This topic contains 14 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
A 3 part question for all of the candidates:
1. Candidates, do you like our new Logo?
2. If so, please state why. If not-so-much please also state why.
3. Were you in favor of changing the group’s logo?
OK, I will respond to this one first. I personally like the new logo. The lines are clean, the effect is dramatic, and it has a professional look to it. I especially like the darker color scheme, reflecting a “camouflage” look. I will admit to not voting for this logo in any of the elections (liked some others better), but given all the issues, I think this is a good compromise and will serve the organization well for many years. The old logo was nice, but I think it reflects an earlier time in the game when things were “smaller”. I know that many of us long for those early days, but the times have changed and it is good that we have chosen to change with them.
1. If my choices were solely the new logo or our original, yes I like the new logo.
2. Our original logo needed at least a face-lift, and the choice to go with something completely different was fine by me. I will have to admit that I liked the lower-case “g” logo the best, and thought it had possibilities. More importantly though, whether I like it or not, we had a vote and we as a membership spoke. I would like a little more color, but we seem to have chosen greens for our palette. I did not see the problem with similarities to the Washington logo. I think I’ve only been on the Washington site once, and I’ve looked at most everyone’s site at some point or another. Except for someone pointing it out, I’m not sure we would ever have known there was a similarity. It’s a solid, more modern logo.
3. Yes, see above.
1. Yes, I like the clean lines and really graphic feel it has. I’m mixed on the color scheme, but I can see the validity of Dave’s point about the camo look of it. I’m glad to see that after all the angst, the project has come to fruition.
2. I was in favor of a face lift as well. At the moment, both logos are showing on the site page, and I like the historical “now and then” appeal that offers. I’m not at all conversant with marketing, so I don’t know if it should remain this way. I did not vote for this particular design, but I do like it.
3. See previous comments…why can’t I respond to simple three parts in three parts? Oh yeah, that’s right, I’m a storyteller, that’s why!
I’ll answer soon!!
I just moved and don’t have internet service up and running just yet. I’m using internet out of a Starbucks and have limited time/use. Will be up and running soon!!!
Reposting
May I respectfully suggest that the discussion part of cheeto’s original question be moved to another topic area, perhaps in the general forums? It’s clearly a topic of interest, and of course candidates are willing to discuss it, but it’s starting to become unclear whose opinions in this thread belong to those of us up for board positions, those who are already board members, and those who are members at large.
Just a thought.
A topic has been split from this one and placed in the General forum. Please, if you are not a candidate for the Board in 2009, keep your posts regarding the logo there. Thanks!
@Team Honeybunnies wrote:
Arguing that our members were uninformed isn’t correct, because the “Washington issue” was discussed at that time. We all had ample time to peruse the information and make our decisions before voting.
I’ll agree that there was sufficient time to dig through the logo threads and discussions about the logos submitted to find the similarity issue raised about 4 pages into the thread. And I’ll agree that many of us were aware of the similarity issue as we followed the discussion.
I don’t agree that “We all had ample time to peruse the information” because the other group who weren’t following the discussion closely, were simply not aware nor presented with, on the referendum page, the information that one logo had a similarity issue with another state.
(128 in round 1, 168 in round 2) I do not think that all 128 or 168 voters, depending on when you voted, were aware of the issue when they voted and I’d venture to guess that as much as 50% of the voting public was not. That’s a significant number and certainly would have made a difference in the tally.
Why do we have a board if we do not expect them to, at the very least, present information to the body about a possible trademark violation on the same page they are asking the public to vote on it? If they have no power to step in when necessary, then why did we let them move forward with a designer and choose a final option that none of us saw. I’ll tell you why. They didn’t want to start this firestorm.
I have nothing against the current BOD, I just think (as they all do) that the whole thing was managed poorly and in their own words, all agree that this is not the outcome they were looking for.
Defending the logo as a clean, bold design is rediculous. We could have had dozens of professional clean, bold designs to choose from for under $100.
Opps, sorry Jeremy. Was in the middle of it when you posted!
Cheeto asked:
1. Candidates, do you like our new Logo?
2. If so, please state why. If not-so-much please also state why.
3. Were you in favor of changing the group’s logo?
Yes, I do. As Deejay said, it has clean lines the effect is dramatic, and it has a nice professional look to it. To me the green is the color of geocaching, and the brown represents the earthy trails we hike, camouflage of our hides, and the brown look of Wisconsin in the early spring and late fall.
And yes, I was in favor of changing the logo, to update it. I initially preferred the stylized g and was surprized that this was not the winner. However the new logo does represent the wishes of the majority of our members, and I do like it. I voted to respect the wishes of the majority. While there is a minority that have issues with the new logo, perhaps even legitimate issues, I think that it is important to listen to the voices of the majority of members, and not just respond to the loudest voices. And just as we have a few vocal members who do not like the chosen logo, we would have had other vocal people making comments if something else was chosen.
I was surprized that this issue was so divisive, and I never expected or intended that. The process for logo selection was based on our successful contest for coin design, a process that yielded not one, but two successful coin designs. It is not like we are Pepsi or Coke who has to worry about product differentiation. We are simply a small group of Wisconsin geocachers concerned about issues related to improving geocaching in Wisconsin, and our logo is needed only to communicate that. Our new logo does that, so yes, I do like our new logo. However, I do not like how divisive the issue became, and that is something we should work to avoid in all future decisions.
zuma
1. Candidates, do you like our new Logo? Yes, I do like it.
2. If so, please state why. If not-so-much please also state why.
Why, as others have stated previously, when I see the old and new side by side, I get a general feeling that we as a group are moving from crayons to colored pencils. Sharper lines, harder, bolder colors.3. Were you in favor of changing the group’s logo? Yes, like all things, change in inevitable. It was time to take the step.
Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.
This logo was not my first choice.
My preference was for an update of our current (old) logo.
Yes, I was in favor of a change in the logo.
@-cheeto- wrote:
A 3 part question for all of the candidates:
1. Candidates, do you like our new Logo?
2. If so, please state why. If not-so-much please also state why.
3. Were you in favor of changing the group’s logo?
Yes I like it. I had some ideas myself, but I have a problem with the connection from creative mind to talented hand and I don’t own one of those fancy programs to help. 🙂
Why I like it: It has a more mature look to it. It has a bit more 3 dimensional appearance and more modern look.
Yes I was in favor of the change, but it was not like a life or death issue. Change is good !! 🙂
1. Candidates, do you like our new Logo?
2. If so, please state why. If not-so-much please also state why.
Yes I do like the new logo. It’s got a strong look to it. It’s bold. It was one of the several I picked in round one, but not the one I picked for round two.
3. Were you in favor of changing the group’s logo?
Change is good. Our group is changing and we needed to move forward with a new logo to represent us.
The forum ‘Candidates Corner 2009’ is closed to new topics and replies.