Brand by lottery
What is Auckland Super City thinking? As we in the design world have always thought, everyone is a designer, so why not throw a competition out to all New Zealanders and get them to design a random logo for the country’s commercial centre. That’ll give us international credibility. Yeah right!
You can hear the discussions in the corridors of power: “Alright guys, we need to get a new logo for the Super City. Bear in mind, however, that whatever we come up with is going to be blasted by every newspaper and media outlet, as well as every Auckland ratepayer.”
Why so? Firstly, because nobody will like it (remember the furore around ‘Auckland A!’) and secondly because it will be seen as costing too much. As Bill Ralston has said, whoever gets the job has a hospital pass anyway, so why not dodge the issue entirely. Pretty clever.
Maybe it’s because as designers we feel slighted. But isn’t this sending out the wrong message to New Zealand businesses? As the rest of the world embraces the design generation, what message is New Zealand sending out? This is what Bob Harvey, Waitakere Mayor and head judge had to say: “Anyone who can draw, print, scribble with crayon, pencil, pen or computer can go for this.”
And he went on: “Somewhere out there is someone who can do that. Maybe a 10-year-old, maybe an eight-year-old, maybe a man or woman that simply scribbles something on a piece of paper at work.” How sweet.
It was interesting to see arts doyen and logo judge Hamish Keith rolled out on Breakfast TV to explain this position. In my opinion, he looked very uncomfortable, as I’m not sure it felt in line with his beliefs at all. It will be interesting to know if the judges are being paid for their professional contribution.
But surely Bob Harvey and his friends are missing the point. A brand or logo is only as good as the underpinning brand story and brief that it comes from. The research, understanding and complexities of a stunning mark cannot be made from a 10-year-old on his PC. It’s the story behind the brand that gives it value. Why would Coca Cola, Disney, Apple, Vodafone and others spend so much time and energy defending the integrity of their simple logos?
In their discussions the judges mentioned how good the Melbourne City logo is. This logo cost $91,000 for the initial research, with the design costing a further $148,000. It was designed by Landor (not a 10-year-old), one of the top design agencies in the world, and the cost, while high, was not excessive for a brand identity of this size, especially considering it underpins all of the marketing collateral.
My concern is that this goes far beyond a council not being brave enough to do the right thing and getting professionals involved for fear of bad publicity. It is about diminishing the value of design in New Zealand.
If we are to become a great export nation, close the income gap with Australia and compete on the world stage, design has a fundamental role to play. We create government institutions like Better by Design to heighten the value of the design, only to rubbish its value by asking anyone in New Zealand able to “scribble something on a piece of paper” to come up with our commercial capital’s identity.
Maybe it was because the judges discovered that no design company in New Zealand wants to play in the sand pit of broken glass that is the Super City logo design, coupled with the negative response they would receive by giving it to an Aussie company, that led to this ‘peoples competition’.
Who knows? However, the fall-out is a bad reflection on how we value design in New Zealand.
John V
March 9, 2010
Andy, it's a logo comp for the council for goodness sake, NOT the SuperCity. Get over it!
If you want to get a feel for Hamish Keith's comments I hope he won't mind me suggesting you should read our Blog post http://blog.everythingdesign.co.nz/auckland-council-logo-competition/ (as Hamish said in relation to the post, "I wish I'd said it myself" or words to that effect).
And finally, as I'm sure you know, a logo is not a brand. Do you really think there was a great brand strategy investment in the Coca Cola logo when it was first created by Frank Mason Robinson in 1885 and trademarked shortly after? I don't think so!
My understanding is that Frank Mason Robinson was a pharmacist and not a designer. The logo's cursive script was something he could produce even then as an amateur. And yet it has become one of the most recognised logos and brands in the world. Unlike the much disliked and professionally designed Auckland A.
Don't get me wrong, I would certainly prefer the Council to use a professional design firm. But I see very little to be worried about the Council running a public logo comp.
And who knows, perhaps another pharmacist might just do the business Andy.
Hamish Keith
March 9, 2010
The judges receive no fee and while Andy might be right about a degree of discomfort we cant change the process but his profession can change the result – I hope they will stop complaining and do so. John V is quite right this is not a brand – it might be the beginning of a brand or even one step before that. To Coca Cola John could have added the London underground which began with the bright idea of a sign writer in 1908 and never got anywhere near being a brand until decade later. I wouldn't take Bob's plea for scribbles at any more than a throwaway line – we would leave that to Telecom and the New Dowse and their professional designers. Take heart Andy we may come up dry we are not bound to select anything and there will be no lovely list of also rans to feed a public fight – if we find something that does the job and has promise of being inventively extendible we will go for it – if not not
Doug Hawkins
March 9, 2010
Well Said, Hamish
Adam Errington
March 9, 2010
I agree that the branding should be commissioned to specialist branding and design companies because it is an important identity for the city council of Auckland.
However, I'm not sure about comparing this project with the branding processes of Coca Cola, Disney, Apple, Vodafone and Melbourne. We are talking about the Auckland regional council here. It virtually doesn't even register next to the size of those brands.
This type of branding should include public submissions to feed into the branding and design process. This is the same method used in the commission of public architecture projects. It is no-brainer.
We have to accept that this council will make some mistakes in its early years.
The very first mistake started with the self-appointed name of "super city". It is not quite honest. It seems to only convey an inflated ego which is slightly embarassing for the people of Auckland and New Zealand.
The last thing the world wants is another city that thinks it is "super". Auckland is better than all of that. It is something more unique. This is why the council desperately needs the input of some specialist branding expertise. But will it listen to it's own experts?
Andy Jaquet
March 9, 2010
Many thanks for responding Hamish, and clarifying your position. And John V for your comments. I can certainly see the PR benefit of engaging the people in this competition, but in truth my argument is not about the Super City logo or who does it. My point is do we in New Zealand take design seriously from a business perspective? We have great magazines like Idealog that extol the virtues of design to promote business and institutions like Better by Design that are trying their best to get NZ business on the world map through design. But this logo competition for New Zealand's commercial capital, the gateway for NZ exports, sends out the wrong message. And throw away line or not, Bob's comment about 'scribbles' was very unhelpful. If we are to build New Zealand's export presence, we need to do it with integrity, with design at the very heart of it.
DP
March 9, 2010
If either the amateurs or the pros come up with anything like the Melbourne symbol my weetbix are in danger of severe immersion on the day the Herald publishes it!