I actually like it. I had a pet pigeon as a child. They’re very loyal.
>”Ms Ament [(director of the museum)] added: “A good logo gets people talking””
Does it? I don’t really agree. A good logo represents the brand of the museum effectively. Good *marketing* gets people talking, sure, and I can see this working as a marketing campaign, but a logo is not just marketing.
This article is headlined as “divides opinion”, yet the only people who it mentions as having a favourable opinion work for the museum itself or the design company that came up with the logo. The only piece of public opinion they’ve sought out for this article is scathingly negative.
“The designers said they recruited someone from each of the capital’s 32 boroughs who had “made their mark on London”, ranging from tattoo artists to DJs, to help them come up with the idea.”
Pretentious bullshit. These creative agencies live in a bubble.
A flying rat shitting itself.
Nice little earner for the very best of current creatives.
I can picture it now, “we asked a top creative (their mates)’ a tatty maker and dj’s from each borough and asked them what they had in common. They came up with a shitting pigeon and roadmen.”
I’ll expect to see dozens of these scattered throughout the capital streets arrayed in different colours and patterns. Bah humbug.
Look forward to the next rebrand, probably in a couple of years. ‘The Museum of London’ has a nice sound to it, with a stylish font and perhaps a silhouette of The Old St Pauls, or at least something marginally historical like a collection of destitute ginnys pissing in the street, a Danny Dyer statue re-enacting a scene from the Football Factory or Bob Marley at some gig. But a bleedin pigeon with shart!
Load of bollocks, at least it ain’t a ginger smurf sitting on a fruit salad in a posing pouch.
It would be like New York City making their logo a rat eating trash
I really don’t want the pigeon to become the symbol of London
6 comments
I actually like it. I had a pet pigeon as a child. They’re very loyal.
>”Ms Ament [(director of the museum)] added: “A good logo gets people talking””
Does it? I don’t really agree. A good logo represents the brand of the museum effectively. Good *marketing* gets people talking, sure, and I can see this working as a marketing campaign, but a logo is not just marketing.
This article is headlined as “divides opinion”, yet the only people who it mentions as having a favourable opinion work for the museum itself or the design company that came up with the logo. The only piece of public opinion they’ve sought out for this article is scathingly negative.
“The designers said they recruited someone from each of the capital’s 32 boroughs who had “made their mark on London”, ranging from tattoo artists to DJs, to help them come up with the idea.”
Pretentious bullshit. These creative agencies live in a bubble.
A flying rat shitting itself.
Nice little earner for the very best of current creatives.
I can picture it now, “we asked a top creative (their mates)’ a tatty maker and dj’s from each borough and asked them what they had in common. They came up with a shitting pigeon and roadmen.”
I’ll expect to see dozens of these scattered throughout the capital streets arrayed in different colours and patterns. Bah humbug.
Look forward to the next rebrand, probably in a couple of years. ‘The Museum of London’ has a nice sound to it, with a stylish font and perhaps a silhouette of The Old St Pauls, or at least something marginally historical like a collection of destitute ginnys pissing in the street, a Danny Dyer statue re-enacting a scene from the Football Factory or Bob Marley at some gig. But a bleedin pigeon with shart!
Load of bollocks, at least it ain’t a ginger smurf sitting on a fruit salad in a posing pouch.
It would be like New York City making their logo a rat eating trash
I really don’t want the pigeon to become the symbol of London