Someone sent me a link to an online case study from Webmasters, the company who has built the new Hibiscus website for the 2007 carnival. Although I dislike Flash for the sake of Flash, I'll start by saying that the site appears to be well organised and it's nice to see something updated on a regular basis. I don't care much for the festival after the experience we had working on the organising committee last year. Without going into all the details, the chairperson and a few others agreed to pay for some maintenance work (in writing), lied, didn't pay, and then just ignored us. This happens occassionally and there's very little we can do about it and it wasn't really worth our effort. They came back to us this year wanting the domain (www.hibiscus.com.fj) and we asked them to simply pay off the money they owed and they can have it. Not suprisingly, they took another route.
Anyway, the case study on Webmaster's says this:
"Unhappy with its previous website, the Suva Hibiscus Festival committee came to Webmasters to come up with a totally new logo, domain name and website for the Festival."
No one seemed overly unhappy with the multiple hours of free work we did for them last year. More interestingly, here's our original logo which we developed free-of-charge for the Hibiscus Organising Committee after going through a pretty decent design process:

Below is Webmaster's "new" logo:

Uh-huh. Okay...
I suppose there are two issues here. First is the fact that Webmaster's case study is poorly communicated and the wrong angle to take when promoting work, especially when they have no idea what they're talking about. Second is taking credit for other people's work or rather, passing off someone else's work as your own.
Recent Comments