Comments

  1. I completely agree – what a terrible logo. Too much detail: it’s more of an illustration than a logo, and it looks like a poor relative of the 08 brand. That was simple and clever, this tries to cram too much in and it’s far too complicated – it doesn’t degrade elegantly at all when made smaller and loses so much. What a waste of money.

    Little Robin

  2. It’s perfectly pleasant but to me it looks suspiciously like a photo montage that’s been messed around with in Photoshop for a couple of hours. Plus, the font is only slightly different to the one on the 08 logo.

    How this can have cost 70 grand is a total mystery. Still, if the London 2012 logo cost £400,000, I guess it’s value for money.

  3. Good point on the degradation – hadn’t thought of that. I think the font is the one serious problem myself. I think fonts are important – and this one’s shit.

    Someone on Liverpool.com also said the arena and new museum look like two humpback whales being chased by a shark, which amused me.

  4. Not sure comp for a grand is the way forward though?

    Sounds suspiciously like ‘we’d like to see what you can do before we take you on…’ then turn around and say ‘sorry, you weren’t successful this time (but we’re happy to rip off the creative effort in your ‘sample’ in our final design)’

    Assuming the tender process for this work was open and fair, then the logical conclusion is that Finch, at 70,000, was the best value for money?

  5. I’d say that’s the logical assumption. But if you’ve get 10 companies lined up to do you a mediocre logo on the back of some stating-the-bleeding-obvious research and the cheapest one is £70K it’s a good idea to have a rethink.

    I think a comp could be done quickly and easily. Get someone working for whatever quango oversees these things to draw up a list of ten submissions, print them in the Echo, Phil Redmond/Herbert/Steve G throws a dart at them, Bob’s your Uncle.

  6. Love the shark and humpback whale comment! Almost as good as the comment I saw a while back saying that the London 2012 logo looks like Lisa Simpson giving head!

  7. I’ve grown to see what the logo is about over the course of the day. I still think the font was a mistake, but the logo itself has improved with time. There’s some good information of the City Brand website – http://www.liverpoolcitybrand.co.uk/ that explains the thinking behind it. And I’m impressed with the way the logo has been designed so that it can be equally effective in either 1 colour or 2 colour versions. It doesn’t need to be blue – there are a number of variations in different colours.

    So, I’m sticking up for it, subject to the point about the awful font, I reckon its a good brand identifier.

  8. On the whole the logo isn’t awful, though the font is, obviously. I am interested to see what happens to it at thumbnail size too.

    I genuinely don’t know what to make of all that brandspeak behind it though, apart from the fact that I don’t think it was good value for money.

    And the Beetham Towers on the logo? Well, I think I made my views of that fairly obvious.

  9. the logo is good judging by the following reaction. I’m from Liverpool but currently living in London, just showed it to some friends who were very surprised, said ‘wow, is that Liverpool?’. I showed them some of the great photography coming out of Liverpool at present, particularly of the skyline and they were amazed. One works for a multi-national and said ‘maybe we should relocate’. Purely anecdotal but I have never heard this sort of reaction to Liverpool in Britain before, perceptions are changing. (When I was living in China recently, the perception of Liverpool was 100% positive)

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Your email address will not be published.