That's a tax write off . it's all black money all of modern art is just that pay more on paper for worthless art and save a bunch as a tax writeoff when all that goes to ur personal wealth
the companies probably had some shady things going on, but they had to bill for something legitimate. Creative work like designing a logo is a really good opportunity to hide something shady because it's so hard to quantify the value of creative work.
@@thenagainwhodoes7764They didn’t pay 1.8m for the design, it’s the fact that they have to change all their decals, gear, etc. The larger your company, the more merchandise you need to change.
That was the price for actually creating the logo, most of the money here comes from behind the scenes or something, like licensing and stuff (I don't know the exact details)
Lots of these figures entail quite a bit more than just logo design. BP's $210M includes the cost of updating all of their stations and individual pumps with the new logo. And Symantec's $1.28B is literally how much they paid to acquire VeriSign. The checkmark logo used to be VeriSign's logo and it came with widespread consumer recognition, so Symantec adopted it as their own after the acquisition.
Yeah but that doesn’t make people go “Oh wow these big companies just love wasting money on stupid things.” (They do, but not every decisison is frugal or done without foresight)
@@The_BlOb It is worth it for multinational corporations to spend this much on aesthetics. It is the first thing that consumers view when they look at the brand and often is what they associate with it.
@@purplehaze4063 because its literally 3 cubes with a cutout of different font, that I could do 100 variations in 20 minutes... which most likely most of them would even be better. Thats not worth even 20 bucks.
Accenture spends 100million on their logo. 18k Accenture ex employees who were kicked out in random for cost cutting who definitely added more value to the company than the darn logo, who could've been kept employed for at least more than a year with that money: 👁️👄👁️
You're missing one key detail: Accenture is a re-brand of Arthur Ansersen, the accounting firm known for the Enron scandal, probably the biggest in history. They spent that much for people to forget what they used to be in addition to forced layoffs related to their forced legal breakup. Even today, they're still pretty mid-tier, down from being one of the biggest in the US.
@@Philgob wrong. They can recoup the money in just half a year by taking up projects that make them more than just 100M and it's an infinite money glitch then on. And Indians get paid very less compared to their western counterparts because of geopolitical (+PPP) and cost of living reasons.
For anyone wondering. Symantec bought a company worth 1.2 billion (or whatever he said). That acquisition included the check mark logo that Symantec adopted. Im sure most of these examples have similar stories.
I was assuming his story was bullshit. Even 1 million is crazy and is probably done to evade paying taxes. Anything above that is batshit crazy. P.S. Like with NFT's you can put any stupid price on something that doesn't mean there is any value in it or if it's possible to resell it.
@@happy_thinking yup agree i think the cost also includes marketing it and changing everything from website to every merch they have bcus no way someone is actually paying 1 million for a logo.
@@SimsyHazel Other logos are iconic as well, but they cost 100$ which in the past was worth more, but not that much more. The thing is logos become iconic after a company become successful.
@@SimsyHazel All of these logos are quite iconic, but that doesn't really excuse their cost. You could hire someone for a few hundred and get similar results. I bet they used the logos to pay off something shady (since it's hard to price creative work; spending one billion on a logo is less shady then spending one billion on something like a laptop), or they used it as a tax write off, effectively gaining them money.
If anyone is wondering why careless whisper started playing after the olympics logo, its because the logo bears a resemblance to lisa simpson giving head to bart simpson.
Of course, it's not just about the designed logo. This is the entire branding of the company, which includes much more than just a logo. In addition, one can already assume that the implementation costs are included in the figures. Advertising agencies are the smallest part, no company pays more than necessary.
First when a company chooses to change their logo, you're often talking about changing the whole graphic identity. Now even if the changes might seem ridiculously unsignificant, everything is made with thought and the tiniest detail will have way more impact than you can imagine. For the BBC example, their logo is absolutely EVERYWHERE on their content. Also it can seem like crazy amount of money, but it's sth like a few days maybe weeks of usual advertising. Given the amount of work behind these changes, it's money well spent and well deserved
The reason it’s so expensive is because apparently they have to pay the government fees to allow them to use it legally, and they also have to pay money to implement it. BP paid 132,000,000 pounds to implement their logo onto their petrol stations when they updated their logo.
Well my Brother is a Logodesigner and created a Logo for a German Designerstudio and they paid him 40.000€. Logodesign is a world for its own i guess 🤷♂️
Australians always seem to get so excited when they’re included in things like this, like happy they’ve not been picked last for the team or project or something, or forgotten about
@@Bas_Lightyear it's because we are obviously the best country in the world, but everyone forgets it. We got great healthcare system, good edu system, mortality rates good, good average lifespan, nice people, good cities, not overpopulated, decent military, not corrupt, good exporter, plenty of flora and fauna, good weather sometimes and plenty of outback, what's not to like? But everyone forgets this
The cost includes refurbishment of old designs and logo displayers. Actually it's the viewers who asked to change the logo, they changed it to something symmetric. That's it.
It’s fraud not actual value. It’s probably a group of executives forming a side business to produced the company these services for hyper inflated price for their pocket and for write off of the company
@@irgendeinname9256 prolly something to do with copyright to and buying rights to certain characters Also these probably were made by enterprises instead of single freelance desingners
He is adding the cost of changing, distributing, and putting the logo on every existing establishment (e.g, every BBC radio and news station adapting the new logo digitally and in print).
"here just write a check mark in the circle so we know you agree with our terms and you can start on making our logo." "ok.. there." "your a fucken genius"
When you update company logo, you should also update all the materials where this logo is used. All the digital media, locations, printables, merch and so on. It takes a lot of time and people to do. That's why it's so expensive.
What these companies do is create a separate company. That company “charges” the parent company 100 million dollars as the “fee” for developing the logo. The company agrees to “pay” them the amount in instalments such has 10 million over 10 years. The real benefit is that the “fee” for the logo is actually tax deductible as a business cost and helps companies save taxes
For anyone wondering, the price is so high because they change not just the logo, but all business cards, website logo, banners, ads etc where the new one is placed and printed out. Even a video commercial with the new logo costs money. It's not just the icon itself.
I work for design company, that price isnt only for the logo. But also the placement on everything they want, buildings, product, tags, stationery, everything. Thats why the more placement design they want the price go even further.
Either someone created it and sold it to them for the price and they wanted exactly this logo so desperately that they were ready to pay this much or its all the money the companies used for studies and research to find the most appealing logo.
@@irgendeinname9256 big part of this numbers is probably some research, but companies probably have some incentive to spend that much money, like tax write offs or something like that. Nobody can convince me that it’s realistic to spend 20 million dollars or something to research which font of the letter B in BBC people will like more.
This video is misleading. The real reason for the cost for each of the companies is entirely different. BP wanted to rebrand themselves, so the 211 million dollars is the fees to change all the old logos and also include the marketing fees for the new logo. For Symantec they bought the whole company verisign for 1.28billion$ not the logo. For BBC the price tag is for changing all the old signs and also refurbishment of the logo display in the office building. The other companies had other reasons except the London Olympics one. The artist had completely overpriced for one of the worst logos ever.
As designer, they're usually not paying the logo, but the visual system. On larger scale like these one, they also co-hire business consultant to strategize their market
People don't realise that most of the money paid by the companies was in the form of stocks/shares of the company. Those stock values skyrocketed into the amount they are showing at some point in time.
We’ve gone from worrying about domestic terrorism to worrying about how useless our politicians are. We haven’t even had a direct government for years.
People don't realize all that has to change with a logo change, like yeah, the design costs money, but replacing the old logo on products and location is what really bloats the price
Most examples probably included a whole revamp of their image: a new typeface, new website, social media presence, repainting new (if not all) equipment, etc. Particularly the BBC one. That change in typography is probably one of many things
