elsephen

Members
  • Content Count

    741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Prospect
  1. Don't think they're going to be able to use this one in state without someone defecating on it every time. It's unanimously hated, and rightfully so.
  2. Right. Which is when you realize your job as a designer is a bit more than just that. I've got a client that's killing us right now because she has no idea what she's doing- but wants to make all decisions. I'll give her middle-ground, but I'm not allowing her to design the project. I'm not attaching my company's name to bad work. She's slowly starting to realize that she's not the designer. Her ideas are important, and her vision is as well- but she's not the designer. She hired designers for that reason. And it takes a ton of tact to be able to trick them into thinking it's their ideas- but it's the game you have to play. Or.... you put out a logo that makes everyone scratch their head.
  3. If the client is footing the bill, wouldn't it be their choice regardless of how simple and uninspiring it is? One thing I have always known about graphic design, you have to check your ego at the door. If the client is footing the bill, wouldn't it be their choice regardless of how simple and uninspiring it is? One thing I have always known about graphic design, you have to check your ego at the door. Of course. Well, to an extent. When it comes down to it- you have to make sure your client knows who they hired and why they hired you- instead of doing it themselves. And yeah, sometimes that process is almost impossible- but again- you give the client the choices. If you end up in a corner like this- it's up to you to make it work. They didn't. So... now they have this logo tied to their name. A logo that is unanimously hated. Where were you guys with all these excuses for the design team when Gap changed their logo?...
  4. https://youtu.be/Au7hnWA9AOM Nailed it!
  5. Shocker. The "branding" (pains me to use that word here) company that stole $46,000 is sticking by their work?
  6. It may be, actually. Some top artists, like Paul Rand, used to charge $100,000 per logo. If this was a long, drawn-out process, that $46k may not have been as expensive as it seems. Although certainly the final result doesn't seem to be anything to write home about. And that's the thing.... Is this half as good as anything Paul Rand, Glaser, Haviv, Scher, etc etc would create? Not even a fraction as good- yet the cost is around half. They were robbed. Plain and simple. I don't care if you take 7 years to build a Ford Focus... you can't charge the price of a Aston Martin. Doesn't work that way. If you are thinking about a career in design, you should seriously switch gears now. You don't get it. each post you make devalues the stance you're trying for some reason to take It may be, actually. Some top artists, like Paul Rand, used to charge $100,000 per logo. If this was a long, drawn-out process, that $46k may not have been as expensive as it seems. Although certainly the final result doesn't seem to be anything to write home about. And that's the thing.... Is this half as good as anything Paul Rand, Glaser, Haviv, Scher, etc etc would create? Not even a fraction as good- yet the cost is around half. They were robbed. Plain and simple. I don't care if you take 7 years to build a Ford Focus... you can't charge the price of a Aston Martin. Doesn't work that way. If you are thinking about a career in design, you should seriously switch gears now. You don't get it. each post you make devalues the stance you're trying for some reason to take If I'm THINKING about one? haha That's the thing. I'm pretty sure I'm on here having this conversation with aspiring designers and students while I'm an art director. That's my job. And if this doesn't make you all feel guilty, good luck getting hired. Your eye for solid work is lacking and your acceptance for mediocrity is prime. Neither make for good designers. I understand clients not liking your best work. That's the norm. I can give back 10 designs and they'll pick the worst one every time. However- my worst wouldn't be half as bad as this. I wouldn't allow them to choose this poorly. But.. this is the difference between those that do what they're told and those that actually have a voice in collaboration. 46k for a -$50 uninspired logo. This was mailed in. Sat on. Is what it is, gents.
  7. It may be, actually. Some top artists, like Paul Rand, used to charge $100,000 per logo. If this was a long, drawn-out process, that $46k may not have been as expensive as it seems. Although certainly the final result doesn't seem to be anything to write home about. And that's the thing.... Is this half as good as anything Paul Rand, Glaser, Haviv, Scher, etc etc would create? Not even a fraction as good- yet the cost is around half. They were robbed. Plain and simple. I don't care if you take 7 years to build a Ford Focus... you can't charge the price of a Aston Martin. Doesn't work that way.
  8. haha... dude. Once again. I get that. You somehow seem to think hours worked = quality hours worked. It does not. And that thinking is why terrible design firms rape companies for 46k for a logo that could have been done within 3 minutes... from sketch to execution. Everything else would have taken a day maximum with this lackluster effort. Hell, they could have gotten a better logo done on Fiverr.
  9. And I don't even mind the technical simplicity. I'm a big advocate that sometimes a logo can be extremely simple and doesn't require a design hardware genius to create. But it's the concept. That part is inexcusable for this pricetag. You can still have simple, effective design with a great concept and creativity. Something that'll stick. This is bad in every way. Being adaptable isn't much of an excuse with the way today's platforms operate, either. It's easier to cross-platform logos today than ever before.
  10. Or it shows they DO understand the process and know that this is terrible. And one party seems to be demonstrating more talent?... If that talent is thievery, yes. Otherwise- not even close. Makes me wonder when artists can't see the flaw in this. You're advocating terrible work- while telling someone else they don't understand the process. It's silly. You truly think this firm just had a ton of great sketches/ideas and this is what they rolled out? Come on now. It's far more likely they were at a deadline and just pushed this forward and the client said "sure."... to which they all celebrate at the office for getting 46k for absolutely nothing.
  11. You guys continue to assume I'm ignoring the basics of the process. I'm an art director at a branding firm... I'm aware of how it works. However you're also assuming that this logo was done by a firm that knows what they're doing. And outside of conning, that's a very bold assumption. My point is- I or any other designer that is even mediocre in this business could create a concept AND design better than that within 3 minutes. So it doesn't matter how much time THEY took on it. It's still only 3 minutes worth of work. Don't justify bad design.
  12. I didn't say they spent no time. I said it was 3 minutes worth of work. There's a difference. To prove as much- here's what I did in 1 minute. Timed. 1 minute. And it has more substance/relative to the state than the above logo. It's terrible, but I wouldn't charge someone 46 cents for it, much less 46 thousand dollars...
  13. That's such an ignorant statement. Not defending the outcome of the work in any way, but to say that anyone pocketed a boatload of money without putting in any effort is just dumb. Most often, when you see overly generic logos, it's the result of too many people being able to give feedback. In the case of a logo for a state, it's easy to see how that could be the case. I think it's part of the reason Nike requests schools participating in their GIG program to keep everything under wraps during the process. .... but to suggest little to no work was put into it, is ignorant. No it isn't. When your concept is pathetic, has zero symbolism, etc- the "amount of work" put in is irrelevant. In that case, I'm going to assume it was "designed" (hurts to use that word here) by an 80 yr old grandmother that has zero design experience- but she did her best learning how to operate a computer and sketched 200 variations of other generic logos with no substance. Hey cool! Now it's legit! I mean... it was 3 minutes worth of work- but it took someone 5 years! Brilliant!
  14. That's such an ignorant statement. Not defending the outcome of the work in any way, but to say that anyone pocketed a boatload of money without putting in any effort is just dumb. Most often, when you see overly generic logos, it's the result of too many people being able to give feedback. In the case of a logo for a state, it's easy to see how that could be the case. I think it's part of the reason Nike requests schools participating in their GIG program to keep everything under wraps during the process. I knew someone would try this. No. Sorry. It's not the simplicity of the logo that makes me think it took 2 minutes. It's the emptiness of it. This logo is bad. Ideally. Technically. Sorry. No defending this.
  15. Yep. 46 Thousand Dollars... for that. Must be nice to charge 46k per 3 minutes of work.