How Much It Cost To Design Famous Logos

Some companies think logos and branding are so important that they spend millions and millions of dollars on designing them. Other companies go with something simple and end up spending nothing. The funny thing? It's usually the companies that spend little on designing logos that become the most iconic brands.

Seriously, companies like BP spend $US211,000,000 (recount those zeroes) on the rebranding process (designing the logo $US4.6 million, changing fixtures I'd imagine, cost a helluva lot more) while Coke has been rocking the same logo for years. It pays to nail it your first time. StockLogos compiled the cost of designing many famous companies and its a doozy. [Stock Logos via Design Taxi]


Sergey Brin designed the original logo in Gimp. It's obviously been tweaked since.


Steve Jobs famously got Paul Rand to design the logo for Next.


Designed by Simon Oxley in 2009 (it's also been updated)


35 bucks is pretty cheap for the most famous swoosh in the world. To Nike's credit, Nike gave the designer, Carolyn Davidson, stock now worth $US600,000


I could have done this for at least a thousand dollars cheaper.


I don't know how many times Pepsi has rebranded itself.


Aside from a slight hiccup with new Coke, the Coca Cola logo has stayed relatively the same since 1885.


Designed by Wolff Ollins, it still looks like Lisa Simpson doing something dirty.


Comments

    $1.8M for BBC.....idiots.
    2012 Olympics.....LOL

    It's a logical error to state that ''It’s usually the companies that spend little on designing logos that become the most iconic brands.''

    In fact, it's principally the longevity of companies and their products which leads to logos becoming memorable - and then iconic - brand marks.

    Lots of great logos get designed, only to fall by the wayside as the company or product they represent goes bust, gets acquired or replaced. Similarly, many ''crap'' logos from a design perspective become iconic purely because , over the decades that they represent a product with ongoing relevance, they start to stand out against the passing traffic of temporary brand marks.

    I love branding and graphic design, and I especially appreciate thoughtful and creative brand marks. But I would be the first to agree that companies generally spend far too much on visual identity, and far too little on the more important matter of the experience they create through their brand.

    The Coca-Cola logo doesn't really look much like the one above any more and I'll guarantee you the changes to it over the years were not done for free. The BBC logo, supposeedly "redesigned" in 1997 looks closer to the old one. The Commonwealth Bank logo cost something like $1.5million and it is completely stupid; more stupid even than the $15million ANZ logo.

    I remember when Telstra changed their logo at the time of the launch of Optus. They claimed it cost less than $2m. But almost overnight all the (then-prevalent) public phone booths and Telstra exchange buildings were updated with the new logo. It must have cost them hundreds of millions to change all their signage and stationery.

    What you fail to recognise here is that these brands that have developed and spent money on the logos have not just been for a logo it is a complete brand identity (Usually 100+ pages) . The "free" logos are never free because they have had a lot more work to the entire branding after the logo.
    You also dont pay for how long it takes to design a logo/identity you pay for the experience that designer has.

      Exactly. Speaking as a graphic designer (of sorts), all the work goes into that 600 page pdf booklet
      on how you can and mostly CANNOT use a logo if the company you are designing it for is
      completely anal about branding. That's where most of the money goes.

      Speaking as a graphic designer that often gets stuck going through massive multipage documents on how he's allowed and not allowed to use a company logo I can tell you that they're almost always very poorly thought out documents that almost always completely misunderstand how logos will be used in real world situations and actively harm the bran image by their ridiculous inflexibility- Basically meaning far more work for everyone involved since you need to go back and get high level approval for changes you need to make to the official art in order for it to be used in different applications- almost every single time.

      Out of all the booklets I've had to suffer through using, perhaps 25% get it reasonably right, the rest are simply ways to justify charging a gullible client a boat load of cash for some boring, anodyne, uninspired bit of corporate tosh.

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

    Virgin was designed on a napkin in a restaurant

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now