Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies, but I disagree with basically everything you're saying here. Branding isn't hard; forcing a constructed brand is hard. That's the real source of friction here. A brand might be way more than a logo, but THIS brand is not. That logo is literally the only thing this design agency contributed at all. Even the colors were already in use around the project. If the difference between "a brand" and "a logo" is "t…
> Branding isn't hard; forcing a constructed brand is hard. That's the real source of friction here. Let's agree to disagree. I've been involved in dozens of branding processes. None of them were easy, from the strategy to the creative to the execution. If the agency did their job, the brand guide _should_ feel obvious. That's how you know it's on brand. I find this sort of comment very condescending to designers. I'…
It's like "artist's statements" that are written so impenetrably that it's impossible for anyone to understand what the artist actually meant to do with the artwork. And that's deliberate, because of where the art world has got now.
If the designers of this shitshow were honest in their statement then it'd be "we made it look like this because it was the easiest and simplest method of getting it past the mass of middle-managers who got to veto the creative without contributing any positive ideas themselves. The brief was to be as inoffensive and non-controversial as possible".
As another commenter said, Go is brutalist. The gopher never quite suited it. But at least it was fun and original and different. But this... this is shite.
