[Marketing] branding wrap up

Fri May 12 01:14:02 PDT 2017

Hereby the votes from a colourblind cartographer:

1. Font: 

- the Miriam Libre is by far the most distinguishing & catchy one, and therefore fits best with the freshness that I hope is one of our key values

- and a font with "Libre" in it's name definitely has a "plus"  ;-)

2. Colo(u)r:

C5 is the best color combination: a fine constrast between the two colors, not too much (as in C1 - C4, not too bleach (as in C6)

3. Sub-brands:

A good point for discussion!

When speaking to my fellow Dutch board member Marc yesterday, for a moment I got the impression that local chapters are supposed to simply write their chapter name below the standard logo, and that's about it. 

Fortunately it became clear to me that OSGeo.org and it's local chapters are "loosely coupled", which is another key value of our organisation.

Thus, I suppose the challenge for the local chapters is too grab the new OSGeo logo, pick some key elements (color, font, grapghics) and use that as a base too create a fresh new local logo.

For OSGeo.org committees it's arguable to simply sticks to the standard logo and write the name of the committee below it (as in the supplied examples:  <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B08AjQ2hqLipQmJoRzk5a2VqWnc/view> PDF)

4. Compass size:

No particular preference.

The detail I appreciate most is the slightly left-of-center-ness of the compass needle

Wonder if the marketing committee is about to hire a tattoo artist at Foss4G in Boston to supply the entire community with the new logo ;-)

Kind regards from the city where cartography had its heyday,

Gert-Jan

Van: Marketing [mailto:marketing-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Jody Garnett
Verzonden: donderdag 11 mei 2017 20:42
Aan: Marketing Committee
Onderwerp: Re: [Marketing] branding wrap up

I cornered Julie West from Boundless for another "coffee break" chat:

F3 Rubik

C3 Current OSGeo green with secondary color

BW3 

Here are the notes:

Font

*	Like F1 the most, G does not have "bar" so may look like a C
*	Is F1 the same as QGIS Font choice?

*	F1 "O" so similar to compass, discussion on QGIS approach of folding into text (not interested)

*	F2 - the font says "libre" how can that be a bad thing, membership would like this :)
*	F1 and F3 the most, F2 is a little narrow, skewed, too tall

*	F1 and F3 weight is better
*	Jody likes the F3 weight the best

*	Jody: Likes all three of them
*	F3 happy medium, has the bar for "G"

*	Like F3 the most
*	Jody likes F3 the most

aside: Discussion on "OSgeo Green color"

*	C1, C2, C3 --> C3
*	C3 has more contrast with secondary color

*	C3 is clear winner

*	C4 bright? secondary is toned down ,more similar to C2
*	C5 more contrast
*	C6 is too light on both colors

Sub-brands

*	C1 looks okay like this, nice and clear
*	Subrand is in the same font

*	Going with Rubic woudl like to also keep both the same

*	looks good!

Compass size

*	S2 is better :)

*	still looks pretty clear when small

Black and white

*	Appreciate two grays in BW2! A bit hard to see the difference
*	BW3 steals the show

*	love the white space in BW3

Context

*	looks great with all of them
*	looks better than some of the others! 

--

Jody Garnett

On 11 May 2017 at 11:37, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:

Out of yesterdays meeting we have a PDF <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B08AjQ2hqLipQmJoRzk5a2VqWnc/view>  to review showing:

- 3 font choices

- 6 color choices

- 3 black and white options

- 2 compass sizes

During the meeting we felt all the options were pretty good, and were happy to be guided by get interactive designer.

I have shared the PDF in the board meeting (response ways "great" and "trust the designer don't ask us" as you may expect).

This email is an invitation to review, I will respond shortly with my own take.

--

Jody Garnett

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/marketing/attachments/20170512/4a1ceddb/attachment-0001.html>