Is the image change worth £80,000 plus?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....eign-Office-logo.html

Maybe I should go to Specsavers but I can see little difference except the later is more bolder and the image a little more squat.

[boxtops]

It's a more modern typeface, but other that that - I am at a loss for words.

[bigfoot3000]

Lol, definitely not! They were fleeced by the designer!

[ummmm]

Ridiculous....

[Zeuhl]

First, this is stupid ata time of cost-cutting.

However, the article doesn't make it clear what was covered by the £80,000.
It implies it was just for changing the typeface, but goes on to describe a Brand Guidelines which has been produced in sufficient quantities to go to all our embassies etc. This is standard practice in business as it will ensure consistency and will save costs in future.

If it includes the writing, layout and production of the Brand Guidelines then £80,000 seems par for the course.

[Gromit]

The new font is much better, a lot more legible, especially for partially sighted people. There are guidelines under the Disability Discrimation Act that cover printed information, that could be one reason for the change of typeface. My guess is that £80,000 is not just the design costs, but the cost of implementing it. In other words, they would have spent thousands of pounds printing stationery anyway

[ABerrant]

Gromit - No need to guess at the inclusion of implementation costs since the article ends...

"A spokesman for the FCO said... the department had ‘engaged’ a ‘design consultant’ at a cost of £80,000. He did not disclose the additional cost of the new stationery needed across the department’s global operations."

[Zeuhl]

Those are two separate issues and two separate costs.

First is equipping various users with means to implement e.g. copies of Brand Guidelines
It is not clear whether this was included in £80K.

Second is cost implications of disposing of (recycling hopefully) materials which now bear 'old' logo and replacing with new.
As Aberrant says this is excluded from £80K as it is hard to estimate and could be minimised by using up most old materials.

[askyourgran]

It's disgusting, and the photo of smug Milliband makes me very angry. These people think that they can do anything they want. I wish there was something to bring them down to earth with a bang ie like telling him he has to pay for this bright idea himself.

[rov1200]

When you're spending someone else's money the cost is no object.

[Zeuhl]

// the photo of smug Milliband makes me very angry//

HaHa. A random pap shot can catch people looking all sorts of ways. The 'smugness' is your projection so I wouldn't allow it to make yourself angry if i were you! :-)

//These people think that they can do anything they want//

Within the budgets of the department he is managing, yes he can. That's his job in case you haven't noticed - at the moment it is anyway!

[jake-the-peg]

The Tories got a bargain then paying £40,000 for their tree

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5348630.stm

Mind you it was just a kid and a pack of crayons

[Zeuhl]

Not even a packet - just two crayons.

I've been involved in projects that used children's drawings and also required us to create some additional 'children's drawings'

It's blinkin' difficult!

[Zeuhl]

Yeah sure you can angel LOL.

You clearly have limited understanding of what is involved (see above perhaps?)

You can probably also play the flute; just blow on one end and move your fingers up and down.