New WGA Logo Referendum, Round 2

[bnb]

Just so the other viewpoint is represented, this WGA member does not think that we should use WGA funds to hire a professional design firm for any aspect of the logo.

I understand the need for a strong logo/brand identity for a business. However, I do not see the need to spend money on perfecting something to that level for a non-profit, recreational association.

I design hardware for a living. Even though I understand the importance of a robust design and a design verification strategy before actual production, I didn’t see a need to take the “Eggplant”, designed and donated by a WGA member, through that exhaustive process before we used it at events for uploading coords to GPS receivers. It wasn’t perfect, but it suited our purposes.

(The “Eggplant” was the original incarnation of the switching box connecting an event Upload Station laptop to the various GPSr types.)

Ruth

[-cheeto-]

However, I do not see the need to spend money on perfecting something to that level for a non-profit, recreational association

I think this also depends on the particular non-profit agency’s cash flow/budget.

My church is a non-profit and they probably spent money designing a sign out front and a “logo” for their website, etc.

If a non-profit has money coming in, why not use some of that to represent the organization accurately and professionally?

It sounds like S|S is talking hundreds not thousands. I have no clue what our money pool looks like but I would guess that hundreds is certainly “doable”. Considering running some of these events must run much more than this.

I bought a few t-shirts for the campout and never attended so I never got my shirts, yet I am happy that I contributed money to the organization. I trust the board to use my donation and any future donations wisely and I feel that a logo/brand/icon that I am proud to display is a wise use of those funds.

-cheeto-

[Buy_The_Tie]

@-cheeto- wrote:

I bought a few t-shirts for the campout and never attended so I never got my shirts, yet I am happy that I contributed money to the organization. I trust the board to use my donation and any future donations wisely and I feel that a logo/brand/icon that I am proud to display is a wise use of those funds.

Your shirts are in my basement waiting for you. Are you coming to the picnic?

[-cheeto-]

I just assumed they were sold again and my money went to a good cause… 🙂 since they’re still around I might just take you up on the offer to gain possesion of them.

For the record, I voted to keep it how it is now in the final round because I kinda like the current logo. However if the masses want it updated, then let’s do it right.

[Team Deejay]

I think I have to side with bnb here. I think the key here is that there are two different sorts of non-profits out there.

Type 1 – A non-profit organized primarily to raise donations for some particular purpose, charitable or otherwise. The church mentioned above is an example of this. They have a significant expense budget, paid staff, and a set of goals for various charitable aims.

Type 2 – A non-profit that doesn’t exist to raise money, but instead exists for educational, recreational, or other “non-financial” purposes. These organizations don’t seek to raise money, but exist for benefit of their members, whatever that benefit might be.

I think we fall pretty squarely into the second type. From what I’ve seen, we don’t even try to raise money, short of sticking out an donation box at events. So do we need a “perfect” logo? What is the organizational benefit? How many more members will “perfecting the logo” bring into the group? Is there anyone out there who doesn’t add the WGA logo to their caches because “it doesn’t look good enough”? I think most people who voted to update the logo were thinking of a rather simple process to improve our public image, not a major marketing project.

That said, I just want to express my confidence in the board to make the right decisions on what we finally end up with as a logo. I personally liked all of the submissions and appreciate the artistic efforts put forth by our members. I’m very impressed with the skills of our membership. Thanks to all of you for participating in the process to improve the logo.

[zuma]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I think I have to side with bnb here. I think the key here is that there are two different sorts of non-profits out there.

Type 1 – A non-profit organized primarily to raise donations for some particular purpose, charitable or otherwise. The church mentioned above is an example of this. They have a significant expense budget, paid staff, and a set of goals for various charitable aims.

Type 2 – A non-profit that doesn’t exist to raise money, but instead exists for educational, recreational, or other “non-financial” purposes. These organizations don’t seek to raise money, but exist for benefit of their members, whatever that benefit might be.

I think we fall pretty squarely into the second type. From what I’ve seen, we don’t even try to raise money, short of sticking out an donation box at events. So do we need a “perfect” logo? What is the organizational benefit? How many more members will “perfecting the logo” bring into the group? Is there anyone out there who doesn’t add the WGA logo to their caches because “it doesn’t look good enough”? I think most people who voted to update the logo were thinking of a rather simple process to improve our public image, not a major marketing project.

That said, I just want to express my confidence in the board to make the right decisions on what we finally end up with as a logo. I personally liked all of the submissions and appreciate the artistic efforts put forth by our members. I’m very impressed with the skills of our membership. Thanks to all of you for participating in the process to improve the logo.

Thanks Dave, and everyone, for sharing your views. While no decision has been made yet, I think Dave articulated very well in his post above the rationale for the direction that we are probably heading.

Please give us a little time to work through this. When there is news of a decision, we will let ya all know.

zuma

[Ray]

I too support Ruth’s (bnb) position. I feel that the membership has already invested heavily in this project and bringing in a professional at this point will make that investment for naught. While a professional might be able to produce a logo that will really rock, it’s adoption will only bring disappointment to those who offered their ideas, talents and support to bring us a design from within our own ranks. If we were to seek professional help, it should have been from the beginning. ~tb

[Barry Butrymowicz]

why do we need a professional, its just a copy of someone elses work any way, I would be looking more towards copyright infringement lawyers

Barry of sweetlife

This is why we voted to keep the old one.

[furfool]

@Jeremy wrote:

After some heated discussion, the Board has chosen a “stylized g” logo that we think all Wisconsin geocachers will be satisfied with. As an added bonus, merchandise featuring this logo is readily available in stores and some geocachers may already own it (some people, like green&gold, have more than others :)). And there is a good chance you can pick up something with the new WGA logo (and a French verb starting with F meaning “to waffle”) on clearance or at a garage sale in the near future.

I could be wrong here, and I am certainly not a lawyer, but wouldn’t use of this “G” or one very similar to it open up the Association to a lawsuit for a logo infringement or something of the like?

[-cheeto-]

could be wrong here, and I am certainly not a lawyer, but wouldn’t use of this “G” or one very similar to it open up the Association to a lawsuit for a logo infringement or something of the like?

there’s also a restaurant type place in Appleton that has a very similar logo but the colors are different and there is a curve on the “straight part” of the “big G” but otherwise it resembles the packer G as well.

It would be cool if the new logo used the letters WGA and the G was “packerish” though…

[seldom|seen]

@-cheeto- wrote:

could be wrong here, and I am certainly not a lawyer, but wouldn’t use of this “G” or one very similar to it open up the Association to a lawsuit for a logo infringement or something of the like?

there’s also a restaurant type place in Appleton that has a very similar logo but the colors are different and there is a curve on the “straight part” of the “big G” but otherwise it resembles the packer G as well.

It would be cool if the new logo used the letters WGA and the G was “packerish” though…

STOP.

1. No logo has been chosen yet.
2. Top design vote winner LOOKS LIKE (read “not is a”) plagerized version of WA logo. Anybody want to argue that point?
3. Second place winner is a stylized “g” that looks nothing like the Packers logo and SHOULDN’T. It also needs one last round of scrutiny by a graphic designer. We have many WGA members who wear that hat.

The solution seems obvious: If the only thing that is standing in the way of moving forward on a refinement of the chosen “g” option is $, than forget about calling in a design agency and INSTEAD move into one final round of logo revisions by any interested designers within the WGA body. Have them sumbit 1 or 2 versions of the stylized “g” logo. This would accomplish the same goals that hiring an outside agency would with some added benefits;

1. Moves the logo forward
2. Does not cost anything
3. Involves some of the designers who put time into the effort, previously
4. Results in a final logo choice that is voted on by the WGA body.

[kbraband]

Adding my two cents (or maybe 3): If a “professional” were to be hired to refine the logo, there’s still the matter of choosing which professional. One members has offered his help, and this is a very generous offer. However, others of us who work in the graphic arts business who have not been as vocal about this topic are also available. Choosing who would work on it opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms. Personally, I am very much against using the copycat version of Washington’s logo. The history of our organization precedes Washington. If we were to adopt their logo as our own, we are forever accepting a “me too” copycat role, when in fact, we were one of the first statewide organizations and we were known for having the best events.

Of course I am biased, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you have the opportunity — in the “small g” logo — to have a very creative, distinctive logo that would help set the WGA apart from other “me too” geocaching organizations. The couple of comments about it being too “girlie” are eye-rollers. Even if two people feel that way, the last time I checked, there are quite a few female geocachers in our organization.

[Da Bloodhound]

Don’t roll your eyes – they might stick

What color would you like your WGA stylized logo to be, pink?
Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.

This is, generally, an outdoor sort of activity, one that is associated with woods and water. Wood ticks, dirt, rocks, getting wet, poison ivy and sweaty are all part of the game. We deserve a bold logo.

As far as history goes 3M, Coke or even GM have revised and re-revised their respective logos over time. Our challenge is to redesign the WGA logo to reflect of the views of our hobby/addiction.

I believe the one pitfall we want to avoid is a “club” design vs an “organization” design with our logo. This is why I believe some professional input is necessary.

Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the issue so hopefully that will ultimately lead to an exceptionally good final design.

[kbraband]

@Da Bloodhound wrote:

Don’t roll your eyes – they might stick

What color would you like your WGA stylized logo to be, pink?
Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.

This is, generally, an outdoor sort of activity, one that is associated with woods and water. Wood ticks, dirt, rocks, getting wet, poison ivy and sweaty are all part of the game. We deserve a bold logo.

As far as history goes 3M, Coke or even GM have revised and re-revised their respective logos over time. Our challenge is to redesign the WGA logo to reflect of the views of our hobby/addiction.

I don’t consider copying another organization’s logo as being bold.

And you’re implying that being in the outdoors and getting wet and sweaty is not not for girls. My wife would like to knock whoever thinks that on the side of their head.

[Da Bloodhound]

You TOTALLY missed the point – but then I thought you might.

I was trying to make the point a BOLD logo is one I believe most of us would wish to be associated with, ie: GMC, 3M, COKE, ATT etc. In my opinion the stylized “G” lacks the bold impact of a logo I, personally, would like the association to adopt.

I was not suggesting the only answer was an exact copy of anyone else’s logo.

Secondly I was suggesting ours is an outdoors-man and woman’s activity and thus warrants an impact logo. And, I too, know many women that geocache that can and will get just as dirty, wet, covered with mosquito bites and thorn cuts to make a find and claim the smiley as any man among us.

[Author]

Posts