NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
In and around Auckland, New Zealand there is a lot of controversy surrounding not only the Auckland City Council logo, but also other ratepayer-owned organizations such as Metrowater and the Auckland Regional Council. Criticism of the cost of the logos has been very central to the argument. The Auckland City Council logo was originally announced to have cost NZ$25,000/US$18,840 (which may have been accurate for the cost of the logo development alone) which then inflated to NZ$1 million/US$753,600 (which included market research, staff hours, consultant fees and some signage applications). The cost of the Metrowater logo was noted at NZ$20,000/US$15,072 — without implementation fees (in their defense they claim that the savings on printing in two colors rather than four will easily cover the cost of the new logo). While the Auckland Regional Council logo will cost NZ$165,000/US$124,344 to develop. Meanwhile, Triangle Television is claiming that the new Auckland City Council logo infringes on their intellectual property rights. Of course amidst the cost controversy, Triangle is also proudly noting that their logo “was designed 12 years ago by a student from Whitecliffe College of Arts and Design and cost about NZ$500/$376,” which is not surprising (yikes!). But setting aside the fiscal and IP controversy…
The Auckland City Council is a local government headed by a mayor and nineteen elected council members. The council describes itself as follows: Auckland City Council is required under the local government legislation to deliver essential services and facilities to the city, and under the Resource Management Act to sustainably manage the city’s natural environment, including land, water, soil, resources and the coast. Auckland City Council also ensures the health and safety of the residents — including dog control, liquor licensing and building inspection.
The logo was developed by Auckland City chief executive David Rankin and his executive team in conjunction with Ogilvy Metro. The motivation for developing the new brand — spurred by a general discontentment with the council (9 out of 10 residents surveyed agree!) — was to develop a more legible mark that makes it easier for ratepayers to identify the facilities and services provided.
The shift to this new logo has some merits and some losses. The previous mark worked in one color, was well conceived to represent yachts on the water — appropriate for a destination nicknamed “City of Sails” — with the volcanic island of Rangitoto as a backdrop and had a more flexible wordmark (albeit a bit cold in its typographic choice). In the new logo we get a much more abstract representation of anything from an “A” to a sail on the water, or perhaps a pointier Rangitoto — much more open for interpretation. The new logo likely has better legibility at increased distances, though only when printed in color (which of course could have been solved if the logomark had been rendered differently to include negative space between each of the three parts). As for the new typography, while the choice of typeface isn’t bad, the lockup and use of dropcaps seems overly quirky and limits the flexibility of the visual system.
Overall the new logo does seem a bit more of-the-moment with its use of shifting blues and abstracted simple shape — but this also means that it risks becoming easily dated. It is an elegant and subject-appropriate take on the standing triangle logo, but its rendering (always multi-color solution) and typographic lockup hold it back from having more timeless appeal.
The previous logo is beautifully executed and clear in its visual communication, though perhaps not spot-on for representing a city council. It could have easily been improved slightly to aid in legibility and soften the typography and then stood the test of time through good usage… Maybe its the NZ$165,000/US$124,344 saving logo they’re looking for to update the Auckland Regional Council!
[Editor’s Note: We would like to welcome Christian Palino as our most recent contributor to Brand New]
Jump to Most Recent Comment
C-Lo’s comment is:
I think it works. I get a nice "nautical" feel from this logo. Albeit for a city council, but hey why not. It's always proper to look your best.
On Nov.14.2007 at 10:20 AM
Ty’s comment is:
I fancy the new mark, but I think the type is weak. I actually like the old type better. Definitely not worth a mil, looks more like a 5K identity.
On Nov.14.2007 at 11:08 AM
Colin’s comment is:
Mark is solid. Beautiful.
Type is weak. An afterthought.
'nuff said.
On Nov.14.2007 at 11:16 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
Is the new mark solely for the Auckland City Council or are there related wordmarks for Chamber of Commerce, Utilities, D.O.T., and sundry local agencies?
Seems like a lot of money for a Chamber of Commerce logo...but then again I suppose commerce is what they're all about.
The new logo resonates with me instinctively but it also strikes me as somewhat stiff. It could be the unclear proportional weights between the type and the mark. A mark that simple needn't be that large unless they plan on it becoming a family of related marks for those other agencies (above). Right? Like, it's a big triangular inside joke that nobody will understand until they're told what it means. Is it an "A?" Is it a boat? Is it a mountain on the sea? And would City Council answer these questions with a single wry "yes"?
Looks like Auckland went from "best place to start a business" to "best place to raise kids."
On Nov.14.2007 at 11:38 AM
L.Vazquez’s comment is:
I agree... type on the new mark is weak.
On Nov.14.2007 at 12:10 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Does Triangle Television think they have a legitimate case here? Honestly, their brand mark looks to be designed by a student 12 years ago, and frankly has nothing in common with this new mark outside of the fact that they use a triangle shape.
Sorry, but intellectual property rights don't apply to basic geometric gestures.
On Nov.14.2007 at 12:34 PM
MADPHILL’s comment is:
NEXT, AIGA? wha?
http://designconference2007.aiga.org/
Consin’s comment is:
Triangle Television are dreaming, they don't own the triangle.
On Nov.14.2007 at 12:45 PM
Joe S’s comment is:
I think the type is weaker than the mark, but I wouldn't say it's weak altogether. The real problem I have with the type is that the A and the D, while equal in actual width, are not equal in optical width. It needs to be adjusted for optics. I think they picked a type face with an appropriate line weight, but I don't care for the construction of the letterforms themselves (at least not in this application).
On Nov.14.2007 at 01:34 PM
Altoption’s comment is:
Type confuses me. I read "AD," and then when I look closer "ucklan." Not good.
On Nov.14.2007 at 02:07 PM
John McCollum’s comment is:
Overall, I think it's a good mark despite some quibbles I have with the type. I even think it works well in one color if you just put some little gaps between the segments.
It's always difficult to know what someone is getting for these "million dollar logos" that taxpayers decry. It's pretty clear that the deliverables on this project aren't just a couple of .eps files on disk.
Could I charge even $50,000 for a mark alone? I wish. But if the package included website/s, environmental signage, collateral, comprehensive standards and usage guidelines, I can definitely see a project running into ten times that amount numbers pretty easily.
On Nov.14.2007 at 02:38 PM
darrel’s comment is:
Triangle TV paid too much for their logo.
On Nov.14.2007 at 03:38 PM
anonymous’s comment is:
Wow...I only got $270 for the logo I just did. I need to start charging more.
On Nov.14.2007 at 04:43 PM
David Sánchez’s comment is:
I think is a beautiful brand id signage, the device evokes a waterfront, mountain formation although not green they sure do the trick, also reinforces the A, D, L, is a beautiful almost infinite ribbon which are currently trendy.
The previous “Logo” had a hint of some disguised pyramids, sails, etc.
Triangle TV is just “menopausesic”, they should drop any allegation of infringement is just ridiculous.
A JOB well done for Auckland City Council.
On Nov.14.2007 at 06:35 PM
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
i like the new triangle. Its a nice abstraction and way more interesting than a simple landscape.
On Nov.14.2007 at 07:40 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Why am I seeing a mustache at the bottom of the symbol?
I looks like one to me.
On Nov.14.2007 at 11:30 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Boy, I must admit that I fins the new logo very striking. The "City Council" text needs some polishing, but for me, everything else works. I suppose it may not be timeless though.
On Nov.15.2007 at 01:07 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Does the term "one color" not apply to printing it in one swatch of blue at various opacities? As a pre-press dude, I see that and think "Oh good, we can print that in one color."
On Nov.15.2007 at 01:10 AM
Gm’s comment is:
Screens of blue (or any given colour) are hard to represent as a, say, blind emboss on a laminex bench or when cut from steel, see?
How would screens if blue work set into concrete next to a storm water drain? Or on a manhole cover? Or directly onto a wheelie bin?
Monotone digital artwork is not ecessarily designed to be offset printed in a single colour...
On Nov.15.2007 at 03:55 AM
Kristoff’s comment is:
All Triangle TV has is a temporarily but good headline grabber. Though I doubt it'll benefit them in the long run. Maybe I'm alone in my sentiments but I really dislike the mark. It definitely has a nautical theme to it, but not one I would like to associate with a city.
Perhaps I'm biased though. Here's the Port of Antwerp:
(Which, if anything, carries a stronger rememblance than Triangle TV does. In an odd twist, PoA's type choice is not appropriate at all. Perhaps Auckland and they have something to learn from each other.)
On Nov.15.2007 at 08:05 AM
Kristoff’s comment is:
Oh snap, I had no idea that "NEW" message was part of it! My apologies.
On Nov.15.2007 at 08:06 AM
Keith’s comment is:
Having worked on a few civic identities like this, I bet the council planned to introduce a dynamic new logo, for which the cost could be partially justified by later expanding it out to other city services -- just swap out the words "City Council" for "Animal Control" or "Public Services". Right or wrong, I've seen this rationale at work before.
On Nov.15.2007 at 09:27 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
That's precisely what I was expecting, Keith. It seems built for that kind of flexible modularity. Here are the marks for the town where I live, by example.
And so on...
On Nov.15.2007 at 11:47 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Peter,
Nice Tacoma marks do they have one for "The Aroma of Tacoma" though? Sorry, grew up in Olympia so I know all the Tacoma jokes.
This Auckland mark is nice, type not so much.
On Nov.15.2007 at 12:47 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I agree with the prevailing sentiments; The multiple interpretations of the mark are all appropriate, and the rendering is very nice (though a one-color solution seems necessary).
There is absolutely no excuse for the typography. Blegh.
On Nov.15.2007 at 02:36 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
guess i'll be the minority vote and say that i don't like the new curvy triangle at all. it says wonky triangle that was created by someone who couldn't decide between straight lines and curves. i think it will look dated in 2-3 years whereas the old one still seems relevant to me. plus the new type is crap and the negative space created between the curvy line and the text is awkward.
On Nov.15.2007 at 05:15 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
oh, guess i should have read the full article because i see i just repeated a lot of what christian had said.
On Nov.15.2007 at 05:32 PM
Michael’s comment is:
As a designer, I certainly have a belief in the protection of intellectual property.
However, I whittled my argument down to the following: If Chili's and Chipotle can exist in the same industry with their conceptually similar logos, I really don't think Triangle TV has a leg to stand on.
For the record, I much prefer the mark in the new system, but there are type flaws (as mentioned).
On Nov.16.2007 at 02:25 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Can someone enlighten me as to the reason this mark isn't purely a wordmark? What purpose does the triangle symbol serve? Any? What does it get used for? Does it serve no real purpose and only distract from reinforcement of the city name? Was an abstract symbol a mandatory of the client?
They are a council...
They don't make stuff.
They shouldn't have to advertise.
What visual items does their identity grace aside from stationery and possible signage. This large symbol just seems to distract from their name.
Is this an identity for Auckland City, the city council, or both? The previous mark looks like it's just for the city. Anyone?
On Nov.18.2007 at 11:50 PM
Joe’s comment is:
I think we need a internet resource where we can look up what simple elements of design are owned by specific organizations. I'l get started::
MAGENTA (Color) - Property of T-Mobile
TRIANGLE (Shape) - Property of Triangle TV
Am I missing any?
On Nov.19.2007 at 11:02 AM
Clobee’s comment is:
As a result of the legal action threatened by Triangle TV, the Auckland City Council is set to revise the wavy triangle and replace it with... wavy triangle and shooting starbursts.
This from the New Zealand Herald this morning:
"The new council logo features the wavy blue triangle surrounded by three bursts of fireworks in different shades of blue."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/metro/story.cfm?l_id=117&objectid=10477652
On Nov.21.2007 at 04:55 PM
Gm’s comment is:
Is that an elaborate joke by the newspaper?
I seriously can't believe what I'm reading?
On Nov.21.2007 at 06:01 PM
tim’s comment is:
ha, i'm glad 'artists impression' is written under the logo. yikes.
Triangle TV sucks, how did they even make it into court with this case? How could the Auckland City Council possibly benefit from "copying" their heinous logo? A lot of free publicity though.
On Nov.21.2007 at 06:38 PM
Clobee’s comment is:
I know – initially I assumed it was a joke as well. I can only guess that the 'artist's impression' is just a mocked up version of what's quoted in the article and the final design will not resemble it in any way.
Interesting decision whichever way you look at it. The relevance of stars and shooting sparks is lost on me – though my workmate pointed out that if Auckland ever wanted a logo to remind them their city was basically built on top of a range of volcanoes, this is it.
On Nov.21.2007 at 09:34 PM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
Agreed that Triangle Television didn't have much of a leg to stand on regarding infringement.
Here's the Outcome.
On Nov.26.2007 at 05:57 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
