The problems with the Rebrand London project
So a bit of back story first of all. The Greater London Authority and specifically the mayor himself decided that the time was right for London to be rebranded. Simple as that? Pretty much actually. With the Olympics just round the corner they argued that there was now a need for a unified visual approach.
Firstly lets look at the reasons for this project. The whole brief looks like a bit of a whim from people who really have no idea about anything branding or graphic design related. It looks a little like the main purpose is to drum up publicity and gain public interest without any real clear reasons why a rebrand was needed, what they wanted to convey and what it was going to be used for. Could it be about merchandising? After all I read on several blogs that they were aiming for a brand similar to the I heart NY logo from our friends across the pond.
A rebrand for a city as visual as London is always going to very difficult. For one thing it has about a thousand recognisable brands anyway which have been developed over 100’s of years. Any new mark would have to fight its way through all of this and also contest with history, itself an undefeatable opponent when trying to make something iconic. Imagine comparing any new logo to the underground symbol and asking what is the most iconic or recognisable. It is a battle no matter what you design, you will never win.
With the New York brand, I am by no means an expert, but I think it happened spontaneously rather than a need to rebrand the city. Maybe cities such as New York and London are too big, filled with too much current imagery to ever be branded by process. You cannot force so many visuals under one umbrella. Rather imagery and symbols rise up naturally. Almost voted up by the popularity of an un-judging public. Surely something becoming an icon is something that happens over time and cannot be forced – so why try?
Another major issue I have with this project was the way it treated the design industry as a whole. I think it was really bad that such a high profile project was put out to different agencies asking for unpaid work. The design industry in general struggles for credibility and is constantly arguing for people to recognise it, not just as a look and feel industry, but one of expert communicators. The fact that the city of London itself and the mayor have the audacity to just ask for unpaid work undermines the whole industry. If they wanted a rebrand they should have done their research and hired a branding agency, paying it and supplying it with a clear and concise brief. Obviously this wasn’t the case.
Furthermore the fact that any work is being judged by a panel of people who seem to have no understanding of design is only asking for trouble. I read on Designweek that there has been no decision made as to a winner or solution yet and this was because they are not satisfied with any entries. There is little doubt that London has plenty of graphic design talent, so the questions should be asked instead of the brief, or of the opinions of the panel itself. Indeed, Jim Prior, chief executive of The Partners (one of the agencies pitching) agreed with this saying ‘either the collective design industry of London is incapable of designing a London logo, or the criteria against which they are measuring good design is based on a subjective beauty parade of rubbish’.
Creative review wrote on its first blog regarding the mayors whim for a rebrand project that London already had its ‘unofficial identity’ in the shape of the tube style logo, and to be honest they were probably right. I think to sum up, an iconic brand cannot be forced, especially when it is trying to muscle out so many brands that already have iconic status. Surely an icon is something developed over time and a fluid rather forced process.
