40 
Some companies think logos and branding are so important that they spend millions and millions on designing them. Other companies go with something simple and end up spending nothing. The funny thing? It’s usually the companies that spend little on designing logos that become the most iconic brands.
Seriously, companies like BP spend $211,000,000 (recount those zeroes — it’s basically £134m!) on the rebranding process (designing the logo $4.6 million / £2.9m, changing fixtures I’d imagine, cost a helluva lot more) while Coke has been rocking the same logo for years. It pays to nail it the first time. StockLogos compiled the cost of designing many famous companies and it’s a doozy. [Stock Logos via Design Taxi]
Sergey Brin designed the original logo in Gimp. It’s obviously been tweaked since.
Steve Jobs famously got Paul Rand to design the logo for Next, which cost around £65k in today’s money.
Designed by Simon Oxley in 2009 (it’s also been updated).
£22 is pretty cheap for the most famous swoosh in the world. To Nike’s credit, Nike gave the designer, Carolyn Davidson, stock now worth £385,000.
£1.14m. I would have done this for at least a million less.
I don’t know how many times Pepsi has rebranded itself.
Aside from a slight hiccup with new Coke, the Coca Cola logo has stayed relatively the same since 1885.
Designed by Wolff Olins, it still looks like Lisa Simpson doing something dirty.
How Famous Logos Have Changed Over Time
Changing Famous Logos to Comic Sans Ruins Every Logo
How Much Does It Cost to Climb Mount Everest? Around the Cost of a Porsche
The best ones in my opinion are the cheap or free ones. Goes to show that money cannot by good taste. The 2012 and Next logos are horrible.
I actually really like the BP logo. It’s simple, pretty in a geometric and minimalist way, it’s easily recognisable, they’ve woven in some relatively subtle but easily noticeable cues to park their arse firmly on the environmental bandwagon, it’s just generally well thought out.
it looks ok, the colours are Brazilian. So makes you think it is a Brazilian company at first glance. the “B” also doesn’t help.
Should be the British colours.
you would say that! :> but yeah, it’s not called “British Petroleum”, but actually just “BP” now seeing as it’s owned by yanks.
Same colours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
British merged with American Amoco.
It’s a green flower shape for a reason. Nationality isn’t it.
It’s a Lotus Flower isn’t it?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
British merged with American Amoco. The colours are a poor choice, but this is just my personal taste.
I think it’s quite pretty. :< Each to his own.
Sorry the link was for Glenbot3000
Of course, BBC would cost the most, as they have an infinite source of money.
Precisely. And the taxpayer-funded Olympics logo is one of the other most expensive.
I never understand why established companies pay designers to re-design their logo. Put up a competition on your website and or advertise it on your labels, with the winner being paid in your product (which you can get at cost obviously). Huge publicity (especially if you are a big name), great brand involvement with your customers and if you need to get a professional in just to tidy the idea up they can only charge you for the work rather than the spurious “creative process” involved.
not to mention, why not use their in-house designers. surely most big companies have them?
i designed our company logo and its better than most of the above (if not all)
Link to company website so we can see said logo?
yeah lets see it then
Waiting to see LiamT’s logo!
i like see logo too please.
Yeah, why should anyone who does anything creative get paid? Designers should work for free, hoping for the chance of a pair of free trainers or a years supply of sugar water. What a much prettier world we would live in if there was no financial incentive for anyone to learn how to design. Apple should sack Jonathan Ive and their entire design team. Imagine how much more successful they would be if they didn’t spend so much money on spurious “creative processes”. You really are a genius Mr. Jones. A visionary genius.
I am NOT saying that creative people should not get paid. Way to take what I said WAAAAAY out of context. I am suggesting that the method I mentioned would not only save the company money but provide increased publicity and brand engagement, which are all things companies like.
Professionals these days will still want some credit for their work, either financially or otherwise.
Professionals want (and deserve) cash money for their work. That is the definition of a professional.
Speaking as the son of a graphic designer, of course I understand this.
Yep – agree with Darrell – you can’t make a grandiose statement like that unless you are willing to show us your wares!
Sigh. Olympic logo. I pay tax for that sh1t. He is probally lauging all the way to the bank, after submitting that the night before the deadline using ms paint.
Rio’s is infinitely superior. And even that’s pretty uninspired!
So lame!
I meant the Olympic 2012 logo, not your comment (oh for an edit button!)
Also I believe the initial concept of the 2012 logo was developed by a 12 year old.
Crikey that 2012 logo seems to look worse every time I see it.
Typical BBC over spending on crap, that is ludicrous money for that logo.
And the cyclops mascots! Oh dear lord the mascots…
I like to pretend they don’t exist, it make me feel better.
It’s been an excellent games with poor branding.
What makes you think the BBC commissioned the logo? It’s nothing to do with the BBC.
That was meant to be a separate statement which is why I left a gap.
I meant BBC overspending on their logo not Olympics logo.
Really? I’m fairly certain the money didn’t just pay for the logos above. The designers probably spent an awful lot of time coming up with 100s of options for the companies to choose from. And they probably came up with samples for them against different background colours, letterheads, boards, magazines and God knows what else.
Also, nothing is free.
“Also, nothing is free.”
Except the Google & Coca Cola logos.
did the Beeb really pay all that money for 3 black squares with a white letter each… and than they can’t afford to broadcast F1 by themselves they say >.>
also, I can’t take the 2012 logo seriously. I didn’t even realise until the week before the Olympics that it was shaped as 2 0 1 2, I just saw some girl bending down and giving head to a headless dude
Logos and branding are a funny thing. People seem to think logo design is such a waste of money, the BBC logo above being a good example. Almost anybody’s immediate response to that would be “Three letters in 3 squares?!…what a complete waste of money.”
However, a logo has to capture so many different aspects of a company all at once. It has to be reusable in all sorts of branding situations, be simple and instantly readable & recognisable, look as good in colour as in black & white, capture the company’s tone, use the correct font in the correct way (of which there are literally thousands to sift through).
That said, the BBC doesn’t strive for commercial gain, so I’m not sure why $1,800,000 of lincence payer’s money was spent on it, but if they were a commercial company it would have been worth it, because it’s a brilliant timeless and professional logo, applicable to all branding situations.
The problem is, everybody thinks they’re a designer. As I UX/UI designer I experience this every day in meetings. Everybody thinks they could have designed logos they see around because all they see is the simple, massively refined end product, not the masses of design concepts and decisions behind it. They are a bit like films or stories in that respect… I put it to you that you can’t come up with a better sci-fi action concept than Star Wars, as simple and silly as Star Wars’ concepts may seem.
On a side note, I think Google’s logo was probabaly intended to be a placeholder for a better logo, but then after the company’s success they just ran with the logo everybody knew and loved, and simply refined it – I like the lowercase “g” Google use in their icons, but I’ve never thought their logo is inherently good, just unmistakable. It’s no surprise the logo was free as Google’s strength is the strength found in their free products, no their branding and marketing pushing their products, as with companys such as Apple.
I totally agree. Good branding works on an almost subliminal level and unfortunately that means most people think “yeah i could do that”. I think designers are treated like shit to be honest
Every time I see the 2012 logo, all I can see is Lisa Simpson on her knees doing “things”.
Oh dear, some of the comments on this thread are typical of the attitude the general public have for design. Designers get paid to design logos because if you hold a ‘contest’ you end up with the debacle of the new Gap logo “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11520930″ . I’m also pretty certain the costs quoted wont be for ‘just the logo’ there will be letterheads, business cards, signage for buildings, vans, cars and in the case of the olympics graphics on the tracks, on screen graphics, merchandise, signage etc etc etc.
Some interesting comments in here. Interesting how many of you think that the money paid was just for a “logo”.
The London 2012 brand has been brillaint in my opinion. The application of it across London and on all the different mediums has been great. From the arenas, to the medals. From the iPhone app to the onscreen graphics. It works well across it all and stands out as being something different.
Anyone else thought it said legos and got all excited?
Yikes… looks like the BBC got fleeced! Also, remind me not to hire Wolff Ollins and I think Google definitely got what they paid for… I am no designer so I guess it’s a personal preference thing, but I know what looks good.
The guy who designed the 2012 logo, it’s spelt Olins not “Ollins” …..just saying :p
I’ll change it now
But I like the 2012 logo…
A brand isn’t a logo – its an entire system of being for a company. Think of a brand as being a person; personality, sense of humor, the lot. A logo is that person’s tie.
Showing a picture of the BBC logo with a price is like me giving you the box to an iPhone and telling you it cost however many billion dollars to develop.
Also, the ‘free’ logos aren’t successful because of their form – its because of the system within which they are delivered. If you believe that Nike and google don’t spend any money on distributing their marques you are a fool.