(Est. 1996) “Contact Energy is one of New Zealand’s leading energy generators and retailers. We supply electricity, natural gas and LPG to 562,000 customers across the country, with a focus on delivering great value, products and services. Contact owns and operates power stations throughout New Zealand. These include hydro power stations on the Clutha River in Central Otago, geothermal plants around Taupō, and gas-fired power stations in Taranaki, and the Waikato. We’re especially proud of our world-class expertise in the development of geothermal energy projects. Contact’s an integral part of the national economy and our local communities. We empower the over 1,050 people who work with us to achieve great things, and our sponsorships and partnerships reflect our deep connection and commitment to the communities in which we live, work and operate.”
Bob’s Your Uncle (Auckland, New Zealand
The design, which we are calling the arc, has been chosen as a symbol of the energy that connects and surrounds us. It represents our desire to be continually growing and striving to the future. We think it suits us to a tee. It shows that we genuinely care for our customers, our communities, our people and shareholders every step of the way.
Images (opinion after)
Not to repeat myself too much from the 2013 Review but the old logo was a great piece of lettering… for the wrong company. It simply didn’t look like a major energy company and while I’m all for breaking conventions some conventions are better left unbroken, like an energy company looking like a big corporation and not an art supply store. The new logo, for better or worse, brings back Contact into the realm of looking like a corporation. Unfortunately, I do think think it’s for the worse as the logo has a weird, unbalanced, and trite approach. The mega swoosh that bounces back and forth atop the wordmark is stiff and harsh and huge in relationship to the wordmark which has suffered the usual case of custom-itis in trying to turn a geometric sans serif into something more than it needs to be. The gradient doesn’t do the logo any favors either and simply adds to its visual noise. Both the logo animation and the animated graphics in the video show more potential than the logo itself — I think the bouncy-arc-bridge-thing could have been salvaged with a better execution and the more “human” style of the flourishes in the video could have been a better, um, bridge between corporate coldness and human warmth.
Thanks to John Moore for the tip.