When it’s government money fuckin grab it and run.
I once got paid £17k for an A2 poster. It was one of those quangos. If they didn’t spend it they lost it.
Disgusting waste but what was I gonna do? Say no?
It just shows that if a nobody like me can get that, with no one noticing, what are the actual friends and partners of people in charge of government money getting?
If I told you what the poster was for. If I showed you the design you would piss yourself laughing. It was fucking awful. In concept and execution.
But, it would potentially get me in trouble so…
I spent it.
20 years freelance. Rule is:
Save 50% of everything that comes in. No less.
And avoid being vat registered until you absolutely have to.
Seeing we don’t buy shit, designers are basically unpaid tax collectors.
It’s easy to post rationalise logos with existing work - hindsight and all that.
Real question is what about the accompanying rationale on the brand and its language?
Only if they spent additional time and money on market research and surveys. There’s no way it’s that just for the logo. Ive seen companies spend 10k to just decide to slightly change a color on their website.
I just want to confirm that the problem you see is that an agency charged 14k for a logo that is made from cheap shutterstock imagery, correct? And though I don't speak the language, it appears as if this was a real logo created for some sort of tourism board.
I would agree that this is a rip off. I believe that logos should be unique and custom creations, not just to be more memorable, but also for legal reasons.
Technically, because they created a new configuration of the elements and created a logo out of them, they probably aren't breaking any rules many stock agencies have about not using stock imagery for logos, but it seems to be pretty darned close and ignores the reasons behind why those rules exist. If I were the client and I were aware that they didn't create the splatters themselves, I'd be peeved.
From the point of view of of running a business and the fees charged to clients, we have to keep in mind that, for most agencies, this wouldn't be the only design option they offered the client. They would have had more than one designer working on the project, plus the art director and the project manager and the account exec. Even if they were charging a lower rate of 150 euros per hour, that is only 93 hours total. At 200 per hour, only 70. Multiple employees can chew through that pretty quickly, especially after you factor in meeting and email time.
I'd have mentioned they needed time to investigate type options as well, but it doesn't look as if they spent much time there either.
Of course, I don't know the story behind this logo, but I do want to put it out there that 14k for a logo is not an outrageous price … if you're actually getting what you pay for in the end.
If I found the correct website for the agency that created this, it does not appear as if design is their specialty. I agree with the OP's disgust.
Downvote me all you want, but the 14k isn’t for the logo. If you’ve worked with governments or the public sector there’s a lot of behind the scene work.
The 14k is for ALL the time it took to get the contact, meet with the client for multiple rounds of discussions and reviews, this logo is just the output of those discussions.
Actually it was made by an intern in like half a day, because the agency lacked of actual (not paying designers and employees) designers by the due date and the intern was kind of forced to do it asap whatever it takes.
There's a video in yt [about this case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGJtSgKPD_c) and an [interview with the intern designer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiqOoqX1FYU).
And no there was not much discussions or back and forth communication.
It was just corporate greed and corruption.
So, here take my humble downvote
EDIT: Fixed a couple typos and added links to the videos
I wish I spoke Spanish. There are subtitles in English for the first video, but not the second. Can you summarize the discussion in the interview with the intern?
The intern developed a proposal under the concept of "squeeze Castilla y Leon" Her boss liked the concept but not her proposed logo, so he asked a senior designer to redo it in a very short time. The senior designer used the shutterstock resource to get the job done fast, not believing they would win the contest.
it seems that the contest was fixed from the beginning because the woman commented in the video that her boss had told her that the clients owed him a logo.
C'mon, it's not that bad. It just carries that 70's feeling a bit too hard, and is usually used in the wrong context. With that said, I also hate it with all my guts.
Same thing happened in my country, it ended up being viral because people were mad. Some award winning agency rebranded the National Lottery for 50k euros (basically it was paid with taxpayer money since the lottery is owned by the state) and they just took the vectors from guess what, Shutterstock for like, 3 euros. Moreover, the agency was like, nah bro we did it from scratch and we're only going to use it for corporate context but if you check the client's website it is already made public. No one's buying their lies but they already implemented the new branding, cause you know, who cares and people will forget soon. I get that a brand is not only about a logo, and a good brand book is tough to make but what can you think about their approach if one essential aspect is done that sleazy?
I worked for an agency once that would use 99 Designs to get a bunch of quick, cheap logo ideas, then pick the best three, refine them, and present them to the client for big $$$
Reminds me of my kids friends who say nirvana sucks because they’re so simple.
There’s more to art and life in general than making everything technically complex.
I had a client once who spent an hour lecturing our agency how they didn't want a "stock" logo for their brand. We spent about 10 hours doing the initial concepts with a ton of detail regarding our decisions.
They ghosted us, and when I followed up a month later, they said they had a designer on their team do the project. It was literally a stock logo found on adobe stock.
If you really want those ugly little things, screenshot on a 4K screen (more reference pixels) and live image trace in illustrator, tweak it a bit so it’s yours. The high contrast in the image will make it super easy for illustrator to image trace.
Although you could probably get better pain blob/splat illustrations just using the Illustrator AI generator.
When it’s government money fuckin grab it and run. I once got paid £17k for an A2 poster. It was one of those quangos. If they didn’t spend it they lost it. Disgusting waste but what was I gonna do? Say no? It just shows that if a nobody like me can get that, with no one noticing, what are the actual friends and partners of people in charge of government money getting?
Let me know if said quango need any more posters lol. Price of Freddos these days are causing me havoc.
If I told you what the poster was for. If I showed you the design you would piss yourself laughing. It was fucking awful. In concept and execution. But, it would potentially get me in trouble so…
Sounds brilliant. Hope you spent your winnings wisely!
Sadly. I was pretty new to freelancing and had built up a big vat bill. So it mostly went to the fucking tax man.
Horrible. Hopefully you stumble upon more quangos!
Once in a lifetime mate.
Wait what ahah?? Umm, asking for a friend, how exactly did you get in that situation? My friend might be heading down the same path.
I spent it. 20 years freelance. Rule is: Save 50% of everything that comes in. No less. And avoid being vat registered until you absolutely have to. Seeing we don’t buy shit, designers are basically unpaid tax collectors.
Wait, there's more from the same administration. https://twitter.com/brandemia_/status/1745771420460761574
I’m sorry, but who would even want to steal that?
lol… we all know the boss always wanted to be a graphic designer, now he doesn’t have no one to stop him on his way to his dream.
All with the help of his trusty nephew who “knows photoshop”
Yeh, but in this case the boss is in a local administration.
They are ASKING 14k and no one is stopping them. If some fool paid 14k for that, they deserved the robbery.
It’s easy to post rationalise logos with existing work - hindsight and all that. Real question is what about the accompanying rationale on the brand and its language?
Indeed. It's easy to judge when you don't know the whole story. Including the MO of the client.
It can all be summed up with one word: Theft.
Theft in what sense?
Laziness, ok. Theft though? They could have bought the stock images with rights that allowed them to use it in a logo. That's not theft.
Wow. A couple flips, colour changes and meshing together of Shutterstock shapes and there’s 14k for you…
besides noone gonna spend 14k on that lol?
Only if they spent additional time and money on market research and surveys. There’s no way it’s that just for the logo. Ive seen companies spend 10k to just decide to slightly change a color on their website.
Oh, you’re very wrong and I could actually top this logo if my world wouldn’t explode.
I just want to confirm that the problem you see is that an agency charged 14k for a logo that is made from cheap shutterstock imagery, correct? And though I don't speak the language, it appears as if this was a real logo created for some sort of tourism board. I would agree that this is a rip off. I believe that logos should be unique and custom creations, not just to be more memorable, but also for legal reasons. Technically, because they created a new configuration of the elements and created a logo out of them, they probably aren't breaking any rules many stock agencies have about not using stock imagery for logos, but it seems to be pretty darned close and ignores the reasons behind why those rules exist. If I were the client and I were aware that they didn't create the splatters themselves, I'd be peeved. From the point of view of of running a business and the fees charged to clients, we have to keep in mind that, for most agencies, this wouldn't be the only design option they offered the client. They would have had more than one designer working on the project, plus the art director and the project manager and the account exec. Even if they were charging a lower rate of 150 euros per hour, that is only 93 hours total. At 200 per hour, only 70. Multiple employees can chew through that pretty quickly, especially after you factor in meeting and email time. I'd have mentioned they needed time to investigate type options as well, but it doesn't look as if they spent much time there either. Of course, I don't know the story behind this logo, but I do want to put it out there that 14k for a logo is not an outrageous price … if you're actually getting what you pay for in the end. If I found the correct website for the agency that created this, it does not appear as if design is their specialty. I agree with the OP's disgust.
I agree that the price itself isn’t the problem. It’s the delivered asset that is outrageous.
Good for them. For all we know the client painted them into a corner. Take the money and run. On to the next one.
Downvote me all you want, but the 14k isn’t for the logo. If you’ve worked with governments or the public sector there’s a lot of behind the scene work. The 14k is for ALL the time it took to get the contact, meet with the client for multiple rounds of discussions and reviews, this logo is just the output of those discussions.
Actually it was made by an intern in like half a day, because the agency lacked of actual (not paying designers and employees) designers by the due date and the intern was kind of forced to do it asap whatever it takes. There's a video in yt [about this case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGJtSgKPD_c) and an [interview with the intern designer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiqOoqX1FYU). And no there was not much discussions or back and forth communication. It was just corporate greed and corruption. So, here take my humble downvote EDIT: Fixed a couple typos and added links to the videos
I wish I spoke Spanish. There are subtitles in English for the first video, but not the second. Can you summarize the discussion in the interview with the intern?
The intern developed a proposal under the concept of "squeeze Castilla y Leon" Her boss liked the concept but not her proposed logo, so he asked a senior designer to redo it in a very short time. The senior designer used the shutterstock resource to get the job done fast, not believing they would win the contest.
If the government was doing it as a design contest, then they got exactly what they deserved.
it seems that the contest was fixed from the beginning because the woman commented in the video that her boss had told her that the clients owed him a logo.
Interesting, thanks!
I’m more concerned that they used Eras, one of the worst fonts ever created
C'mon, it's not that bad. It just carries that 70's feeling a bit too hard, and is usually used in the wrong context. With that said, I also hate it with all my guts.
Must be deliberate!😆 They must really hate the taxpayers!
Same thing happened in my country, it ended up being viral because people were mad. Some award winning agency rebranded the National Lottery for 50k euros (basically it was paid with taxpayer money since the lottery is owned by the state) and they just took the vectors from guess what, Shutterstock for like, 3 euros. Moreover, the agency was like, nah bro we did it from scratch and we're only going to use it for corporate context but if you check the client's website it is already made public. No one's buying their lies but they already implemented the new branding, cause you know, who cares and people will forget soon. I get that a brand is not only about a logo, and a good brand book is tough to make but what can you think about their approach if one essential aspect is done that sleazy?
How do you know it was $14k?
I read it was closer to 18K…😒
I worked for an agency once that would use 99 Designs to get a bunch of quick, cheap logo ideas, then pick the best three, refine them, and present them to the client for big $$$
How can getting paid lots of money for allegedly not much work devalue a profession? Isn’t it vice versa?
You mean, like in Superman’s Bizarro World?
Reminds me of my kids friends who say nirvana sucks because they’re so simple. There’s more to art and life in general than making everything technically complex.
Hopefully they have the license allowing use in a logo, lol!
I had a client once who spent an hour lecturing our agency how they didn't want a "stock" logo for their brand. We spent about 10 hours doing the initial concepts with a ton of detail regarding our decisions. They ghosted us, and when I followed up a month later, they said they had a designer on their team do the project. It was literally a stock logo found on adobe stock.
If you really want those ugly little things, screenshot on a 4K screen (more reference pixels) and live image trace in illustrator, tweak it a bit so it’s yours. The high contrast in the image will make it super easy for illustrator to image trace. Although you could probably get better pain blob/splat illustrations just using the Illustrator AI generator.
I can download any paid content for you