Oxfam rebrand
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- mydo0
I think it's a shame the with all experience and global insights the top directors of oxfam have that they spent such a huge amount of money to be told the following...."what you have is fine, change the green by such a small amount no one will notice but will cost you millions to roll out. change the type because this font is cool right now, and make sure you use the same logo everywhere in the world (because this is called having a visual identity)"
- identity0
As an execution - ill grant you that.
Re-organizing a 15 country, global organization with individual identities, materials, and language... I'd say 515k is worth it.I think this is more a study in a consolidated and unified visual effort than a 'rebrand'
- slappy0
The old one looks friendly and personal.
The new one looks a bit more like a scifi cult.
- yurimon0
Green lantern?
- akrok0
i think that money should had gone for a good cause instead. not sure what the hell they was thinking.
- mikotondria30
I like the change. I think the new (DIN ?) typeface says "International Organisation", could be seen on boxes being unloaded from planes in dusty places, by butch army women. Or piled up next to a skinny child eating white stuff from a plastic bowl. Hey - she has new shoes - that's good.
The old one looks distinctly 'charity shop'. The new green is more formal and has more weight. Tiny changes, certainly - multiply it by the size of the roll-out and the organisation and that's a fair amount of momentum, which should easily carry over into a net profit on return. This is the bones of our industry, understanding the importance of design and how powerful details can be.- "multiply it by the size of the roll-out and the organisation and that's a fair amount of momentum, which should easily carry over into a net profit on return" - marketing bollocksfadein11
- carry over into a net profit on return" - lolfadein11
- What're you loling at?detritus
- Your talking crap mikitondria3qTime
- mydo0
I really think these decisions could be made by the management. It's not brain science.
Even though I work in branding I think anyone with a little bit of business sense knows the basics of consistency.The fact they got a research agency in annoys me. I know we only get half a story here, but i can't see how they would have helped. Oxfam branding is already strong.
Management should have said we need a consistent global VI based on our original logo and got a shit hot studio to execute it. There is probably a new studio somewhere set up by an ex-ECD who would have taken this at cost to take his company to the next level. £50k tops.- totally.akrok
- man, what's wrong with people round here - it IS brain science. It's exactly and ONLY brain science.mikotondria3
- MrT0
We really shouldn't perpetuate the 'how much for a logo' idea on here of all places. This isn't about pure design (comparing a before and after) as much as it is the implementation of it consistently around the world.
If everything in all countries needed rationalising, why not incrementally refresh to the brand to make it clear? Politically within Oxfam, this would be much easier to do than, say, basing all their countries on the existing brand from the UK/US or wherever.
- make shit from lowercase to uppercase don't make it consistently around the world.akrok
- Put up with shit from stakeholders over a year who debate said decisions (and charge them for it)babaganush
- I didn't say it would, I said do that as part of the exercise when making it consistent around the world...MrT
- you're forgetting what oxfam is.set
- WeLoveNoise0
In terms of pricing i think its pretty good for what the company have got out of it. Its not just a font changed in the logo, which is what it looks like at first glance.
But charging this to a charity who have openly said even the £550 will have to be split it between our 15 divisions. Damn, you gotta feel guilty about even charging them.
I can't imagine that tiny charge would effect Wolff Olins in anyway.
- mydo0
looking at this google result, they we're in too much of a mess anyway.
https://www.google.com/search?q=…
- Ranger0
"Oxfam GB says the full cost will be less than 0.002 per cent of its annual turnover."
Oxfam obviously thought the price was ok and it was worth the investment. Wolf Ollins are not the outfit to go to for a cheap logo alone so you've got to think there's a lot going on behind the scenes. If the London 2012 stuff is anything to go by then they come up with a pretty impressive comprehensive system around the brand which reflects the price more than the before/after logo.
- Wolff Olins! Why can I never get that spelling correct.Ranger
- qTime0
While agree they need a consistent global brand and this will add value, I don't think they needed to go to someone like Wolff Olins.
A much smaller agency could have done this for less.
But then again I don't know who's sleeping with who on this.
- Ranger0
I would like to see how Wolff Olins present ideas to clients.
- vaxorcist0
they could have better spent the £550 000 on, say, food for the starving?!?!?
If I was about to donate to oxfam, and I found out my money was being spent on logo redesigns, and branding campaigns I'd puke...
- That would be a waste of food - who's the hypocrite now ?mikotondria3
- Lack of money is never the reason people go hungry. Poverty is primarily a political weapon.mikotondria3
- Ranger0
So is the main gripe here that Oxfam went to a big company like Wolff Olins for the job and paid market rate for it?
- I bet they pay the going rate for their electricity and rent and mortgages on their properties, too.mikotondria3
- vaxorcist0
The irony to me is that it seems large firms get market rate for working with nonprofits, whereas smaller firms do pro bono work for non-profits. that was my experience working at a variety of firms, and the really strange thing is that the large firms can ABSORB THE COST, but the smaller firms often do it even though they can't easily absorb the cost but believe in the cause....
in my experiences: 3 large agencies, no pro-bono, 2 smaller agencies, each one did pro bono work, not just for winning awards, but because they actually believed in the cause (alzheimers research, autistm,etc)
- Charge everybody. Ask yourself why they need money to buy the food they distribute. Why doesn't that get donated gratis?mikotondria3
- Ranger0
I'm not against pro bono work but I think there is a bit of a sliding scales thing here though. Oxfam is a massive multinational organisation which competes for market share as much as any business. If it could get what it needed for free I am sure it would've but maybe the management appreciates that what it needed isn't going to be donated as free time.
Oxfam shops in the UK have definitely been going through a make over as has their branding, taking lessons from the wider retail sector. They must feel that this is what is needed to get more donations and it looks like their doing better year on year (though this may be more down to the bankers).
It's an ends justifies the means thing that all charities have been doing for years. I remember years back NSPCC convinced me to stop donating to them when they started huge TV campaigns and sending me postcards written in shaky kid handwriting claiming their parents were coming back to finish them off if I didn't donate more. Like politics if you really are appalled by it then take your time/donations to other charities.