[leadholder]

Sure it is a bit of an overpayment for a cheap logo. Like any bad logo though, it just sits there and waits for refinement. With all of the "X Corp got their now-famous logo" comments, what isn't mentioned is the way the logos evolve over time. The original Nike logo would be a complete embarrassment for a high-value sporting goods brand today: http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php

Guess how much it's cost Nike to hire designers and agencies to refine that logo over the years? Not to mention the various forks for separate marketing projects.

When you pay a designer a lot of money up front for a logo design, you are hopefully paying for a highly-refined solution set to a problem or group of problems. Nike did this as they moved forward from their original logo. They are paying for the "hin" concept (Japanese for refinement). Product designers understand this better than any other group--you have to continuously refine as you go forward, or somebody else will eat your lunch.

Someone who knows their design principles instinctively should be able to take a bad logo and detect the sound principles behind it, filter out the other noise (non-essentials to the problem at hand) and propose appropriate changes.

As the author of the post says over and over, he is paying for something that serves a purpose. He is paying for something that he doesn't know how to create, or even use properly (see website alignment issues). So this situation isn't some grand thumbs-down at the design industry. It's just a set of circumstances that taxes one's thought process a bit too much and usually results in (hopefully temporary) sloppy work.