4 ms·
yeah, they could have easily made the existing design flat[ter] but left the rest intact. the new look looks very cheap, but i bet they paid $200k for the redes
by leeoniya 7y ago
yeah, they could have easily made the existing design flat[ter] but left the rest intact. the new look looks very cheap, but i bet they paid $200k for the redesign.
- gnicholas 7y agoOnly $200k? I'd guess at least double that. If an iconic logo is being revamped for the first time in decades, getting it right would be worth at least a million. Sadly, paying a lot doesn't guarantee a good result...
- pfranz 7y agoFrom reading about these redesigns in the past it sounds like most of that money goes to surveying and considering all of the places a logo is used; letterheads, physically on the cars, web graphics, sides of buildings, making sure it doesn't conflict in other markets, etc. Sure, Nike paid $35 to the designer of their logo, but that didn't include any of those things above or pay for all of the rejected designs. Like you're saying, the client very well might be requesting and choose a design that looks like it was made by an amateur.
- thrav 7y agoRemember the London Olympics logo? Something like $700k.
- mm89 7y agoI had to look that up, that is awesome!
- huebomont 7y agoThats... almost exactly what they did though.
- Eric_WVGG 7y agoNo. They boffed it with that transparent background, and the letters scrunched up against the circle. Envision a black ring instead of black, no white border, and the letters B M W in a tighter, more modern sans serif. That could have been slick.