/URL]
Seriously 4.6 million...Why not just pay an art student 100 bucks to come up with a few designs.
Probably cost a lot for all the copy right stuff etc. But $4.6 is still bloody stupid.
[quote]"Signage was updated at nearly 400 service centres and other office buildings at a cost of $4.67 million in 2011 and 2012,'' a Department of Human Services spokesman confirmed.[/quote]
A bit in the article which the OP conveniently excluded. Not really surprised at the $11,000 per service centre, I imagine it'd cost a few thousand to do but construction things are very inefficient in Australia as well.
That's what we call a rainbow these days?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42659857]That's what we call a rainbow these days?[/QUOTE]
I was thinking that too, what kind of a sad excuse for a rainbow only has yellow green and blue?
It wasn't $4.6 million for the logo. It was probably in the 5-figure range for the logo alone, maybe the very low 6-figures if the designer was lucky. Designers aren't usually making millions on logo design - if they were, there'd be even more logo designers in the world.
Funding went to logo replacement/rollout mostly, like the article said. 400 locations with new signs. Signs aren't cheap. You also have to replace any postage logos, stamps, whatever other office tools that centrelink would use that contains the logo (however understaffed they might be).
$4.6 million is a bit much, but it's really not unexpected. Logo changes aren't just snaps of fingers and a few thousand dollars, especially for companies with strong physical presences. Walmart's logo change a few years ago would've cost more than $4.6 million considering the number of locations they would need to replace signage on, plus branding and postage and -everything-
The designer probably got a reasonable price. They made a much better logo to replace the dated one. The millions went into logistics, not paying some pretentious logo designer like Facepunch always seems to think.
[IMG]http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/london_olympics_logo_2012.jpg[/IMG]
At least it didn't cost £400,000 just to design that.... thing.
[QUOTE=greenie;42659741]Seriously 4.6 million...Why not just pay an art student 100 bucks to come up with a few designs.[/QUOTE]
I could care less how 'meh' the logo is, it's this fucking attitude that wrecks shit for actual professionals in the design industry
this should also be taken into account;
[QUOTE=.Isak.;42659960]It wasn't $4.6 million for the logo. It was probably in the 5-figure range for the logo alone, maybe the very low 6-figures if the designer was lucky. Designers aren't usually making millions on logo design - if they were, there'd be even more logo designers in the world.
Funding went to logo replacement/rollout mostly, like the article said. 400 locations with new signs. Signs aren't cheap. You also have to replace any postage logos, stamps, whatever other office tools that centrelink would use that contains the logo (however understaffed they might be).
$4.6 million is a bit much, but it's really not unexpected. Logo changes aren't just snaps of fingers and a few thousand dollars, especially for companies with strong physical presences. Walmart's logo change a few years ago would've cost more than $4.6 million considering the number of locations they would need to replace signage on, plus branding and postage and -everything-
The designer probably got a reasonable price. They made a much better logo to replace the dated one. The millions went into logistics, not paying some pretentious logo designer like Facepunch always seems to think.[/QUOTE]
to put the artist's actual income in perspective, my company charges clients $80-90 per hour for me to work on a project, whether it be 3D modeling or tweaking things in photoshop. agreements and fitting things to the budget are based around what can be done in X amount of time.
An 8 hour project seems like only a little work but the money racks up quick, which gets complicated when you get into things that seem so dumb and simple as [i]logo design[/i].
Common practice with logo design is spending a good amount of time coming up with a large number of concepts, even if they're just random basic versions, then corresponding with the client to see what they like and figure out what direction works best for them. with projects that are going to be huge, like a company's premiere logo or a city thing or whatever, they'll want it just right to their vision and end up taking a lot of time making you re-re-redo the thing until they like it.
and as in the quote, 95% of this money went to other things like branding integration and advertising and junk
the old centrelink logo looked distinctly poor, now it doesn't really fit
kind of looks like the basis of an 'inclusive society' logo
Well, the Australians have always had some funny prices when it comes to logos.
Like $180,000
[IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/r1069787_12614902.jpg[/IMG]
for a red dot.
I guess it's a rainbow, if you are red-color blind
People in this thread see a finished product and assume that is all that went into the design work. Saying that they could "just pay an art student" is incredibly insulting to professionals who make their lives doing design work, and shows an incredible ignorance of the subject at hand. As per usual people seem to think that all of this money went to a designer while ignoring the fact that it would be expensive for any company to suddenly choose to change all of the signage on everything it owns.
[QUOTE=Novangel;42660031][IMG]http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/london_olympics_logo_2012.jpg[/IMG]
At least it didn't cost £400,000 just to design that.... thing.[/QUOTE]
I really like the style of the London olympics stuff though, including that logo.
[QUOTE=greenie;42659741]Seriously 4.6 million...Why not just pay an art student 100 bucks to come up with a few designs.[/QUOTE]
[I]Or[/I] pay 100 art students $1 for a small variety.
You would think that since they spent so much money on this logo that they would at least spell "center" right.
I want my tax money back so i can buy something on Steam.
To who and how do you spend so much money for a logo?
I never understood how these things cost so much
"Here's the logo I've come up with, thanks for the $100, would you like fries with that? No? Can I help you out with your grocery bags to your car? No? Damn, this design stuff is hard!"
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42664119]To who and how do you spend so much money for a logo?
I never understood how these things cost so much[/QUOTE]
Do you understand the basics of infrastructure? Designing a logo and getting a proper commission(especially for a fairly-big sized operation) is the easy part; it's [B]replacing each and every single existing logo with the new one that costs so much.
[/B]Every sign manufacturer, every printing service, will require numerous fees and resources in replacing these things, as well as the actual service costs of hiring these people. While a logo by itself may cost $50,000(which might seem like an absurd sum for something you could easily design, but keep in mind that the artist(s) is/are merely catering to their commissioner's tastes), all the added sum of implementing it exponentially explodes through the roof.
[QUOTE=aznz888;42666078]Do you understand the basics of infrastructure?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I never understood how these things cost so much[/QUOTE]
But thanks, I guess
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42664060][I]Or[/I] pay 100 art students $1 for a small variety.[/QUOTE]
If someone asked me to design ANYTHING for a dollar I would laugh in their face. That's actually low enough to be insulting. Even if you [I]completely[/I] half ass it and spend 30 minutes on one design, you're offering $2 an hour. That's a joke. That would maybe be acceptable compensation for having your 8 year old grandkid design a logo in word for you... [I]Maybe...[/I]
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42666157]But thanks, I guess[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to bust your balls, I just really felt like pressing in the need for how these things work, since they seem to be so vaguely-understood by people who haven't taken a marketing/economics course. Sorry if it was harsh.
'ahaha they paid that much for a logo just get some idiot to do it'
'ahaha look at that awful logo what idiot designed it'
I get that logo design seems arcane to most people but good god can't people put two and two together? Either you spend the money to get a professional to spend a lot of time and effort researching, designing, iterating, and producing a logo that represents your company and gives it distinct market recognition, or you go the cheap route and end up with some crapass WordArt that makes your company seem like a joke.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;42660049]thats still lisa giving bart a blowjob[/QUOTE]
I can't un-see this now..
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.