[TYPO3-english] Rebranding: Get the green back

[Martin Bless]

Hello Rasmus,

first of all I'd like to say that I really appreciate your post
and like reading it because it's full of enthusiasm. And you're
trying to go for the best solution. Same with me: so enthusiasm
and striving for excellence is what brings us together here. Very
good.

And I'm really trying to understand. So I read your post several
times. Let me try to reflect what I understand and how I see it:

>That printing and displaying the green color has always given us 
>problems

I understand that two colors may be more expensive in print than
one. But that's the price for having a more expressive logo.

I understand that some people somewhen are not capable of printing
two colors correctly. Do we have to adapt to those people?

I've never ever seen a misprint that would question my inner
representation of that nice and beautiful orange/green
"symbol+word" brand "(symbol) TYPO3" that I like.

Actually when I really try hard to think of badly reproduced
colors this one comes into my mind. Here it's the orange being
more troublesome: http://www.typo3ugms.de/ But of course it's
clearly not a fault of TYPO3. I'd never conclude "we better
simplify our logo to avaoid *that* kind of error".

Some may be more annoyed by the green in misprints, others by the
deviations of orange. That's personal experience and preference.
The solution to this is: Print the right colors. It's only two.
And RGB and CMYK values are known. Let's correct the error where
it occurrs. We from the "official side" of the TYPO3 community
should be able to handle those two colors and avoid misprints.

>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.

How can you say that? Do you take into account that I'm -
desperately - trying to inform you that it's just the other way
round for me? The green IS established. All over the web and in
many brains. What do all the +1 in this thread tell you?

>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 :-)

What do you mean by "partially assumption"? What is the other
part? Does "partially" mean you have any data?

>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.

No comment.

>For the record, I do agree that the 2 colored old version of the logo 
>was highly recognizable.

I'm glad you're admitting that. I think it's obvious - should be a
simple truth and common sense. However it's amazing to see that
some participants in this thread don't agree to that unless a
"brand expert" like you gives that statement too.

>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.

So this has been a process that has been going on for a long time.
I didn't know about that:

- Why didn't you tell the public?
- Where do you communicate?
- Where do you keep notes on what's - basically - going on?

Of course I don't mean you should work publically or show all
sketches and scribbles. What a horrible thought. But who else but
you (read as: whoever is working on something) can let people know
*that* something is going on? I have the design mailinglist in my
newsreader. There wasn't much activity. I didn't see something
like: "What do people think? Would it be ok to give up the green?"

I hate to express my feelings but I have to admit to myself that I
was too naive. I trusted the branding/design team that the 2006
logo actually was the logo that *they meant*. So I fully supported
it. And now I really like it and stand for it. I'm feeling a bit
like a fool now.

>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.

Oh NO, that *cannot* be the way to go. Are you saying we have to
create our logo for the graphically most incompetent and unskilled
users? Do they set the standards we are going for?

Do you notice that in effect you're saying: "The average TYPO3
community member isn't able to handle a two colored logo"? Then
I'd better deny that I'm affiliated with TYPO3 in any way.

Aside:
Olivier somewhere writes he's afraid that our discussions give
other CMSs a headstart or a good reason to laugh about our
community. An opensource community never is in one line. And when
it has discussions that shows that it's alive. That's no problem.
*Good* discussions is what we need.

Why I mention that aside: Consider the followers of other CMS
start pointing at us saying "TYPO3? Isn't that the community which
cannot handle two colors?" 

>If I had done the T3BRAND process today,

Interesting spelling, that "T3BRAND"! That would have been the way
for me to go:

- make "T3" a superbrand
- let TYPO3 still be TYPO3 in the T3 family
- have T3Flow, T3Neos, T3anything (great for SEO)

Yes, I admit that this idea would have to be evaluated in much
more detail. With open outcome. But since the naming concept has
been presented differently at the T3CON I understand that we
cannot revert the naming scheme without making a fool out of
ourselves. That's why I didn't start a discussion about *that*.

>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. 

Hhm, it seems you're actually supporting me. Aren't you saying
that the aesthetics ARE THAT critical? Yes, exactly, that's what
I'm feeling and that's why I want that green back. It's NOT for me
personally. I'm fighting for the TYPO3 movement.

>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.

Same argument as above. "Community isn't able to handle a two
colored logo".

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

Good.

> 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

While at the same time claiming that "TYPO3 is such a strong
brand" where every product wants to benefit from?

>- or to greatly 
>diminish the emphasis on that name (think about people's reaction if 
>we'd announced that instead...).

Well, would be interesting, but let's not discuss that here as
this thread is about "getting the green back".

>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.

I'm not sure if the chosen naming scheme is the right way to
revitalize TYPO3. Actually I don't know. Would have to think about
it much more. I just take that as it is.

>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.

Do you find one argument in the above "much more important
arguments" that point to the conclusion "let's remove the green"?
I don't.

>As a community, we 
>whole-heartedly connect to the TYPO3 name (and to the product 
>experience, colors, names etc.).

That's what I say. How do you help that by taking a color away?

>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.

As I said: This thread is not good to discuss that.


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

In understand that a lot of effort and work has gone into the
overall process of rebranding. Ok.

And once you were at it you just took away that "nasty" green too.
Which I think is the bad part of the decision and should be
reverted.

You wrote: """
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.
"""

By "fading out" the green - which makes it less shiny IMHO? I
don't think so.

Trying to summarize for me:

- green was removed more "to make things easier" and "just so"

- taking away the green removes a lot of identity, beauty,
aesthetic, recognizability and: "personality". Isn't that
weakening the logo?

- all orange is all orange and doesn't add to the personality

- I see a lot of *emotional* +1 votes FOR the green

- I see some saying "I don't have a strong opionion and I don't
think it's very important so ok, why not have it all orange".

- And I see that *you* *emotionally* dislike the green. 
Which is totally ok. But does that feeling alone justify the
removal of the green?

And remember all those orange/green instances of the logo out
there in the wide (web) world:

What makes you so sure that the green of the logo is gone in one
or two years? (what already admits that there at least a time of
one or two years where logo versions conflict).

Perhaps people stick to the green. Don't forget about the many
derived creations: websites, videos, graphics, cards, ...
Take just one as an example: http://www.typo3-installer.de/

I'm very sure the green will be around for a *very* long time. It
had it's basis in the TYPO3 logo. And it will always remind us of
TYPO3. But it doesn't have a basis at TYPO3 any more. Do you think
that's clever? I don't.

Wow, long posting. I hope you and others value my effort.

Martin

-- 
Certified TYPO3 Integrator | TYPO3 Documentation Team Member

http://mbless.de