AboutUsLogo:Status/Diana Demarest
YES We need to first define WhoWeAre and then choose an AboutUsLogo. (lots more discussion - click "show" in the yellow bar to see) 
edit
The logo is beautifully done but for me it just doesn't "say" About Us. Perhaps an element could be added that says "look" or "investigate further" or "community building".
- EDIT 7/20/07: I still feel the same way - I still feel that the logo doesn't say what we do. For me it would make a great logo for a gardening company or a plant nursery. It needs an element that indicates what this site is about.
Ted: Thanks for the call. It was great to talk to you.
I completely agree with Tak’s comments on this.
What sets About Us apart from other portals and Wikis? User involvement . Unlike other Wiki's out there, About Us involves users in every aspect of the community, from permitted content, to logo decisions, to the identity itself. This is HUGE to me and for me, the largest highlight of the identity. It's part Wiki, part search engine, part portal, but the biggest factor that sets it apart is the sense of community, caring and users and staff assisting one another for the common good of the community as a whole.
When I first came to this site, I was pretty intimidated and quite frankly, overwhelmed. The way I have been treated by Tak and the other folks here made me want to come back and be part of it. I was never made to feel stupid when I asked a question and everyone has been extremely helpful. That is hard to find anymore. My About Us experiences is what gives me the sense of community that truly exists here.
I feel that WhoWeAre and the AboutUsLogo are not separate entities but are two entities attached at the hip. We can’t have one without the other. As a result, I feel that since a logo is the branding of About Us as an entity, the logo should reflect who we are. I don’t wish hold up the process but the leaves just don’t say community to me. It doesn’t reflect the mosaic the About Us community really is. Rather than rush to come up with a logo fast, I’d rather the process be slower so we get it right the first time and not keep rebranding ourselves.
Successful branding is what sets one logo apart from another. We don’t need to see the name of the company on the logo to recognize immediately whose logo it is. Examples which come to mind are the Chevrolet logo, the multicolored Microsoft “Window”, the McDonald’s golden arches. We need something really recognizable that when one sees the logo they say “Oh – that’s the About Us website.” Thanks for the opportunity to participate! I hope this helps. Di :) "Diana Demarest 16:27, 31 July 2007 (PDT)"
- Template:Yes Hello again folks. I truly appreciate your attempt to address my concerns, more than you know. I have a question - what's the rush? Is this because of a go live launch? I truly believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. I feel that we should figure out who we are and base the logo on that, not the other way around. In reading the comments from the folks who gave it a Yes, I was disturbed by how many said the logo didn't really represent who we are. Based on this and my feelings that we shouldn't brand ourselves and then re-brand ourselves again, I am still in the not yet camp. Sorry - it is how I feel. "Diana Demarest 08:36, 1 August 2007 (PDT)"
I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:
One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.
A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.
I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this? Brandon CS Sanders
- Hi Diana Demarest, Did you see the recent change made to AboutUsLogo text? How do you feel about it? As a result of this logo process, we've created the WhoWeAre page. What we're asking people now is if the logo proposed is better than the listening man we have right now. If it is, then please change yourself to YES and visit WhoWeAre to say you'd like to work on that. If not, please say that as well, and leave yourself at not yet for now. Thanks! Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Best, Obed Suhail 01:23, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
Diana, I'd love to talk with you by phone before this logo gets adopted Tuesday night. When would work for you? TedErnst
Ok I get that but the fact is though the new logo isn't "crappy", it doesn't reflect the community either. So IMHO, either way, both logos are wrong for the site. So are we saying we want to be wrong a second time but not crappy? I realize you guys want to get this done. I am just in the camp of let's get it right the first time instead of causing a confusion to the masses with the brand. Of course, I realize that the group has pretty much decided so I guess the new logo will be. Aren't you sorry you asked? :-D Diana Demarest 11:28, 1 August 2007 (PDT)
- :-) No, I'm not sorry I asked. :-) In fact, I'm a NotYet myself right now, in solidarity with your concerns. I actually think the proposed logo is a great image for our community. I feel that we are growing community. Community cannot be built, in an engineering process, but must be grown, in an organic process. I find the image very compelling, personally. And, I also feel it's really important to do everything we can to satisfy the concerns of all, including you. I don't know if that's possible, but let's try, shall we? I hear that one way to satisfy your concerns is to finish the WhoWeAre process first, so we're sure that whatever logo we choose is the permanent one, correct? TedErnst
Well, yes. :)
I have been involved, a few times, with my biggest client, in logo processes for their products and websites. Their Madison Avenue-type advertising firm, the corporate marketing team and we as their webmasters, were locked up in a conference room for hours on end, defining the product/website goal in question. Once we defined it, then we went through a logo process to determine if the logo conveyed the thought or idea in question. Sorry for being a PIA on this but because of my previous experiences, it just seems like a better way of doing things.
Branding is so important for the reasons I outlined earlier. For them, it gave the customers and audience an immediate visual "burn in" of the brand. I think it is confusing for the audience to change oars mid-stream and make changes later, making the identity harder to remember, which I think in the goal with a logo in the long run - no? Diana Demarest 12:42, 1 August 2007 (PDT)
- Okay. Just to clarify to make things crystal clear. One way to satisfy your concern about branding is to work on WhoWeAre first, and only when that's done, come back to the AboutUsLogo, yes? Sorry for being pedantic. Just want to be clear that this possible solution would work for you. If so, great, we can talk more. If not, then it's important to get clarification. TedErnst
Yes. For me, first things first. Define WhoWeAre, then do the logo. You got it. Crystal clear. :) Diana Demarest 13:55, 1 August 2007 (PDT)
- Great. Hope you don't mind that I made an EfficientlyExpressedSuggestion by changing your status message and moving the rest of the discussion behind the "show" link. Fell free to change and/or revert if that's not okay. TedErnst
Diana, I'm so glad that you are here! I find myself vigorously nodding my head as I read your comments. I too think that we're getting the horse in front of the cart to choose a logo before we have agreement about WhoWeAre. Like you, I get the feeling that a lot of folks are at yes "in spite" of the logo rather than "in love" with the logo.
AND
I really do love this logo! The element of "emergence" from the interactions of diverse individuals is the most powerful part of it for me. Emergence is a tough concept to represent visually and I think the logo does a great job of that. I worry that perhaps it is a bit too abstract for people to take in at a glance.
There are only 40 of us here participating in this poll, and I'd like to involve more of the folks who visit and contribute to AboutUs. So I imagine this as an experiment with a very large focus group. We've tried the yellow man for a few months, let's try the leaves for a few months as we are working on WhoWeAre. I think we can learn from having them up as our logo. Brandon CS Sanders
- Gee thanks! I'm glad to be here! I don't mean to be the weenie in the group. I truly want a logo that reflects the many facets of this awesome place. I think it is worth investing the time. Ted it is fine that you moved the comments - they should have been there in the first place. I am still having a learning curve on how to use the Wiki environment. What do you want from a database geek? :-D
Diana, you're not being a weenie. How do you feel about Brandon's idea of trying the new logo for a few months after trying the (placeholder) yellow clipart for a few months? Also, there were some edits to the text underneath the logo today. Have you seen them? TedErnst
- I don't think you are being a weenie at all either :-) I think we've been doing some great collaborative thinking together! In a traditional environment the inside of the organization carefully controls what those outside see of their process. This makes change expensive because only truly finished products can be released into the wild. Here on the wiki, ChangeIsCheap and we have the opportunity to try lots of different experiments. There is an emphasis on iterating our way to perfection rather than trying to achieve it in one big step.
- Also, we're doubling our traffic every three months. Three months of the public seeing leaves rather than the "real" logo doesn't make such a huge difference from a branding perspective, because in 6 months only 25% of all visitors ever will have seen the old logo. On the other hand, as we are raising money to sustain the project, the "slickness" of the appearence of the site does matter to potential investors as we negotiate with them over the next three months.
- I ordinarily don't like to sign my comments because I want others to feel comfortable editing them and deleting them. But I'll continue signing them because I'd like to continue to get to know you. Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders
OK my friends, I'll change it to a yes with the hopes that we keep an eye toward a permanent logo that better suits the community. I suppose we are still in Beta. BTW, I wanted to make note that in reading the web stats on my site, I have been getting quite a few hits from About Us, so I am a happy camper about that! Anyone who doesn't want to be here is nuts. I look forward to working with you guys on other things! :)
