There’s a definite resemblance. Maybe the legal department should have looked a bit closer before anchoring the city to a new “branding mechanism.”
We receive comments, like this one here: Seals, branding mechanisms and a city anchored into place by sheer dullness of bureaucratic intent.
It’s sadly fitting they’ve chosen an anchor as a graphic representation of the city. An anchor fixes a potentially moving object to a place. It gets stuck in the mud and silt and keeps things from moving. That’s why it’s called an anchor.
This is not a “marketing piece”, a “branding image” – it’s not a progressive symbol, it doesn’t imply a growing and vital city. An anchor? Who designed this?
This is “marketing” just like offering seven MILLION dollars to Pillsbury AFTER they said they they were leaving – that wasn’t a “plan to attract businesses to the city” either. Too little and much, much too late.
And another by e-mail.
In going through files recently, I noticed that the city’s new “branding logo” has replaced the old city seal on mundane printed things such as the city sewer bill.
I’v also noticed the inclusion of the city’s new “branding logo” on the new street signs.
1) How can the city seal be changed without public discussion and vote by council?
2) Why wasn’t someone with real graphic design experience used to create versions of the logo that could be easily seen at various distances or in various uses?
The artwork is much too “thin” and confusing when seen in reverse, at a distance on street signs.
Who designed it, why and at whose request? Was a fee paid?
Sorry, but these questions are disallowed. After all, the new un-seal, as appended to metal and stone objects all across town, is temporary. Only permanent features may be questioned.
But if you persist, try sending smoke signals to the Bored of Works.