How did the gov UK logo cost over 500k?
Posted by MrManManManInit@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 68 comments
I just find it kinda nutty that all they did was change the black background to blue and moved the dot up slightly it makes no sense how two changes can make that much difference I would’ve done that for a M&S meal deal
danbelson_@reddit
My local council spent similar money painting a train bridge over a road. You’d have thought most the budget went on getting safe access for it, but the funny part is that the road closure and scaffolding was already going up for maintenance by the train line. So the half a mill they spent on design, paint and labor. Basically someone got their pockets lined.
BaBaFiCo@reddit
It's £500k for everything - design work, implementation, etc.
We changed the logo for my business changed last year. £25k all in for the consultation, design work, iteration, implementation, communication. And we're nowhere near the size of the government. Still people acted like it should have cost twenty quid 🙄
Bayff@reddit
Why should the size of the business impact the price, the logo is the same size.
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
Because it's not at simple as just changing a file. You have to change branding on absolutely everything that has that. You can't even fathom the amount of documents that needed changing
PracticeNo8733@reddit
But the £500k didn't include any of that. A design guide/etc isn't nothing but AFAICT it doesn't include any of the work to actually change stuff.
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
Source? It seems incredibly unlikely that's the case and you're making things up. This isn't some guy paying his mate to make a logo in 20 mins. It's a documented and in-depth process that thousands of companies undergo. It's expensive, but it's also the government.
PracticeNo8733@reddit
The £500k+ bill was for the ad agency. They don't go in and recode your stuff.
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
Yes, they do :) If they don't do it directly, it will be contracted out
PracticeNo8733@reddit
What, you think a massive government department will have an ad agency go into their codebases across many different systems? No, that isn't plausible.
Lots of stuff is contracted out but we're talking about the bill for the ad agency to make the logo, design handbook, etc.
Bayff@reddit
But that should be the business not the logo designer? They are making a new logo - asking them to change all youre paperwork for you seems like an insane waste of money 🤣
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
They will have included it as a service, because you end up with differences in design spec. It's a hell of a lot of work, still too expensive, but not massively.
Bayff@reddit
So is there an option to not have them implement that is miles cheaper? Or are you forced to have them implement so they can double the price?
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
It's less a case of being forced, and it being the safer options. In the same way that I can buy parts for my car, and replace them myself far cheaper than I can pay for a mechanic to do it, but I will still pay the mechanic.
There is a large degree of responsibility with the whole process and being able to hold a 3rd party liable is also a "bonus". Much the same with working on your own car.
Bayff@reddit
Fair, thank you for the explanation.
Ok_Egg_5460@reddit
No problem!
Upbeat_Map_348@reddit
The bigger the company, the more places it has to change the logo. Websites, buildings, letterhead etc.
Bayff@reddit
Yes but it’s the same logo. You’re paying for a new design not for them to update all the logos, surely the business themselves can do that?
NessaGuin@reddit
I've not looked into this, but when the BBC changed from angled to straight it caused a similar kerfuffle, but they had to put a new logo on each van, but first take the old one off.
The total might be spread across a dozen companies, one changed the logo for £xx k, the letterheads on forms may be pre printed, thus need to get new stock, or it could be in the header of the document template, so just change the file and make sure everyone has the new one.
Any ID badges that HAVE to be updated, get updated, those are done by a third company for another cost, so when the BBC explained it wasn't just handing some graphic designer a shedload of money, it wasn't as bad as it seemed.
When the USA made Hawaii a state, they had to update their flag again to include the 50th star, many places probably still had not received their Alaska updated flag at this point. It's not just 50 flags one for each state, but every government building and the smaller you are, the lower down the list you become.
Some American brand like Target or Walmart had a store in 2023 still using a late 90s/early 2000s logo because they fell though the cracks when it came to them spending a fortune changing each and every shop front.
PracticeNo8733@reddit
So far as I can tell the £500k doesn't include actually changing any of that stuff. Just the new design (which includes supporting files/design manual/etc) but not any actual changes.
BaBaFiCo@reddit
Sometimes a business can, sometimes you don't have that sort of staff and you pay the design agency.
Bayff@reddit
It just seems like an unneeded expense. I suppose it depends on the breakdown. If you’re paying like 10k for implementation, it would be a magnitude cheaper to hire a temporary admin staff to just do this for you.
Tom50@reddit
That is literally what they did, hence the cost. How many admin staff do you think it needed and how expensive do you think they are?
BaBaFiCo@reddit
Well OP thinks they cost about a meal deal 🙄
Bayff@reddit
Jesus not that much 😳 meal deal is arguably a much worse deal than 500k for a logo these days 🤣
Bayff@reddit
But the comment I replied to the logo designer did this and charged for it.
CriticalCentimeter@reddit
Admin staff can't update a logo in the hundreds of places it needs updating.
Bayff@reddit
Sure they can, what’s so challenging about pasting one logo over another in the template.
CriticalCentimeter@reddit
You haven't got the faintest idea what's involved.
Please stop making yourself look silly
Bayff@reddit
I didn’t pretend to? 🤣 I’m literally asking a question as to why they can’t?
Whatever, I’m so sick of people taking sides, it’s impossible to have a discussion with anyone anymore without them being rude or calling you a name.
BaBaFiCo@reddit
It's like anything. You buy a carpet for your house you might fit it yourself or you might pay someone if you don't know what you're doing and don't have the tools. Doesn't make it an unnecessary expense. It's just a decision on how best to use resource and money.
Bayff@reddit
Thank you for explaining, it’s depends on the expense I suppose & how much of the % is for this and how much is actually for designing.
But if it’s for the government they a) likely have no choice but to use it & b) will get marked up an outlandish premium, because why not.
BaBaFiCo@reddit
My day job is the other side of procurement. I wouldn't say the public sector gets any higher mark up that the private sector. In fact, I find public sector are good at keeping that minimised. Prices get jacked up because public sector dicks around and ends up changing the terms or scope, or pauses/cancels then restarts a project.
Bayff@reddit
I have the opposite from my experience. I work mostly with schools and they quite literally waste so much of their budget on things that they do not need/ paying for the same service multiple times.
They also have the issue of not hiring competent people when they need to and will instead hire a consultancy, who hires another consultancy who then finally hire the contractor. So they get their jobs marked up 3 times instead of going to the correct person to begin with.
A lot of it is unfortunately ticking of a box with no research.
If it’s different in other places it would restore my faith a little but I’m not confident.
timotimtimz@reddit
Either way, someone has to spend time updating it. The 500K here isn’t all going to one company…
Bayff@reddit
The comment I replied to made it seem like they have £25k to one company. I’m sorry if I misread that.
BaBaFiCo@reddit
My company paid the bulk to one business
CriticalCentimeter@reddit
There's still a cost attached to it, whoever does it
Upbeat_Map_348@reddit
The BBC will outsource the maintenance of loads of different assets such as websites and apps. They would also pay other companies to do things like change the logo on the side of a building. No business has internal staff that cover every single thing they need.
PracticeNo8733@reddit
The £500k didn't include making the changes.
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
How many places is the logo used?
How many devices is the logo accessed by?
How many pages need to be tested? And on how many devices?
You can argue whether it needed to change at all, but once that decision was made, £500k isn't bad value for the scale of it.
spectator_mail_boy@reddit
No it's not. The cost given didn't include that though. The hours of teams ticketing, estimating, actually doing that to the (tens) thousands of services was not in the 500k figure. Factor in the time wasted doing all of that by salaries, add that to figure
Expresso_Presso@reddit
Because somebody who knows somebody got the contract
HistoricalFox4681@reddit
That's a very serious accusation. What evidence do you have?
Expresso_Presso@reddit
Who's getting accused and what are they getting accused of?
HistoricalFox4681@reddit
I don't know, you're the one making the accusation.
Expresso_Presso@reddit
Against who?
HistoricalFox4681@reddit
Yeah, I didn't think you'd have any idea.
Whatiii@reddit
More than just a logo change has to be considered.
Is the logo change colour scheme, consistent with every page that uses it? How are edge cases handled?
How does this all work for accessibility options - screen readers, inverting colour, black and white displays, colourblindness of different types, different size scaling for those who need a larger text, how it works when printed out for those who need it printed.
It is also not just one logo, but multiple ways to express the logo along with documents on how to use it. This is important as consistency of user interface between DVLA, HMRC, DWP, Passport Office makes life easier when moving across dealing with any of their systems.
The real cost will not have been design work on the logo, but paying a small team to come up with the ruleset that ensures accessibility and clarity is achieved across every platform. It includes more than just a logo, whole colour guidance for different use cases, not just what colours to use but when to use them how to use them and combine with each other. These are small details that make things easier to follow, you don't notice when they are there but you notice them not being there.
PracticeNo8733@reddit
You know what tends to work really well for accessibility? Monochrome mostly-text logos like the existing one. Were there any significant documented accessibility issues it?
Jesisawesome@reddit
Because they are spending your (our) money and not their own. Its ok, thats just a lifetime of tax for a minimum wage family, because the government knows how to spend it better than the family does.
Impossible_Volume811@reddit
£500,000 is 0.00016% of the total income tax collected by HMRC.
Which, if it were the same % of the average income tax paid by low income families (£1,783), would be £0.0028528 or 0.3p.
It’s still a stupid waste of money and whoever approved it should be sacked, but framing it as if it were taken from a family who could have spent it better is specious.
Tetracropolis@reddit
I made this exact argument when I embezzled £500k from HMRC but the judge said it "a serious crime".
Jesisawesome@reddit
Yes, stupidity and waste is easier to excuse when it is diluted rather than concentrated. I wonder how many people would actually consent to pay tax if individual items were allocated individually rather than diffused across the population.
But we obviously have different opinions on this.
CassieBeeJoy@reddit
It's not just changing a logo though.
It's updating the logo on hundreds of websites, offical forms, certificates, templates, signage, internal systems, government apps etc.
It's testing it for accessibility standards and with different backgrounds and devices
It's the background research and design process and all the admin they create like updating brand guidelines.
It's the process you have to go through when awarding public contracts (which having just gone through the process myself is intensive and takes you out of your regularly job for a few days).
Now, you can argue that it didn't need updating but the cost is far more than just chaning the colour and moving a dot.
Just_Some_Cool_Guy@reddit
Why didn’t anyone say that’s not worth spending half a mil on
Dramatic-Rub-3135@reddit
Because it's only public money.
ButImJustJim@reddit
I mean in America it's estimated that changing the name of the Department of Defence to the Department of War could cost between $10million-$125million. The design of it may have been pretty cheap but there's a LOT of stuff that'll need updating.
https://www.designtribe.co.uk/why-the-500k-gov-uk-rebrand-backlash-misses-the-point/
This website (which offers a design service so is likely biased) explains why there was more to it than just a recolour.
NessaGuin@reddit
Imagine how many flags would need to be replaced if they ever made a 51st state. Each time they got a new state, a new flag was issued, people might have still been waiting on the Alaska update when Hawaii got the 50th star.
If Tesco got rid of the \~ under the letters, every shop front would need a new sign, bags and the printer updated. THAT is where the brunt of the cost comes from, not just "Oh we paid some guy a fortune to just jiggle the jpg"
IainMCool@reddit
You shouldn't just read headlines
Exxtraa@reddit
Consultancy.
Also I hate it. The whole gov dot uk idea was the dot being a exactly that, as part of the URL. Not a mid floating point. Makes no sense now.
ClintonLewinsky@reddit
Because they employed people who used punctuation ;)
Serious answer though, there are a lot of levels of accountablity when something this significant and well used changes. 70 million people in the UK, each seeing the logo countless times a year, that's not to mention the international impact.
They have to make sure it doesn't clash with any other logos, no trademark infringment, no unintented images etc. Lots to check
Psimo-@reddit
You know what you get when you spend insufficient money on a logo?
Something worse than these
quellflynn@reddit
you pay for the process, not the result.
saying that, someone to justify those figures for the UK tax payers wouldn't go amiss.
even on 10 rehashes, and 6 months it's shouldn't be this high.
(but 10 rehashes and 6 months is excessive)
Superb-Ad-8823@reddit
I worked in the print/graphics industry for decades and could never fathom out how it costed so much for logos. Neither could anyone else.
YouCanShoveYourMagic@reddit
Because it's not their money they're spending.
AuramiteEX@reddit
Government = Wasters of Money
Smaller government = Win for everyone
LittleSadRufus@reddit
Moving the dot = GBP 250,000
Choosing a new colour = GBP 150,000
Implementing the new colour = GBP 150,000
New customer discount = GBP 50,000
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.