Oxfam rebrand
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- Horp0
I think you've oversimplified this exchange in your mind to one that goes something along the lines of
"A company has paid over half a million quid to have their logo changed and its hardly any different than it was before".
which is a bit hysterical, as well as utterly inaccurate. The job wasn't to redesign the logo, the job was to create a consistent brand look and feel that can work in 15 countries around the world, uniting the broad charitable network under a single unifying global brand presentation guidelines.
Each Oxfam business around the world paid for a part of the work. I think its a bargain as long as Wolff Olins have delivered.
Graphic designers are cost-per-logo obsessed.
- < Bam. nailed itmarychain
- < what I saidMrT
- Sorry, didn't read past the first few posts all saying it was a rip off.Horp
- I said something like this, too.
Probably.mikotondria3 - < Thank youGucci
- lowimpakt0
what wasn't currently working about the brand?
- Lower case letters offend non-English speakers.mikotondria3
- It had different, regionally created and managed, identities.Horp
- so it' doesn't work for the organisation rather than beneficiaries etc.?lowimpakt
- They just wanted a consistent global identity, to strengthen the brand worldwide. Unify.Horp
- RIZ0
I agree with Horp - seriously people, is everyone here so damn ignorant as to think that the price tag was just to 'change the logo'?
FFS this is a forum full of practicing designers, many of whom have worked on large-scale branding projects. We all know that changing the logo represents about 1% of the entire scope of a rebrand on this scale.
So quit your fucking moaning, and be happy that at least they didn't ruin the original logo, and they've done a great job of creating a consistent look and feel across all their brand touchpoints. I see no problem here.
- fire up illustrator, choose font "din", type the name, kern it - send invoice £550 000 to clientattentionspan
- akrok0
"everyone here so damn ignorant"
that's incl. you. ....zing!
- lowimpakt0
RIZ, you need to understand context.
would the 500K (donated by the public) have been better spent preventing people starving or dying in disaster zones (which is the purpose of the organisation) or being paid to designers to do a job that only serves to make an organisation feel better about itself?
- MrT0
^ so while we're on that, 500K is apparently 0.002% their annual turnover. Do the maths but do you think all of that goes to the needy?
They aren't just a bunch of volunteers working out of a village hall, they are a very big business.
- Amicus0
Say a NFP organisation sends food and medical aid to a famine hit country and they are able to help 100,000 people supported entirely by volunteers doing the fundraising.
Now, think about that same organisation paying $500,000 for some professional branding and marketing, and possibly paying fundraising consultants a %age of what they raise. 2 years later another famine hits and they are able to help 1–2 million people.
Doesn't the money paid now seem worth it? I mean they are now helping 10–20x the number of people.
That money is an investment in carrying out their mission of saving lives. Seems like it repaid itself extremely well. No For Profit business could possibly hope for that kind of ROI.