28-12-2022, 02:51 PM
(27-12-2022, 09:39 PM)fanoftv Wrote: I’ve seen some people mention on Twitter that it doesn’t factor in how much they’ll save from not using Gill Sans. My question is, if they have to pay to have Gill Sans as part of the logo, why is the old logo still around? Though maybe that’s why it’s only cost £7 million so far as there is still a lot of rebranding to do.
They would only save money from using Gill Sans text (including within logos). Though closely based on Gill Sans, the letterforms in the 1997 logo are bespokely drawn and so do not need to be licensed.
Quite frankly it's hard to judge the appropriateness of £7m for a rebrand of this magnitude as they are few and far between and getting accurate figures for such rebrands are even harder. I would say it's done now so there's no point crying about it, but it very clearly has not be completely done due to the utterly shocking management of the project.