Michael, last night was the first instance of the display during a Planning Committee meeting and I didn't want to draw any more attention to it then. However I will make a formal representation about this distraction; and also some related matters that could go under a well-known Presentation heading.
Hi Clive. I may be taking part in a deputation at some future date - if this manifestation of Goldberg's Folly is operating, I should be more than happy to draw attention to it by asking that it be turned off. Of course I shall probably then be declared "out" and have to make the long walk back to the pavilion of invisibility, being the aging carer of a dementia day centre client.
The "re-branding" is pathetic and pathetically easy to mock. Between its perpetrators and defenders and those dealing with the personal impact of the Council's present and planned cuts to social care provision, that is, vulnerable people with complex needs and their already over-stretched carers, lies a gulf so wide that I do not see how it can be bridged.
"Why would such intelligent self-esteemed middle class know-it-alls keep going on about it ?? Why wouldn't they just let the pathetic disappear into irrelevance?.. Please leave everyone in peace."
Is this discussion thread really disturbing your peace, Stephen?
I'm not sureif we are among the "self-esteemed middle class". Zena grew up on a Hackney Council flat and my family on a Council estate in Harrow. We've done okay since then, but that doesn't stop us getting angry about money being wasted on logos and other pointless vanity projects - at the same time as cuts are being made to vital services.
Did you actually read what Heather Martin wrote about her personal situation?
And every day brings news of worse to come from a Government which now wears the smallest fig leaf of "compassionate Conservatism" while bringing forward policies some of which even the Daily Telegraph can't support.
It's not like the JoeGo Logo is the only campaign of community action many of us are involved in. But to me at least it is symbolic of the handful of people running our Council who spend their time, energy and public money on the wrong priorities.
It's also bad politics. People are laughing at the logo.
"... Councils, hospitals and police forces spend millions on corporate branding yet far from improving the reputation of an organisation, it has the opposite effect. Corporate branding is at best ignored. At worst, it invites ridicule and damages trust amongst both staff and the public."
"Reputation management and branding belongs to a culture of fear, pretence and compliance, where looking good becomes more important than doing good, writing skills become more important than caring skills and manipulating the public becomes more important than serving them.
"Genuine improvement is also cheaper than pretend improvement."
Source: Slogan State. Charlotte Pell, talk at Newcastle University Business School https://campus.recap.ncl.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a7f1057...
Starts five minutes into the recording.
Alan, that is exactly the reason why I removed my comment, which I by the way, stand by..
Because I knew how much you and Clive are clinging on to any waft of publicity here on HoL about this non-subject, sit waiting for any new comment to reply to and I didn't want to give you another opportunity.
Thanks for proving my point.
Michael, subsequently and unfortunately, a declinatory response to alter and no acknowledgment that it is distracting.
BTW, I note that a 'premium service' via the auction site eBay, are currently offering a kit that could easily be misused to reproduce unauthorised copies of the new Haringey Council logo:
What I do not like is the fundamental dishonesty of the whole exercise. I can't understand why there isn't more openess. If they have decided that that is the way they deem is the most efficient, then they should own up to it and come out defending the choice THEY have made. But instead we get a load of hogwash PR 1984 speak to explain the values etc. which are just comepletely different from the reality on the ground.
People aren't stupid and can clearly see what is happening. Those who can vote with their feet and leave. I suppose many staff are able to do so are abandoning ship too leaving the council even more depleted of competent staff. I would hope that incompetent staff would be retrained or gotten rid of any way!
Where is Catherine West vis-a-vis Council services? Islington made opposite decisions to LBH re outsourcing. Does she have any influence with the Kabal? I don't expect any challenges from the east of the borough, but had high hopes of Ms West. I know there is a protocol divide between MP's job and the council offer, but what are they for if not having some say locally?
IN RESPECT of the identity rebranding costs, the following were the comments of the Chief Finance Officer and financial implications (at #11 in the report accompanying the Cabinet Member signing).
11.1The Chief Finance Officer confirms that sufficient budget has been set aside to cover this expenditure which is all one-off in nature.
11.2The costs of changing branding moving forward (see paragraph 10.1) will be met from service budgets as and when they are required; this is in line with the existing process.
It seems I'm not the only one who questions the "one off" claim for this change. Others also believe that this jokey-logo is so poor that it will need to be replaced, sooner rather than later. The only difficulty is that we will probably no more easily be able to afford to replace it in a couple of year's time, than we can now.
The last logo currently being phased out (the squashed spider) lasted seven years. The rate of change – in logos as in all things – is increasing and it seems we must stay fashionable.
The cost of this exercise would seem to be larger than we've been led to believe. The widely quoted figure of £86,000 (from the Cabinet Member Signing papers) would seem to be the minimum that could be disclosed (it appears this sum comes out of the over-funding of the Communications Department).
However, the speed and extent of the roll-out would seem to belie the claim that implementation "moving forward" would be on the basis of "as and when required".
The revamp of the website (not all of which is re-branding related) is likely – of itself – easily to push the total costs into six figures. It will probably be difficult to calculate the total extra costs from service budgets; it may be easier for example, to find the costs of the giant logos on the sides of the rubbish truck fleet of Veolia.
Why aren't I surprised by the suggestion that even more money is being wasted on the Joego project than we were told?
As for those giant logos on the sides of Veolia rubbish trucks, plainly their real function is mobile billboards.
But what a missed opportunity! Instead of advertising Cllr Joe Goldberg's mammoth ego and branding genius, they could be giving simple clear messages with really useful public information. Perhaps along the lines of the clever and witty anti-rubbish posters which Stephen Bln once posted on HoL.
The Council is a service, not ( as it already thinks ) a business.