Branding Question...
- Started
- Last post
- 5 Responses
- Spookytim
Meant to post this and keep forgetting. I wonder what general opinion is on this and I'll really try to keep it breif...
In the mid 90's I worked for a corporate identity comapny called Newell&Sorrell (Its now defunct / part of Interbrand).
Whilst there I was unlucky enough to be involved in the Barclays re-design. I was responsible for the original concept of a simple blue glass orb for their new branding device. It was very web2.0 I know, but remember this was 12 years ago so seemed quite edgy at the time. Anyway, N&S got scared of a simple blue glass orb and the CD insisted that we make it a globe with countries depicted in it... Stirke one. Then Barclays got scared about losing the eagle and so we ended up cramming both a globe AND an the Barclays eagle into the lovely shiney 3d Web2.0 button logo I had done to replace the eagle logo.
So the agreement was with Barclays that they would run with that ugly fuckem as phase one, and then eventually phase out the eagle when they stopped being so afraid of the idea.
FF>2007 and they start rolling out a new identity with a very simple Barclays Eagle logo. Its noce... its okay, and certainly its better than the "All your eggs in one horrible basket" compromise they came away with at N&S. But here's the thing...
The logo they have started introducing now is soemthing I designed for them at the early stages of the project as an exploration of "What if we updated the eagle?".
That route was rejected outright early on when it was decided the eagle had to die. I have all the moodboards and copious amounts of my work on 35mm slide form that project and could prove that I designed the logo they are now rolling out with ease....
Do you think I deserve some payment for designing a logo that they rejected and never paid for????
- Spookytim0
Wow that's longer than Detritus's Holloway Road collision piece!
- Spookytim0
In other words, I designed this abck in the mid 90's and Barclays rejected it, but seemingly they have now embraced it again, and probably paid a consultancy to implement it as their new brand logo...
- detritus0
"In the mid 90's I worked for a corporate identity comapny called Newell&Sorrell (Its now defunct / part of Interbrand)."
As an employee? If so - no, you have no rights to anything. If it was done as freelance spec work, then yeah - sue the fascist pigs!
- Yeah, an employee. But still.. somebody has earned money from implementing this now!Spookytim
- ps, please report to
http://www.qbn.com/t…
thankyou.detritus
- BaskerviIle0
they paid N&S for the work at the time, I'm pretty sure they own all the work they rejected as well as what they went with. They are free to rehash old work, or get another agency to work up old ideas etc.
I don't think you deserve any extra payment than your regular paycheck that you received at the time from N&S.It's annoying that technically you designed the new logo but because barclays didn't employ you directly for this rebrand you can't really claim it as your own, especially as you were part of a company, not an individual.
The dispute would be between barclays and N&S if there was one at all, which I don't believe there should be.- I wrote to John Sorrell a year or so back to see what he thought but he wasn't interested.Spookytim
- Spookytim0
As a slightly linked story, I also worked on rebranding Prudential via BamberForstyh and we pursuaded them to drop their old Wolff Olins head-logo and to go with a strong wordmark with 'Pru' superscript logo. I did the new Prudential wordmark (final cut was done by a proper typographer of course... Jeremy Tankard I think) and just yesterday I get off the train and see a Prudential poster at the train station with this on...
I ask you. Really, What the fuck is the point? This is why I gave up working in design. You aim for the stars and piss on your espadrilles.