elsephen

Tennessee pays 46k for new State Logo

Recommended Posts

I'm waiting for the real one to pop up.

elsephen does have a point, if you look at the logo for what it is it is mainly one colour that they have put a capital T and N inside of and added a blue strip below a white void that has taken around three minutes.

When i first saw it i thought it was for a TV Network or paper, if people from outside of the state don't know what it is then how does this help the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may have wanted a logo that can easily be rendered in black and white or other colors and still be understood. A color-heavy busy logo may not be as easily translatable. Not that it's a good logo, but nowadays, people are looking at logos on mobile screens, hi-def TVs, PDFs, etc. and thus clean, simple and easily resized and recolored is an important factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can't say wether ro not it was an upgrade or downgrade. All I can say is this: Simpistic.

That's not and thing, either. In fact, it's still funny that this cost 46 K, but at the same time, I don't mind the approach. Like Quillz stated, they more than likely wanted somethign that was easy to adapt for purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this isn't replacing the 3 stars in a circle because that is Tenn's most iconic symbol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the old logo look like for comparison?

They never really had one. Most of there different logos (depending on department) involved the tri-star and/or the state silhouette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted a video on Twitter this morning of them creating this logo in MS Paint in 26 seconds. At least they didnt go with UT Puke Orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Again, the price tag is for the whole entire process, not just for that one logo. Also, you are just assuming that all they received was this logo. The firm most likely developed letter head graphics, signage graphics, a new website along with website graphics, marketing graphics, and countless other things to go along with the state's new brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$46,000 is pretty cheap, I think. I don't do graphics design, but I do communications work. Depending on the size of the team, $46,000 for an iterative branding process (especially if it takes multiple months) seems like a pretty good value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$46,000 is pretty cheap, I think. I don't do graphics design, but I do communications work. Depending on the size of the team, $46,000 for an iterative branding process (especially if it takes multiple months) seems like a pretty good value.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$46,000 is pretty cheap, I think. I don't do graphics design, but I do communications work. Depending on the size of the team, $46,000 for an iterative branding process (especially if it takes multiple months) seems like a pretty good value.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it would be fun to try out, I made mine in 2 minutes and 31seconds and wasn't even trying to be quick. I also made it in apple Pages, which is essentially the same as Word.

I also like my version better! (But I did realize mine is more rectangular than the actual logo, that must be the $46k mistake.)

Screen%20Shot%202015-05-21%20at%2012.20.

That is more fitting for a newspaper outlet.

Like say, this? Logo for the Buffalo News

buffalo_news_logo_nyreblog_com.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is what annoys me about doing clean simple design. Feeling like you have to put it a whole bunch of bull :censored: so that people think you've actually spent time on it.


I'm not saying this work is amazing, or even that I like it, but when the brand identity rolls out I'm sure the logo will show merit in context.


$50K is nothing for a brand identity for a major city, and anyone who thinks this is money wasted is deluded."



^best comment i've found on the topic. i don't care enough to argue with the OP.


Edited by Ice_Cap
make your points without resorting to personal insults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$46,000 is pretty cheap, I think. I don't do graphics design, but I do communications work. Depending on the size of the team, $46,000 for an iterative branding process (especially if it takes multiple months) seems like a pretty good value.

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.

The problem is "good" is entirely subjective. What you find good I may not, and vice versa. And it really depends entirely on context. As the above post stated, we haven't seen the entire brand identity yet. This may be one of several logos. But either way, the concept is clearly a universal logo that can be used in multiple applications. That seemingly demanded something simple, clean, easily resized and shown in different colors (or black and white). Again, I don't think the logo in of itself is that great, but I do think that the logo likely achieved what the design goals were. (Which obviously I can't know for sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$46,000 is pretty cheap, I think. I don't do graphics design, but I do communications work. Depending on the size of the team, $46,000 for an iterative branding process (especially if it takes multiple months) seems like a pretty good value.

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

Edited by Ice_Cap
make your point without resorting to personal insults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm most baffled that Tennessee.gov doesn't have an online presence in any new/social media outlets. I was searching for a brand mark and couldn't even find a brand other than some department specific pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The marketing and design agency that created the logo, GS&F, responded to the criticism on its Facebook page:

"We explored hundreds of directions and ultimately created a strong and simplified brand identity system for the state government of Tennessee. We stand by our work."

The controversy has prompted other agencies, including Titan Web Marketing Solutions, to weigh in.

"We feel for both sides," said Anne Mercer, with Titan Web Marketing Solutions. "The taxpayers, they saw the $46,000 price tag and went, oh my gosh. This is such a lot of money for what seems to be such a simplistic logo. On the other side of it, we feel for GS&F, who probably spent hours upon hours developing tons of concepts, tons of brand identities for the state. And then the state chose this one, or whomever chose this one."

Read more: http://www.wsmv.com/story/29138623/firm-behind-new-state-logo-stands-by-design#ixzz3b4R2RCu8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.