Governance woes at Actew

c_c™ said :

Apparently one of the report’s suggestions is ACTEW needs new branding and more differentiation from ActewAGL (which is itself a gaggle of about 8 corporate entities, 4 of which are called ACTEW [something or other])

Yep, new logo solves everything.

Does anyone know what this alphabet soup of nearly identical acronyms actually stands for?

The art is beautiful but funded from the wrong bucket.

There are plenty of public art projects that could have been scrapped to fund it, ensuring we get the flames and learning stairs instead of rusty words and boobs.

If I was in charge of a utility I would happily make my foyer pretty but maybe not with an entire installation. If I was in charge of an inefficient struggling utility you bet your behind I would put all our assets to work including the fantastic retail space.

Willoring said :

Perhaps one thing they could do, is that hideous waste of space/corporate/strategic statement – the flames from the floor of the foyer – get rid of it!

Nup, completely disagree. Those flames are the only thing I like about ACTEW. They’re fun and add a touch of classiness to a decidedly unclassy part of the city. Change anything else about ACTEW, but don’t touch the flames!

Perhaps one thing they could do, is that hideous waste of space/corporate/strategic statement – the flames from the floor of the foyer – get rid of it!
If ever I have seen a more contemptuous expression of corporate hubris, this waste of an otherwise extremely lettable retail space in a prime location is this. To me it signifies all the problems of ActewAGL, its previous Chairman, John Mackay and his (sanctioned by the ACT Labor Government) contempt for his consumers. All the pork barrelling, the sponsorships, the “supporting Canberra” which has its ultimate expression in the Corporate Box at the footy, all paid for by us, the taxpayers, which John and his mates enjoyed – at our expense. The arsehole.
He has gone. But we as ActewAGL consumers are still paying too much for a small country town services. How much are we paying Mark Sullivan??? Sorry, defies belief – how hard is his job in a community of 350 – 500K? More hubris from his mate, John Mackay – cheap at half the price – I reckon we could do better at the same price if it was a really open process – someone from outside the ACT. What says the new Chair of ActewAGL?? Talk to the Rioters!

switch said :

c_c™ said :

Yep, new logo solves everything.

NSW railways discovered that years ago. And painting the trains a different colour to match the new corporate image this week.

Yeah I’m still scratching my head about the new Sydney Trains logo. Look at it side by side with the Tennis Australia logo and you see not only is it derivative, but it’s also more appropriate. Any link to Sydney or trains is too abstract for me, and the colours don’t match the new Transport for NSW corporate branding of State of NSW branding. About the best that can be said for it is psychologically, orange is perceived as a del good, optimistic colour, and gosh know to get Sydney’s trains working, you need optimism in spades.

c_c™ said :

Yep, new logo solves everything.

NSW railways discovered that years ago. And painting the trains a different colour to match the new corporate image this week.

Wow, imagine how many improvements would have been necessary had they resisted the temptation to employ Sullivan at an idiotically astronomical salary…

Apparently one of the report’s suggestions is ACTEW needs new branding and more differentiation from ActewAGL (which is itself a gaggle of about 8 corporate entities, 4 of which are called ACTEW [something or other])

Yep, new logo solves everything.