New CT logo.

[Sketcher]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6434674/

I found this article pretty interesting and was just wondering what everyone else thought of it.

By the way, can anyone find a picture of this logo? I've searched for it but can't seem to find it.

[Bear]

www.ctbound.org/PDFS/NewLogo101804.pdf (http://www.ctbound.org/PDFS/NewLogo101804.pdf)

wow, someone laughed all the way to the bank on this one

----------------------------------------------------------------
hand : ollie@ollielindsey.co.uk
eye : www.ollielindsey.co.uk (http://www.ollielindsey.co.uk)
mouth : 07966 160983
----------------------------------------------------------------

[uncle carbunkle]

omg.

:: Durable and doable in a swimsuit, yet not designed for surfing, cliff diving, extreme groping and other high-impact activities. ::

[Keyare]

aww cute..somebody let their kid design their logo.

[Bear]

....i just don't understand, why didn't they use comic sans ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
hand : ollie@ollielindsey.co.uk
eye : www.ollielindsey.co.uk (http://www.ollielindsey.co.uk)
mouth : 07966 160983
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Sketcher]

Peter Good, the guy who designed this logo, is supposidly one of the best designers in CT. The meaning behind the desgn is what sold it more than the actual look of it.

[wango]

A logo is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it, that's the power of branding. Better Cummings & Good getting $10,000, then some poor design student whoring themself in a [suggested in article] contest over 30+ of his fellow peers for pennies on the dollar. Frankly I wouldn't mind getting over-compensated for some of the crap I sqeeze out of my perverbial 'fecal wallet' every now & again. Some people fail to realize that if this is anything, it's a bargain for the CCCT. Look at some of the most succesful world brands, some are no more than a generic typeface or a pattern of shapes. Yet they are created by some of the most talented, creative & innovative minds on this planet for upwards of $250,000. Of course all of you [my fellow designers] are well aware of this, but take a look at who wrote the article, and who complained about the cost of said identity: non - designers or creative artists. They don't understand that it is not necessarily the creativity or complexity of the identity that exemplifies it's worth, it's more based on who it's for and the subsequent intended application of said design. The [crap] logo represents only about .0004% of the CCCT's (so-called, under-funded) annual fiscal budget - they can MORE than afford it so where's the controversy. Let not forget to mention what's most important; the client loved their product (as simple as it is) & agressively defends it's worth & significance. So I say 'le travail bien fait' to Peter Good - nice to see Karma catching up to the designers for change (considering he was the highest of four bids).

Without ME - the world is just AWSO...

[PrintDriver]

I have to agree somewhat with Vwanga

When comparing bids, first off, it sounds like even though C&G was the highest, they also offered more services (it would be interesting to see the language of the other offers).

It sounds as though the $10K was for a full Branding package, not just a logo, in which case CCCT got a damn good deal.

The article then goes on about the idea of a student competition. While in the short run, yes CCCT would have saved money but where would they be when they got their $1.95 logo? Still hiring someone to do all their branding. Just one more case of a reporter not understanding the worth of graphic design.

Anyone remember all the whoo rah over the change from the NBC peacock to the N logo?
While I think this loopy-loop logo looks more like something a pre-school would use, it sure makes my life easier. And it's all about the 'sign guy', right?
LOL.

PrintDriver is a grande format digital print dude. His advice/opinions may not apply to the 4color/offset/web world of printing

Post Edited (PrintDriver) : 11/20/2004 12:43:44 AM GMT

[MD]

It could just be that the person in charge of selecting the logo has bad taste. There was probally a few other designs to choose from and maybe they just chose the weakest design. I personally don't mind it but the colors chosen for it seem to cheapen the whole design. The logo is probally much stronger in solid black .

[Sketcher]

milwaukeedesigner said...
It could just be that the person in charge of selecting the logo has bad taste. There was probally a few other designs to choose from and maybe they just chose the weakest design. I personally don't mind it but the colors chosen for it seem to cheapen the whole design. The logo is probally much stronger in solid black .

Well, the four colors represents art, film, history, and tourism.

I would like to see the other concepts he came up with though.