City of Melbourne finds their new brand in Sydney
Incumbent brands by Richard Henderson at FHA
Australians love to bash a new logo, or brand. Often a new design will enjoy a raft of public comments during a brand launch which include: that brands cost too much, we don’t like or understand the design, can’t public money be spent in better ways, designers are fat cats swanning around in black clothes, appartments and cafés.
The new City of Melbourne brand developed by the Sydney office of the global brand megatron Landor, (back in the old days – Andrew Lewis Design, Lewis Kahn, Lewis Kahn Staniford, LKS Landor) and depending what else is in the news, Landor is well in line for a good serve of brand bashing.
The speed of modern communications came into its own. In the case of this new brand – at 2.42 pm today Katie Lahey from the Melbourne Age newspaper posted a piece on the new design, an article was posted at the Herald Sun as well, within twenty minutes the first email came our way looking for comment. At 4.30pm I went into a client meeting. Ten or so emails relating to the big M later, an urgent call was logged from a colleague stating that Ms Lahey would interested in my comment for The Age at 5.52pm. I was out of my meeting till 6.15pm, spoke to Ms Lahey at 6.30pm and I was too late to contribute a comment for the story as it was posted. Wow, news certainly travels fast and the brand bashing process is well under way.
It was interesting gauging comment and compiling my own thoughts of the new City of Melbourne brand. After reading Ms Lahey’s piece the opening paragraphs caught my attention:
Lord Mayor Robert Doyle has unveiled a new logo for the city, which will replace the previous M and leaf symbol introduced in the early 1990s.
Cr Doyle said the old logo was “a bit daggy” and Melbourne needed a new design to reflect its cool sophistication on the world stage.
“The world’s changed, the city of Melbourne has changed, this organisation has changed as well, and we’re now playing far more, not just on the national stage but also on the international stage,” Cr Doyle said.
It is alarming to think that main justification for spending millions of public dollars is that the incumbent brand was “a bit daggy” in a changing world. I wondered too what Richard Henderson thought of this comment – being the designer of the “a bit daggy” brand. Along with the public’s poor conception of design communications, it is no wonder the community likes to brand bash – especially in an environment where public figures start the brand bashing process by publically ratting the old brand to justify their new brand at the launch event.
My first thought was to ask –
Why wasn’t the brand developed by any one of the raft of local internationally recognised brand designers? – Emery Studios, Cato Partners, Cornwell, Hoyne Design, R-Co, Fabio Ongarato, Futurebrand, 3 Deep Design, Studio Round, ERD, Fabio Ongarato, Steve Blenheim, David Lancashire Design, to Design by Pidgeon… Why in a political environment where the Victorian state government is so keen to promote the commercial worth, work and merit of Victorian designers, did this brief go to a Sydney based studio, with a recent shingle in Melbourne?
My second thought went to the design itself –
I don’t want to comment on the look, as many will be contributing to this debate in the coming days, except to say it is graphic mark and type treatment that has enjoyed a lot of energy. My main concern lies in the move of many brands to take on a contemporary look that references modern design (abstract, graphic, diverse finishes and effect), yet have no local context or references. Modern brands seem to be hammered out too rapidly and replaced too frequently in contemporary communications. This may explain why so many new brands look the same. In this instance the new symbol could comfortably used for Milan, Manchester, Memphis as it has no sense of location, or place. I just remember that in the old days, ten to twenty years ago, brands were developed with a lot more time factored in process of making concepts, developing finished designs and seeking approvals as they had to be designed to last.
My third though went to the politics of brand design itself and the overall cost of rolling new brands out –
Changing brands is becoming very popular with the captains of industry and politicians, as it is a way demonstrating change and their regime swiftly – within a few weeks a brand brief can be developed, designers appointed, designs conceived, research undertaken, websites banners and business cards made, and re brand launch arrangements made. Changing brand is often a rapid process with the potential of making big impressions – as compared to a piece of architecture, public works programme, or public law.
Once the launch has passed, the real work and real costs take place with the rolling out the new brand across countless applications – from forms to livery, street signs to embossed brands on benches, bins and bulletin boards across the organisation. The news of a new brand makes many suppliers to the communication industry happy, as changing signing systems, vehicle livery and printed communication assets attracts a raft of new fees and costs from the client changing the brand.
In summary –
The new brand I have no problem with it is an interesting mark, however I wonder if this new mark could have been better if it had built into its design a sense of place or location, as the previous brand did – it may have been unique rather than generic.
I am alarmed that a Victorian designer was not asked to respond to this brief, especially when one takes into account the Victorian government’s policy of the value design and creativity as an asset that on sells the state to the rest of the world. One also can’t ignore the fact that Victoria has so many local designers with outstanding international reputations – no excuses can be made in regards to Victoria’s talent pool.
I am also concerned that brands are fast becoming a quick fix tool used for political agendas. One feels that a brand is above agendas and represents the essence of an organisation and in turn has a life that should spans ten to thirty years. The impact of an individual as compared to the essence of a community operate on different time scales. These time scales requires brand managers who foster the bigger picture, rather than the fashion, trends or whims of a time.
As we have said many times on this site – it is not what the brand looks likes that matters, it is what you do with it. A brand that is “a bit daggy” is a thin case from changing a brand and the costs its change brings with it.
In respect to Richard Henderson and his life work, I think Mr Doyle’s cheap shot “a bit daggy” addressed to the incumbent design is uncalled for. Mr Henderson I believe deserves some form of apology and retraction. Mr Henderson, a Victorian designer, has made a significant contribution to branding around the world for nearly 4o years and much of the lip service that Mr Doyle used to promote his new brand was dreamed up by designers like Mr Henderson.
The wheels of time are turning for us all Mr Doyle, and to find the future there has to be some attention and respect paid to the past.
Visit the City of Melbourne’s brand launch statement here
Visit the Heral Sun article here
9 comments9 Comments so far
Reply
Yes, news travels fast, I picked it up via the US and Brand New (via Under Consideration Twitter) at 2am after a very long and tiring stage of Le Tour. (A slow 12 hours after the announcement).
Brief late night comments on the logo: Initial thoughts were positive, strong visual and contemporary, perhaps too ‘now’ and along the trending line of ‘one logo – many marks’, colour and gradient variations etc etc. The M works well in the motion graphics and After Effects world, but in usage in print and on the City of Melbourne website it is inappropriate and awkward. The logo has become the all encompassing design device, and has had little self control in it’s application – early days so I will not write it off. I am not so convinced about the argument of it not being ‘placeful’ enough. It has some sort of relationship to Federation Square and the intelligent architecture of Melbourne, Yellow Peril, even the laneways. Otherwise where do you go? With the literal? Sydney has far too many Opera House inspired logos for my mind. Trams, Art Centre Towers, Footy Goal Posts etc?
Brief late night comments on local, regional and global design: We live in a very global place, and a global market, the power of the guild is subdued at best. FHA Image Design gave us the trifle meets souffle Sydney 2000 logo with boomerangs and two or three opera houses embedded within it – straight out of Collins Street. I don’t think getting a Melbourne designer would have improved the process, or a Sydney designer living in Melbourne or a Melbourne designer living in Sydney. We live in a global creative market place – free from trade protection and 19th and 20th century insecurities.
Brief late night comments on the media and design: a great double header this week of the NSW waratah logo and the big M, shocking the shock jocks and raising the ire of Joe Public.
The low hanging fruit of the project cost gets grabbed by all and sundry, with very little understanding or promotion of the reasons behind doing such big and optimistic things. I am sure this logo will repay the council and the people of the city many times over in awareness, perception, stimulation, investment and city brand value. Meaning more visitors, more prestige, more money – and Melbourne being seen as a place of energy and movement. It really puts the frights on anyone else considering doing the same thing, in government or the private sector.
Nice comments Andrew. This shows the politics involved in any industry. I would like to see the day when the original Designer, gets involved in the process of the re-design (if not as a Designer perhaps as an adviser), the re-brand process sometimes shows little respect to the original creator, which would be a good judge of the changing brief and condition, it also pays little respect to Richard Henderson (and the original group at FHA) which created a mark which has served Melbourne pretty well, perhaps AGDA should get hold of one of the old signs (who knows one day we could have a museum/gallery and teach the younger designers about this re-brand exercises).
I do find it abysmal that it needed to go to a Sydney Designer, and I think this should be publicised and put to the separate bodies, it shows a lack of communication between the state government promotion of Victorian Design and local council. The other fact is we have a Melbourne brand (designed by Cato Partners) promoting Melbourne as a destination and this is purely a city council brand so not a destination brand. I also noticed some notable omissions in your list of local studios, it would be nice to see these comments a little less biased as your posts are generally pretty good.
Another M logo?
http://www.mcec.com.au/
The Big M.
Interesting comparison to RCo’s Melbourne Convention Centre. On first sighting of the new City of Melbourne logo I thought it would have to be new RCo work. Surprisingly, it wasn’t as Richard Henderson did the original. The typefaces on both are very similar.
Both Ms play with depth and dimension, and geometry. The Landor M has a certain Escheresque play on space and direction. But RCo’s implementation on the website is so much better.
Interestingly there are two sides to the rebrand conundrum, especially with public institutions, firstly to maintain tradition and a sense of longevity, which is a good thing in cities. Especially as these marks become part of the city, on plaques, buildings, street furniture, banners etc. Some of the best bits of cities are those that nurture longevity and timelessness, like Paris and London. Some of my most visited places in Melbourne are the old, familiar, long established haunts like Pelligrinis, the Waiters Club and the European. It is going to be hard to erase almost 20 years of leafy Melbourne logos.
Don’t forget Gary Emery did the City of Sydney logo in about 1996, which is still in use, although the current council-wide branding has been helvetica-ed to death. Gill Sans was buried by the new administration.
The idea behind the many Ms is very clear: there are multiple Melbournes for different people. There is no one Melbourne, different versions exist depending on what you like and want to get out of the city.
The leafy/column/sun logo made no sense. How is that inherently Melbourne? Look at it carefully. What does it reference? Sunny skies by the sun? Ionic columns? How are sunny skies and ionic columns Melbourne? They’re not.
The new logo is fresh and forward thinking, and, most importantly, it can be used by ALL the offices that are under the City of Melbourne umbrella. It’s diverse and flexible.
And as for going to a Melbourne studio…please. The fundamental problem with Melbourne (and yes, I did live there, and my family still lives there) is that it’s so provincial. What ever happened to just getting the best man for the job? Did you ever consider that perhaps that is the reason they went to Sydney?
In Reply to Mexican Exchange
Comments like yours always make me see the benefits of Sydney, it keeps people like you away from Melbourne.
One of the worst branding jobs I have seen in a very long time! I don’t care about the money, I don’t care it’s designed in Sydney or Timbuktu. Branding jobs like these are extensive and costly (would call this one very reasonable). Looking abroad can be refreshing and definitely creates a healthy competitive tension hence the feedback. It’s the design (solution), implementation and underlying thoughts that are NOT forward but backward thinking and that is very unfortunately. My initial thoughts are old-school (80′s), un-flexible, ugly (personal), generic (biggest problem) and I could go on… Capturing a city and it’s personality, vibe and background in a single logo is simply not possible so don’t try it!!! Contemporary identities are not based on logos and some simple shapes (in this case probably based on Federation Square – how shallow). Logo follows identity and not as presented here identity follows logo. It really makes me angry to see such a shallow approach on such an amazing project.
Mmmmm…
We had an interesting discussion today in class (Im at Swinburne in my final Honors year) with one of the designers who worked on the original logo at FHA who is now lecturing and completing her phd. Many points were made but one that stood out was the lack of authority within the new logo. When FHA re-branded the Melbourne logo all those years ago, one factor that had to be met was that of the brands authority. The logo is seen on not only design posters and event collateral, but infringement notices, tickets and legal papers or publications that use authority to ensure a level of seriousness is withheld. The question may stand… Is this the logo of a city, or is it too close to suggesting a venue?
I think designing the Melbourne logo would have been a very difficult job. On the one hand you want it to look contemporary and interesting so that it stands out as unique but you also want it to look professional and serious, and as Daniel said, to show authority. I think that it is successful in finding some kind of a balance but perhaps The aesthetics of the logo come down to personal taste. I think the brief is probably more important then questioning the logo design. What did the Melbourne council actually ask for? And who was approving the design? Obviously they have a different agenda than the rest of the population. However, I think the opportunity to make something special has been lost. Using a local designer that actually has an opinion of Melbourne and that can actually capture this spirit of melbourne would seem to be the perfect answer to this problem. And I think even simply by using a Melbourne designer, already the logo would have more meaning to it. The spirit of melbourne cannot be expressed by somebody who has not experienced it. And also to the Mexican Exchange, I have lived in both Sydney and Melbourne and have no bias towards either, but to me, the uniqueness of Melbourne was not captured. And i don’t think its about the best man for the job as that is always debatable. i think its about them not understanding design and communication or understanding the idea or process of making something unique.