KEY POINTS:
A new Auckland City Council logo is released and all hell breaks loose, with howls of surprise and anger at the cost. With media comments such as "Branding Bunglers have more money than sense", and "What a monumental Balls up", and TV stations considering legal action, there seems to be a somewhat mixed reaction to the new logo, to say the least.
As a graphic designer who has been creating major designs for over 30 years in New Zealand, including the All Blacks logo and a revamp of the Air New Zealand corporate identity, I am not surprised that the release of a logo can create such a furore.
I have learned from doing many projects within the Auckland area that it is very easy to underestimate the public sensitivity of something like a logo. The utmost care needs to be taken to cope with the fallout. Auckland ratepayers are very, very sensitive about public money being spent on less-than-important projects.
But what are the real issues? It's easy for everybody and his dog to complain - logos and corporate identities are easy meat. Let's be rational for a moment and consider the following;
* People instigate, design and launch logos for a reason. What is the reason, and is it a good one?
* What are fair costs for creative design work such as this project?
* What are the criteria by which we should judge a newly released corporate identity or logo?
* And, given the sensitivity of publicly owned organisations spending taxpayers' money, was the launch process of the new device properly managed?
The major issue is that corporate identity, promotion and branding is a very important part of the new way of doing business. Good graphic design can communicate a whole range of important concepts far quicker and more powerfully than the written word because visual imagery is a potent communication method.
Auckland council needs to handle its visual identity professionally because in our complex and information-rich world these things count. The published costs of $25,000 seem to be in line with current rates, while the $1 million implementation costs are highly speculative.
How about the launch? I must admit I had a whole series of questions:
Removing "Sails"; Does City of Sails fit as well as it used to? Is it thought of being excessively frivolous to be seen as a place where people sail around all day and don't do any work?
Is reverting to being just plain old "Auckland City Council" better than having a "positioning" descriptor line such as "Absolutely positively Wellington", for instance?
What was the reasoning behind this? Was the change the result of research, or gut feel?
The process. Why was there the need for the council executive's reported need for keeping the process secret when these matters are nearly always contentious?
I had these questions and a few more in my mind when I first saw the design. I feel that it would have spared a lot of media paper and ink, as well as hurt feelings, if this had been communicated at the beginning of the process.
How do other people do logos, and what happened?
The London Olympics logo had a horrendous reception initially, but has now been used for several months and with time will no doubt be well accepted as a strong, different identity that works well in saying a lot of things about both London and the Olympic Games.
What about the need for logos? Corporate identities, of which logos are only a small but highly visible part, have been going for a long time.
From the times of the ancient Egyptians, Governments have placed a visual mark on buildings and official documents to underline their ownership, so there's an obvious need to stamp ownership on a whole range of properties.
And what do I think? As not only a designer, but also a ratepayer in Auckland City for many years, I think it is very important that the council of New Zealand's largest city and business centre handles its image professionally. I think it's an important issue, and one that deserves time and resources, and I'm pleased that the council realises this.
But the process could certainly have been better managed, if only by giving out more information. Perhaps for reasons that we don't know about, this may not have been possible.
Is the logo appropriate and well designed and does the design look "right"? Personally, although I think I can understand the underlying idea, I feel that the design could have had a lot more work by professionals to give it that "finished" look.
So branding bungling or brainwave? Somewhere in the middle, I'd say; a group of well intentioned council people trying to do their best, but getting caught in a media firestorm that will soon die down.
* Dave Clark is the principal of Dave Clark Design Associates, a graphic design consultancy.
