Re-brand marketing consultants:
Blow torch and a wire coat-hanger bent into the word "Parasite".
Oldham Council has failed to follow its own motto - "Sapere Aude", or "dare to be wise" in the local dialect - and has spunked £100k on a couple of circles and its own name. That new Oldham logo in full Yup, the consultants behind the radical rebrand must have worn out a few whalesong CDs brainstorming their way to the new …
"...what we have been hearing from people is some out-of-date, negative views about Oldham as a place and as a council. So we felt we needed to do something about that."
How about picking up the bins when you're supposed to, keeping the streets safe, repairing the roads and giving any money you don't need back to the taxpayers? You never know, that might change some views.
Surely there is some issue that councils rebranding just costs too much, what with the cost of the marketing consultants, then the signage on village names, council vans, offices, roundabouts, letterheads, forms stationery, pens, keyfobs, passes, websites, and I am sure I am only scratching the surface. Can you guess who pays for this
Just as well we have a wealth of services that are well funded as we seem to have all this spare money around just gathering dust.. no wait...
Kirklees (Huddersfield) have gone through exactly this process.. looking forward to seeing the final cost
Mines the one with the soapbox underneath...
Usual misreporting by the media (the MEN in this case). Logos do not cost £100k. It may cost £100k to print material and relaunch websites, but about £10k of that it creating the actual brand.
Unless you want to spend £10k and have a pretty logo on a piece of paper, there's no point. If you're not to going to implement the brand it's pointless.
If there's one place that does need rebranding, it's Wythenshawe and it's cracking strapline:
"Still Wyth-it after 30 years"
Activity made necessary by pointless activity is also pointless activity. If you kick me down the stairs then both the immediate bruise on my back *and* the ensuing damage to my limbs, ribcage and head are your fault.
Every penny of that £100k remains a total waste. No misreporting.
Typical Oldham Council.
No money to do anything that matters, but can find 100k to blow on a crap logo. They also get the bonus of the publicity, declaring to the world the extent of their utter crapness. It wouldn't surprise me if the consultancy firm is owned by a close friend of our glorious leader. Every other service is.
I've long said we should give the town to the RAF as a bombing range.
...I can't say I'm in the wrong game, just charging the wrong amount. A good designer might charge (say) £80 per hour, so that means this took 1250 hours or approx 166 days. However, I'd say even an average designer could have done this in a day max, 'thinking time' included. Perhaps they did and this is just an example of 'value-based pricing'. In any event, I want to hire the salesperson from the design agency who negotiated the price. He's definitely very good value.
here's another way oldham council wasted money
they recently errected a huge banner that covers the hole of one side of civic centre it's 15 stories tall (2oo ft or 61 meters)
first off they didnt even have planning permission
2nd the picture on this poster looks like a giant cock!
if you look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Civic_Centre_at_Oldham.png)
the poster covers the whole of the left side
The "higher ups" in the shiny suits will have allocated a nice sum, say £25k, off the top of central council funding, for the Town Hall letter heads, signs etc. to be changed, (scrapping any old stock).
Then they'll send a tough e-mail to all the frontline services ( i.e. the people who actually do work with the public) tinstructing them that they must also stop using the old signs, letter heads etc. immedaltely.
But these services won't get any new funding for this, so they'll have to find this cost out of their existing budgets. Which sounds very frugal and economical with public money, except of course that then this has to come out of the resources they need to do the job.
"The main picture that people will see is a circle. It's a circle of unity, it's about oneness, it's about saying, 'We're about many places but one destination,' for example."
Indeed, a circle does only have one destination... and that's back where you started.
Paris 'cos I bet her circle leads somewhere nicer than Oldham
You have to get the aspect ratio exactly right. I can see the distortion on most screens: most people can if they look. But the real problem is that you have the same problem on paper.
They will have to look at every single item they ever send out for printing to make sure that the circle is 'round enough' on the final product.
a white circle on a blue background, representing the pride of Oldham, a tubular bandage. Also symbolising healing and unity. But as this is a commercial product that can't be seen to be endorsed with public money, the whalesong explanation is required for consumption outside the town.
Looks like a target for "here be a sucker" painted by the "marketers" who sold them this pile of shite.
Can someone PLEASE institute the death penalty for bureaucrats who prove themselves to be utterly stupid? Because thanks to workplace accident prevention, it's getting harder and harder to arrange for Darwin Awards for these utter wastes of space. Just think of the millions upon millions of quid that could be saved if these complete morons could be erased from the gene pool?
Sheesh! Guys, I hate to rain on another pint-sized think-fest but if any of you worked in the industry you'd know that the cost always covers far more than simply 'making a logo'.
It's like you're confusing the cost of an international flight with the cost of the paper ticket in your hand; confusing the cost of your software with the cost of the DVD it comes on; the cost of a wedding with... well, you get the idea.
Branding is not a synonym for a "making a logo".
P.S. I don't have any connection with any of the businesses in the story.
a) Not easy
b) Not quick
As PH says, you are being morons. The real issue here is how a council was talked into / desperately trying to spend so much public money rebranding. They could have got it cheaper, or not done it at all. They could have rebranded to a style that doesn't already look dated, to save future costs. They could have used the freaking town owl mascot. They could have smoked less joss stick.
But all of that only shows incompetence, greed, and masturbation by the council and the consultants involved. It does not prove anything about the concept of rebranding as a whole.
Ask Nike how much value they got out of their Swoosh, and how much they paid for it. Ask Skype if it was easy grabbing ridiculous amounts of mindshare in a market occupied by giants. Picture the golden arches of a certain hamburger company, you can can't you? Clear as day. Only takes 10 minutes to draw it, but does that mean it takes 10 minutes to design it? You don't know, because you're a moron.
This thread is full of the kind of idiots who look at a Jackson Pollock and say "faaaakin ell, my 4 year old daughter could do that wiv her own vomit, fuksaiiik"
I could maybe copy out 5,000 lines of code in a day, if you provide coffee and biscuits. So shall we start laughing at applications that cost more than £50 to produce from scratch?
I hope they realise that they've stolen this symbol from another organisation:
This could be the bloodiest trademark dispute in history...
Black helicopters, because the Argentine rebranding consultants will be landing in Oldham very, very soon
Does PH stand for Paris Hilton? Just wondering because she'd probably use this kind of logic too.
It's like polishing a turd for 100k - of course the cost isn't just for the polished turd, it's for the polish, the cloth, the polisher's hourly rate, consultancy & focus groups to derive the optimum polish type etc. Doesn't change the fact that it's still polishing a turd.
Like a previous poster mentioned, the money would have been better spent getting the bins emptied on time, litter cleared, better policing and so on ad infinitum. Then the perceived value of the 'brand' might actually stand a chance of going up instead of hitting rock bottom and starting digging.
Go on then please explain to the people who are watching the kids doing graffiti because they are bored as the council can't afford to run the youth centre, or the guy that goes a pisser when his bike goes down a pothole, where the hundred thousand went.
Why do they need to spend 100K "rebranding", regardless if it means repainting vans, doing new letter heads, having action days, piss ups down the pub for the thought shower or whatever.
I don't give a shit, what my councils logo looks like. I don't suddelny wake up, find the streets covered in litter and go, F**K if only they had a new pretty logo then I'd be a bit less pissed off.
it's our money and I don't want to see it spent on making a letter head look nice!
is not with the stupid logo I am shure my company has spent more on worse logos it is that fact that is was a town councle who keep complaning they have no mony for things that is doing it if my comp gose bust form wasting mony with rebranding it is just it's employes who lose if the councle over spends it is the entire town who loses
Branding yes. Rebranding, like this, also requires:
3) A complete and total waste of time and money.
Your analogies from the Business world are utter cobblers.
Firstly because Oldham council doesn't have to sell itself, the revenue it gets comes from a captive audience, taxpayers. I can't see that any businesses thinking about relocating are going to be swayed into doing so by the local council having a cheesier logo than the alternatives!
Secondly, because I can't see any of the successful brands you mention having a sudden rush of insanity and coughing up gobs of cash to dump the swoosh*, golden arches etc. and replace them with some unimaginative shite like this.
*Swoosh - who the f*** thought of calling it that? Boiling in oil is too good for some people.
I love it when organisations do away with long-established branding, tradition being the one genuine and often priceless thing that can't be bought at any cost, and replace it with something modern and up to the minute that within 5 years will look "so 2008" (or in this case "so 2002" already). So have heart, people of Oldham, you'll only be stuck with this for a couple of years, then maybe you can buy the rights to the London 2012 logo when they've finished with it.
As an aside, I can't wait till they extend the PR attempts to modernise the Royal Family to include a replacement of the Royal Coat of Arms. Maybe rather than use the College of Arms they could run a competition on Blue Peter?
And finally, thanks for reminding me to top up my Oyster Card.
If you think a council's sole job is to empty bins and clear litter then you're living in the 19th century.
Same old arguments - we could have had xx amount of police / nurses / teachers / schools / firemen / hospitals / binmen (delete as appropriate) for the money.
Some people need to learn exactly what councils do, how they budget and what their remit is. No council is going to bring in new business and jobs if they look like some amateur two bit operation, but have nice and regular bin collections.
Personally i'd rather they didn't waste the money on frivolous stuff like this. As has been reported in Oldham's local press, this year they are having to sell off property just to balance the books (my offices being one of those affected).
Things like this in a time when the council is supposedly so tight on funds just anger me. Instead of worrying about boosting our image with a logo, lets try and look at why Oldham has such a bad reputation and sort the causes. No dated Air-force logo is going to do that. Suppose that doesn't come up in these think tanks though.
(anon because i work for the misguided fools in question).
I suggested Oldham could have done it cheaper, and better, or maybe not at all. You didn't read that part? Oldham are wankers, you get me now?
Then I started defending the concept of branding generally, as in the commercial world, where it does make sense and isn't as easy as it looks (like most professions). And as Alexis points out above, modern town councils are also the marketing department of the town. They might be shit at it, but it's part of their job, to attract residents and businesses.
Once more for the kneejerk retards: Oldham wasted money on a logo, but not all logos are a waste of money.
Actually maybe nice and regular bin collections, and low council tax, would be the sort of thing to attract residents and businesses rather than a load of marketing shite.
>Some people need to learn exactly what councils do
Some councils need to learn what the people who employ them want them to do.
(That's not prick about worrying about the logo's on the vans)
Exactly what sort of company is goign to relocate to Oldam beacuse of that logo rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldham_Coat_of_Arms.jpg
And no the ppoint of local councils is not to complete with each other to pursuade companies to relocate, but to competently provide the services that might actually make a difference to the decision.
OK, I'll bite, I also think Jackson Pollock paintings are just meaningless babypuke aimed to take the piss out of poncey arty types who are too afraid to say they don't get it when their contemporaries are saying how brilliant it is, so please enlighten me as to why they are not.
Just my 2p's worth as I'm actually an Oldham lad, born and bred...
ITS AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TAX PAYERS MONEY!
Personally I would have preferred if they'd used the hundred grand to pad some of the massive pot holes which are endemic throughout the town - I also suspect paper-based road patches would last longer that then stuff they are currently using to fill the holes!
[Incidentally, if you are from Oldham council I'd appreciate it if you'd expedite my compensation claim for the damage to my car's suspension resulting from trip to Royton]
The thing that really "gets my goat" is the fact that the town boasts not one, but two (count 'em) colleges, one of which teaches art and the other I'd expect to, not to mention a whole raft of secondary schools. IMHO they should have run a competition among the colleges, schools and public-at-large to design the new logo and win 100 quid worth of amazon vouchers!
FYI - Don't know how accurate this info is; but I've been told that an Owl is considered 'unlucky' within the Asian community, hence the need to change. Personally I don't care, the Owl is not important to me! The waste of money on this logo is what I consider to be important.
As for the actual logo design... What the f**k were they thinking? It's a an 'O' in a circle with the word "oldham" below it in an awful font... hardly inspiring/suggestive of community or any other of the shiteious marketing phrases used to defend [oops, I mean launch] this piss-poor attempt at a logo.
When my lease is up in August I think I'm heading for Ashton-U-L. At least their council seems to spend tax payer's money with a little less abandon than their Oldham-counterparts plus they don't seem to have fallen in love with speed-humps or Gatso's, are home to the Witchwood pub, are less-likely to get your head caved in for your mobile and generally seem to have some respect for the people who pay their wages.
Incidentally, according to the local rag Oldham council keeps failing government spending audits! Why am I not surprised?
My council tax this year is nearly £1500 for which I use the Library occasionally and get my rubbish collected.
The roads are a joke (the only time I see roadworks is when some county council git has another idea for a traffic "calming scheme" like widening pavements nobody uses instead of repairing the ones in the town center, or when they need to close a busy junction for 6 months to "improve" it). the Police are too busy nicking motorists to bother with "real" crime and most of the council staff are either (a)overworked and in danger of losing their jobs or (b)a complete waste of space and sitting pretty with nothing to do but no threat of getting the boot.
I think the people of Oldham should demand the minutes of the meeting(s) where the decisions on the need for and the selection of the new branding/logo were taken, and all the morons who voted in favour of wasting PUBLIC money on this should have it taken out of their salary.
Still, local elections are due in May aren't they? Maybe this time more people might get off their backsides and vote against their so-called "representatives" who pull stunts like this...
Flames, cos idiot local/county councils and Politicians who forget THEY are there to serve US (not vice versa) and PC Consultants/Marketing execs deserve to be consigned to the lowest depths of hell (how can they sleep at night "justifying" such costs for a 'rebranding' when the same money would pay for things that really help people, like flat pavements or that old favourite half-a-dozen nurses at the local hospital? And before some smarta*** says "but it's from different pots of money", BALLS! It's all raised by screwing over the taxpayer, isn't it?)
Dude, I learnt about art theory in a school. Just like I learnt physics. Both subjects enabled me to see more of how the world works. I accept that I am not an expert in either field, but I acknowledge both branches of study do exist and have uses.
Some people don't understand astrophysics and evolution, they say God made everything in seven days, four thousand years ago. Isn't that retarded? Maybe you think the Earth can't go round the Sun because you "aint seen it wiv me own eyes, from where i'm standin, looks like the sun goes round the earth, you elitist ponce"
You can understand art all you want and still consider something to be junk.
It aint a science, there's no proof to it, it's all just a bunch of poncey arty types consensus, and no, physics isn't like that.
As for marketing it's just flogging something on the basis of image over substance.
As such it's a kind of con.
There's no science or "proof" in art? lol, well I guess if you haven't learnt it, it doesn't exist.
And no artist ever helped society understand itself, right? Fucking Warhol, that stupid ponce. Fucking Blake, stupid Sgt Pepper album cover, waste of money, should have just used a tracklist in 12pt Times New Roman.
they traded an owl (ancient symbol of wisdom) for this?
i have a vision: a bunch of male marketing consultants urinate in a round trashcan; then they all deposit a "seed sample" in the same receptacle; stir vigorously with a stick for 2 minutes; then they sit around, discussing what it looks like the most, while a 1964-vintage porn soundtrack is playing in the background.
this would correctly represent the meaning of "disgusting and obscene waste of public money".
the dead bird because this is such a train wreck, and a proper accident should have casualties.
Dear oh dear,
I run a good marketing and advertising agency and have made numerous appearances on national radio talking about strategic marketing, advertising and branding design.
I've worked extensively at board level with public sector organistions and conulsted for Government departments and I can tell you this for nothing:
1. There are many good employees in the public sector, however most of the decisions are made by ditheres who prefer to consult with committes and play it safe.
2. Public sector organisations such as Oldham Council normally only do things when things are going wrong.
3. They always think that a new logo is the answer to a poor image or unhappy residents.
4. Because the money comes from taxpayers, they don't care how much things cost. Also, because they like to play it safe, they choose the very large agencies whose operating costs are in the region of £20+ per day. Whilst these agencies are excellent for the likes of Shell, BP and Coca Cola, Oldham Council isn't a brand which has good brand equity, therefore rather than slash their wasteful spending and invest it into improving services for the community, they think that doing something which is immediatly visible is going to help the area financially and make the residents of Oldham happy in the process.
5. They obviously underestimate the average hard working resident in the area and think that their views don't matter.
6. In choosing their winning logo concept, they have obviously played safe and then made some crazy story up about the meaning of the logo - our agency view, like most others is that if you have to tell people what a logo means, you've done it wrong.
7. The bottom line is that many people will say that it's a target, a target to ridicule the people of oldham, whose views they have clearly ignored and whose money they have squandered on developing a logo.
8. The average agency cost for developing a good logo is anywhere betwwn £1,000 - £10,000, dependent on the brief and what is required. I have conducted market research about the cost of logo development and the results are that generally speaking, that there is no correlation between the average logo spend and the quality of the logo -it's a fact. If Oldam had an international brand like Manchester or Liverpool and had a thriving tourism industry, perhaps they would make their money back on their development.
My advice to any public sector employee with a work problem is to look at sorting the problem, rather than using the dog tactic of marking your own territory by developing something which you can say 'was my idea'. Nobody cares about whose idea it is except for your parents or children - just stop wasting public money resorting to doing things which attract criticism because in the private sector, this is the kind of thing which ends peoples careers. I don't live in Oldham but I do feel sorry for the council tax payers who are having to stump up the cash to pay for this.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020