Following the banking royal commission, The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has spent over $100 000, in the hopes of rebranding itself as ‘respected’ and ‘accountable’. However, Australians have been left questioning whether this fresh rebranding was necessary, or rather, just another example of wasteful spending in the financial services industry?
According to ASIC’s senior executive leader, Matthew Abbott, the branding update would make ASIC’s materials more suitable for digital channels and hence, more accessible for Australians. The ABC has reported that more than $40 000 went to creative development and almost $60 000 was spent on design and asset development. This price is said to include new stationary templates, banners and the web design update for ASIC’s online homepage.
New logo, on the right. Old logo, on the left.
To the untrained (and possibly trained) eye, ASIC’s new logo looks nothing more than a bold new font and a downsized logo. It seems that the Australian public agreed, using social media to label ASIC’s branding as an ‘illegal’ and ‘laughable’ use of tax payer’s money.
Federal Labor MP Matt Keogh also criticised ASIC for being too soft on banks. ‘Instead of working to throw the book at the banks, they were concerned about the font that that book was written in,’ Keogh told the ABC.
“Strong. Accountable. Firm/Fair.” That is the image that ASIC wanted to project through a transformation of their visual identity. However, the simplistic nature and staggering cost of the regulators so called ‘re-branding’, has quite obviously had the opposite result on the general public.
We wonder whether re-branding was the best way to go for ASIC, or rather, was it merely a waste of your hard-earned tax payer money? Rather, could the money have been used to employ additional investigators to target the misconduct of banks or mortgage brokers?