[TYPO3-english] Rebranding: Get the green back

[Rasmus Skjoldan]

Hey Martin & all,

Surely, it has not yet been explained thoroughly why I proposed to kick 
the green color in the logo.

I'd love to elaborate on that (now, that we have time to explain some of 
it).

That printing and displaying the green color has always given us 
problems (many due to incorrect use of color profiles, catastrophic 
CMYK conversions and failure to adhere to the sRGB color space on screen 
designs) is *one* of the reasons - but definitely not the most important.

In regard to the cognitive aspects of - connecting colors - to name - to 
product experience, the green has been quite problematic because it 
differs so much. It's been printed in anything from yellow'ish lime to 
dark leaf-like greens. Due to the differences of appearance of the 
green, the color is never really truly established as a solid mental 
marker. I know that's partially an assumption I make - I don't have 
numbers to prove that point in particular - I do believe it's correct, 
though :-)

The orange, however, even though it is also printed and displayed in 
many variations, seem to look more the same - regardless of the color 
differences, it reminds the brain of, well... Our Orange.

For the record, I do agree that the 2 colored old version of the logo 
was highly recognizable. This is just only one out of many aspects to 
take into account.

I proposed removing the green back in 2011 but I have to admit that, 
even after just introducing the then new logo in 2006, it quickly 
appeared to me that it was not an optimal decision to have that 2 
colored logo. Partly because of the above mentioned technical problems.

Since we're a community with almost no centralized CI control, we need 
something that's as simple to handle as possible - to all kinds of 
people, with and without graphic design skills.

If I had done the T3BRAND process today, I would have come up with a 
much simpler CI system - making it harder to break it. A more 
simplified, yet emotionally consistent CI would not have taught us all 
in the community that design and aesthetics are so friggin' important 
:-) I think, we shouldn't have taught ourselves that design aesthetics 
are THAT critical. As a designer, I obviously think design can do good 
things - yet in a community environment, it's somewhat troublesome and 
extremely time-consuming to have a complex CI and give great weight to 
the importance of keeping it consistent. Now, I'm pushing to simplify 
stuff - to make it easier to work with.

And now, the much much more important arguments... :-)

 From a very general viewpoint, reading through the posts, I need for 
you to look at a much more long-term perspective. I think these 
arguments will make more sense if you look 2-5 years into the future.

Right now, TYPO3 is slowly but increasingly seen as older, complex 
software in parts of the world. We need to react to that - in both 
branding, design and most importantly product experiences.

Throughout the process leading up to these newly announced changes, some 
people recommended throwing out the TYPO3 name entirely - or to greatly 
diminish the emphasis on that name (think about people's reaction if 
we'd announced that instead...).

So there were 2 overall paths here: One was to lessen the emphasis on 
the TYPO3 name - another was to revitalize. The latter was chosen, yet 
with the flexibility of marketing products without the TYPO3 name when 
needed. Yet, the important thing here for me was to strengthen and 
revitalize TYPO3 - in a very long-term perspective.

If we kept everything as it was, I'm quite certain that we would have 
declining success in the coming years since everything else in the CMS 
world is mysteriously evolving too :-)

We needed to measure the correct amount of change needed to stay 
vibrant, alive and fresh - and to, branding-wise, get away from being 
viewed as older, complex software from the past (that a lot of people in 
a large community for some strange reason hold on to). On the other 
hand, the community that we (us all) participate in, truly is strong and 
will hopefully just grow and strengthen. As a community, we 
whole-heartedly connect to the TYPO3 name (and to the product 
experience, colors, names etc.).

That all meant, that it was important to achieve this balance:

Enable people all over the world to sell, design and develop web 
projects using new and current TYPO3 products with and without the 
parent name, revitalize the overall public image of software coming from 
our brand - while ensuring our own community acceptance of the changes 
and continuous growth.

The changes, including taking out green, is our answer to that balance.

Best,
Rasmus

PS: Remember 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_logo_Think_Different.png - kids' 
were also able to recognize Apple by the rainbow colors back then. And 
today, they're able to recognize the Apple logo just by the shape. I 
hope we achieve a tiny bit of the same effect :-)




Martin Bless wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not interested in what happened when why and how in the past.
> I'm only interested in TYPO3 being successful. In this post I'm
> concentrating on the color change of the logo.
>
> Short and concise:
> ==================
> I watched the keynote of the T3CON. The reason(ing) I heard was:
> "We want to simplify things for you. It's cheaper to print the
> logo on t-shirts and so on with just one color. People would say
> TYPO3 is 'orange'". Did I miss an argument?
>
> Here's what I think: We have a strong brand TYPO3 with a clear
> logo since years. It is "orange and green". You would only touch
> ANYTHING of a well established visual symbol (shape, color,
> Freiraum, ...) if you really have GOOD reasons. The reasons given
> above are not *good* reasons in that sense.
>
> So, in short: I strongly urge everybody to put the green back into
> the logo!
>
>
> Longer and from my heart:
> =========================
> As you said and showed: Even children recognize the TYPO3 logo.
> And *one* reason for that definitely is the orange/green color
> scheme. It is already "overlearned". Without that green you simply
> suck the soul out of the symbol. It's like an "i" without dot. You
> have to identify the shape of that orange spot to know "It's
> TYPO3". Up to now in many real life situation your brain will tell
> you immediately "aha, considering context, plus orange/green:
> TYPO3!". In real life there are many situations where you see that
> logo only partly: thinks of our flags or pictures you have where
> people are wearing t-shirts and so on. But your brain can only do
> so WITH the green. It's having the orange PLUS the green that
> makes your brain work automatically. The orange alone cannot do
> so.The same holds for little (fav)icons.
>
> Have you ever had the feeling "attention, police" on a highway
> when you saw a car with a special "green/white" or "blue/white"
> combination? And then you find out that its a car just looking
> similar? Try that without the white - it won't work. We all have
> that unconscious built in magic built magic in our brains. Don't
> mess around with it and: Keep that green!
>
> There is more damage without the green: Shall I throw away my
> TYPO3 flag? The nice towels with the logo "sticked" onto? Same
> holds for everything printed I've lying around. Or what I find in
> the web and what's now not in alignment with the new rules
> anymore. Whenever I see them I'm feeling a conflict: That's wrong,
> old fashioned, outdated, stigmatized. And even: *I'm*
> wrong as I once chose to like and defend that logo.
>
> The monochrome version had to shades of gray. That was an
> important element of the monochrome "logos soul". Keep that!
>
> Please don't be afraid to revert that decision. Put that green
> back. The earlier you do the less confusion will arise. You should
> do everything you can to avoid that people feel an inner
> dissonance or even a conflict. Don't do it for me - do it for
> TYPO3. It's worth it!
>
> still hoping ...
>
> Martin
>