[Marketing] New draft logos
Pericles S. Nacionales
pnaciona at gis.umn.edu
Mon Mar 24 01:45:33 EDT 2008
Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
> On Wed, March 19, 2008 00:18, Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
>> Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
>>> On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>>> Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
>>>> As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
>>>> current set of logos.
>>>> Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
>>>> years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
>>> The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this,
>>> especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to
>>> be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear
>>> motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing
>>> to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?
>>> Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to make
>>> it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag lines.
>>> I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got
>>> this spread of new logo options.
>>> I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect.
>>> Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the
>>> community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our
>>> rationale is clearer.
>> FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and
>> "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos
>> every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people.
>> I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear
>> rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing
>> the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled
>> up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.
> I must say that in this respect I disrespect the masses. Anybody who wants
> to have a say on how our logo looks like can sign up for Marketing
> Committee and then complain and suggest better alternatives as long as
> they want to (there must be some reason why we bother with all this
> organizational committee stuff). That is - after people have helped
> staffed OSGeo booths at conferences, helped make new flyers, translate the
> web site, add news, redesign the SPD, participate in meetings and so on.
> The problem is that the softer the topic the more people think they need
> to voice their opinion. There is nothing that can be much softer than
> "Whats in a name" (anybody care to remember? :-) or in a logo.
Well, it's hard to argue with you there although, in the case of Google,
they allow anybody to create their own interpretation of the
logo--that's fine and dandy but they still only have one official logo.
I like that animated GRASS logo but there's nothing in that logo that
takes away from the original--it enhances the original, not replace it.
So, I'm still of the opinion that we ought to keep our logo. Make
enhancements, yes. Spend more resources to create a new one? I don't
know... I'm not convinced it's a good idea.
As for disrespecting the masses... ;) you probably get either no
reaction or you p*ss off a lot of OSGeo supporters. P*ss enough people
off and you could lose support and momentum. I suppose you're right
that logo is a soft subject (I don't think name is).
> Try this one: Would anybody be offended if I change the behavior of this
> list to answer to the list and not the poster? (/me runs for cover)
Try the OSGeo Discuss list. ;)
More information about the Marketing