AT&T drops $1.8 million on rebranding

So, get this—AT&T just dropped 12,000 $0.00 on a new logo!
And let me tell you, the LOGO is... something else. It’s just the word "AT&T" in black with some kind of trendy, hippie-style scribbles. I guess for that kind of money, they're also redesigning the packaging, the envelopes, and all that other corporate nonsense...
I mean, clearly AT&T has cash to burn...

like I already mentioned in the other thread -> we're talking way more than $2 million...

And what exactly is so unusual about this?

not much...

goldengull3 said:So, what's even weird about that?

What's weird is that I'd personally handle the whole thing for a measly buck $0.00!
Don't you guys think a cool $1.5 million for a job like that is a bit of a stretch?

Steven Collins38 said:It’s a strange thought, really—that I would be willing to handle everything for them for just a single $0.00!

Your business strategy is fundamentally flawed. People rarely respect anything they can acquire for pocket change.

goldengull3 said:Your business strategy sucks. People generally don't value stuff when they get it for peanuts.

Let me draw a parallel here to the economy in America and all the private sector players! So, you're telling me people—the everyday working class, the folks just trying to make a living and punch the clock—are out there grinding away at private companies for $833, which basically means the bosses don't actually respect them? And if you, as part of the working class, decide you don't want to deal with it—well, just hand in your resignation and walk away, because there’s always someone else lined up ready to take the spot! So, since that's the reality for about 88% of businesses out there, does that mean we don't even respect each other as a society?

Quincy:

Steven Collins38 As stated by: If I may draw a parallel between the American economy and the private sector: you have people—ordinary workers, the so-called "living force" who simply wants to earn a living and get on with their lives—taking on just about any job offered by private corporations for... $833Does that imply that private employers don't actually value their people? If you belong to the working class and decide you aren't interested in putting in the hours, then just pack up your things and head out—there’s always a line of people waiting to take your spot. Given that this attitude prevails in 88% of companies, it leads me to wonder: have we simply lost the ability to respect one another as a society?

You are absolutely right. If we set aside a few niche sectors like the textile industry, where even the laborers are working for... $667 It’s a grim reality: things are cheaper because the Chinese man can undercut everyone on cost, and quite frankly, most American employers have zero respect for their workforce. I've noticed a stark contrast in how people handle labor; an employer in Germany will typically speak about their staff with a level of dignity you just don't see from domestic bosses here.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but in this country, management still views an employee as nothing more than a line item on a ledger—a cost to be minimized rather than the actual engine of value creation.

Verizon’s marketing is just a disaster (I suspect Greyhound is behind it), so they definitely overspent on the logo. I mean, sure, the old logo needed an update, but their entire strategy is a mess. Does anyone actually know who Verizon is even trying to target here? 😛

Steven Collins38 said:It’s just weird... I mean, I'd probably do the whole thing for just 1 $0.00!
Don't you think over a million and a half $ is a bit much for a job like that?

Colton recently brought up a suggestion from the design association about setting price standards for different gigs. The rates varied depending on the client, which makes sense, I guess—the value of a single logo is obviously worlds apart for a local mom-and-pop shop versus a giant like Verizon.
The big-name designers end up quoting those massive, five-figure numbers for a logo, while a bunch of kids take on similar work for maybe a couple hundred bucks. Those kids, by being so cheap, I suppose, they end up screwing themselves and their colleagues over.

Tyler Grant76 said:Verizon’s marketing is an absolute train wreck (I suspect Greyhound is behind it), so they’ve clearly overcompensated by obsessing over the logo. While the old branding definitely needed an update, their entire strategy is fundamentally broken. Can anyone actually tell me who Verizon is even trying to reach here? 😛

There isn't one. It’s just a textbook case of a global marketing strategy where the logo and the campaign are designed in a vacuum, completely detached from the local market, the culture, or how people actually think. In my estimation, it’s a failure. As for the cost—well, when you're a massive corporation pulling in massive profits, you tend to throw massive amounts of money at nothing.

The target demographic is likely just some niche group, like the Mexican man community; if I were a Mexican man, I’d be deeply insulted that such a massive, successful corporation would co-opt symbols reminiscent of national emblems, much like if Microsoft suddenly decided to dress itself in checkers...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...flag_large.png

Steven Collins38 said:So, Verizon spent 12,000 bucks on a new logo$0.00!

I mean, if that price tag covers rebranding every single sign and storefront for Verizon across the entire US, then maybe it isn't such a massive waste. But honestly? I think the actual design is just hideous. It’s one of those things where you can't unsee it once you notice it. Still, it's not like I pick my service provider based on their graphic design choices... I care about other stuff. And right now, all three major carriers are pretty much failing us, so I guess I'm sticking with Verizon for the time being. I’m almost waiting for some customer service rep to call me up and ask for a detailed list of everything they're doing wrong just so they can feel better about themselves.😁

I suppose all I know is that Verizon had the largest mobile user base. Though, those figures might be somewhat inflated since a huge chunk of them are just on prepaid plans, so I guess it’s hard to say how many actual long-term customers they really have.

As for this redesign, I assume they did it just so their advertisements wouldn't seem so repetitive, but personally, I find it quite underwhelming.

I honestly don't get why they dropped that kind of cash on a design that might be trendy right now—but let's be real, in six months, it’ll probably look like total garbage... ☕

I’m assuming that $12 million covers the complete rebranding process, including swapping out the old logo for the new one. Because if they’re charging $12 million just for a logo design, then that’s… well, I don't even know what to say. I’d guess their target demographic is probably the younger crowd, maybe somewhere between 15 and 40 years old. In my experience, older customers tend to be more resistant to change; if they’ve been loyal to a specific carrier for years, they aren't going to jump ship just because of some new graphic design fluff. But the younger generation? They’re flexible, they want to stay current, and they crave that modern aesthetic. Since all these new branding elements look quite contemporary, I’m confident it’ll pull them in.
Personally, I really dig the new brand identity—though that might just be because I fall right into their target age bracket. At the same time, I can't help but think this branding might feel dated in just a year or two, which would mean that $12 million essentially goes up in smoke. If they manage to recoup the investment and turn a profit, more power to them... but I have my doubts.

Vicky said:Sure, there are exceptions, but around here, management still views employees as just another line item expense rather than the people actually driving value.

You're spot on. I remember back at Fizulic, the actual sales force—the guys out there grinding and actually bringing money into the company—were treated like a bunch of idiots who somehow "deserved" a commission check. Like they were doing the company a favor by earning their pay.

On the flip side, those clueless girls working in procurement (brand managers or whatever they call themselves) were treated like royalty. It was ridiculous. You’d have some Fifice sitting in an office with zero clue about sales, logistics, or how retail or wholesale even works, trying to lecture the rest of us. But hey, that's just how it goes. That's exactly why field sales gets axed because it's supposedly the "most expensive way to run a sales department." Meanwhile, the Fifice stay tucked away in their air-conditioned offices. Maybe Fizulic just likes having his little birds sitting pretty at headquarters. The worst part? Those office types actually made more than the sales team. It’s a total joke. Having administrators pull in bigger paychecks than the people actually bringing home the bacon is a broken way to run a business.

X said:You’re spot on. I recall a similar dynamic at ExxonMobil—the sales force was essentially the engine room. These guys were the ones actually driving revenue into the firm, yet they were treated like a bunch of clueless amateurs who somehow deserved a massive commission check just for doing their jobs.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I once witnessed a situation where an associate director approached the CEO with a proposal: anyone who independently secured a contract—say, by leveraging a contact at another company to bring business home—should receive a 10% cut of that deal. It was shot down immediately. The reasoning? Management argued that if someone landed a multi-million dollar account, paying them a few hundred thousand dollars was simply unacceptable. 😁

unknown, this is straight-up legendary!

aboriđin said:It’s kind of wild... I mean, I’d honestly do the whole thing for just 1 $0.00!
Don't you think like, a million and a half bucks is a bit overkill for a job like that?

🙄 oh, awesome... so, honey, do you actually have any clue what goes into making a high-quality logo?

The capital expenditure is entirely justified, provided one acknowledges that branding and marketing represent the absolute cornerstone of any corporate enterprise. Just consider the sheer scale of what AT&T pours into their branding—compared to that, Verizon is nothing more than a casual backyard picnic.

The new campaign is polished and meticulously executed; it is bound to yield results. This isn't a matter of subjective taste.

Furthermore, one must realize that logo design and campaign development are among the most significant investments a company can make.