Haven't read all the comments. What struck me first was the bad mix of type styles. Designer didn't even bother to kern Hobart. As for the mark, I actually saw two people arm in arm. But all the other comments about band aids and hash tags are valid too. Bottom line, is it's lazy work. Who is the designer?
I like this comment from 'Dave Carson of Hobart' about the $200k+ price tag:
"Everyone please take the time to consider that graphic design is a valid profession, just like the careers you have all chosen to do. It's completely insulting to this trade to say that it should go out to competition, or that the wage paid for the time taken to do this is too much. How would you like to have to justify your annual salary? Or have it scrutinised all over the internet?"
From reading it I don't think the $200k price was just for the design, rather to roll it out and re-brand the councils assets such as signage, stationary and stuff.
The design including the style guide cost $42k.
As for the designer you need to bare in mind that working for clients like councils is the epitome of 'design by committee' and anything that goes through that process rarely turns out to be anything other than uninspired and insipid.
haha, open public forums on design, If I was the designer not only would I not answer the phone, I'd be drinking cocktails and not giving a f%$k, even if it was the best work ever people gonna hate, and working with a council, in tasmania, talk about stacked cards.
With geniuses stating:
"what on earth is a "brand style guide", other than $26,000 dollars down the drain?"
why would you pick up the phone.
Yeah the cost thing is a diversion, on both sides. Though it would be good for any quote of the budget to clarify all that it does include, would help educate the public in that area.
The logo itself is very bland, and while it's nice to go for something "cleaner" and more modern, to not incorporate something signifying "Habour" which is probably the key thing that comes to mind about Hobart does seem like a significant omission from a communication perspective.
But of course, "design by committee", for all we know the original concepts may have included a couple of habour-flavoured ideas that were rejected with the committee wanting "no harbour flavour".
It's an improvement on the previous logo, but I do fail to see how its reflective of Hobart heritage. I don't see seven directions, and I find the concept of a community fabric pretty location non-specific. I know Hobart was/is? a big centre for boat building, I doubt that fabric is really something they can lay claim to as a defining feature.
It's a worry that the Aldermen have been the first to come out and hate on the logo; that suggests to me there wasn't a great process behind developing the design in the first place (likely not the designer's fault!)