• RandyLahey [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 years ago

    Given that so many logo redesigns cost huge amounts of money and end up being some minor change like this, I do wonder whether this isn’t just kinda a standard thing to have pages of grandiose nonsense to justify paying millions for a change of font or whatever, and this was just the unfortunate one that got leaked

    But yeah, absolutely phenomenal grift, it’s hard not to be a little impressed

    • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 years ago

      Yes, it’s grift that helps insulate branding/marketing/executives from any negative consequences of the logo change.

      If they paid 2 million dollars they can say the problem was their consultant, or that they just couldn’t have known, they did their best or whatever.

      If they paid the same guy to make the same logo but they paid him $30,000 to spend half a year drafting logo proposals back and forth, then their ass is more firmly on the line when people drink 3% less pepsi the next year.

      • RandyLahey [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        I particularly like the ones where they go through and spend millions on the redesign and millions more updating all their stationary and signage etc etc and it goes through hundreds of internal people and nobody says anything, and then the first person from the public sees it and says “that looks like a dick lol”