[Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker

Sun Apr 19 17:29:46 EDT 2015

Norm,

I understand your argument, and that's why I said that I haven't yet made
up my mind about the "L-Looping-P" logo proposal.  It is indeed a clean,
simple design.  (Whether it's trademark-able is a separate question.  It
probably is as long as it's used in conjunction with the words "Libertarian
Party", but not by itself.  The concept is not original.  If you go to
*http://www.trademarkia.com/trademark-by-design-search.aspx?sw=LP
<http://www.trademarkia.com/trademark-by-design-search.aspx?sw=LP>* and
step through the pages, you'll find a whole bunch of existing L-looping-P
trademarks.)

If we were an auto or computer manufacturer, your argument would be more
dispositive.  But our product is a political philosophy, which suggests
that our logo should bear some relationship to the ideas we are promoting.
Furthermore, our audience is not just the general public, but our own
membership which supports the LP, as well as small-l libertarians who can
be persuaded to join the Party and vote for our candidates.  It matters a
great deal whether they will like the logo we choose.

A logo which does not incorporate the Statue of Liberty or in some way
relate to it (e.g., the Torch of Liberty which She brandishes) means that
we're starting from scratch.  How much extra money and effort will be
required to establish that new logo as representing the Libertarian Party?
And will our donors be willing to support that effort as a useful branding
exercise, or will they consider it a diversion from more important projects
and goals?

Dan Wiener

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Norm Olsen <region1rep at donedad.com> wrote:

> Hello Dan . . .
>
>
>
> >>5. "L-Looping-P" -- I can't make up my mind about this.  On the one
> hand I appreciate its clean form and simplicity, and the way it could lend
> itself to good branding.  On the other hand, it seems like it would only be
> effective if we spent $100 million on a marketing campaign to establish it
> as the LP symbol, similar to what giant corporations would have to do to
> re-brand themselves.  Plus it lacks any inherent meaning, which may not
> bother the general public but would matter to a lot of libertarians.
>
>
>
> Branding is exactly the idea.  That’s exactly what we should be trying to
> establish.  A mark which authenticates anything we produce. Nobody else is
> permitted to use it.
>
>
>
> Branding is exactly why corporations will spend $100 million dollars to
> promote their logos.  That’s why corporations spend even more money
> protecting them from unauthorized use.
>
>
>
> Spending huge amounts of money is not necessary to establish a brand.
> Consistent use in all communications is how this is accomplished. Thus, a
> logo that works well on business cards, lapel pins, hats, tee-shirts,
> letterhead, newsletters, banners, yard signs, bumper stickers, web sites,
> which can be printed, can be embroidered, silkscreened,  etc. etc. etc. is
> important.  It is not the amount of money used to promote it (although, as
> always, a substantial amount of money doesn’t hurt).  A logo that works
> well in all these environments, and especially in any single/multiple color
> scheme will _*save*_ a substantial amounts of money for the national, the
> affiliates, and each activist/candidate legitimately seeking to associate
> with the Libertarian Party.
>
>
>
> The meaning associated with the logo is something that we establish
> through its effective use.  The meaning of a logo should be something that
> we control and not dependent upon how an observer chooses to interpret it.
> Since we control the meaning of the logo, changing the logo is not likely
> to be necessary.  It should not be confused with an insurance company, a
> tax service, a university, an identity protection service, a football game,
> or an person/entity that is trying to use the image for their own purpose.
>
> An effective logo is one that communicates with *the general public*.  It
> is *the general public* who we are trying to reach with our branding
> effort.  We don’t need a branding device to communicate with our members.
>
>
>
> The “L-Looping-P” (or something similar) is a squiggle which is likely to
> be trademarkable.  If so, we have legal recourse against unauthorized use
> (assuming we obtain a trademark on it).  Not so with the Statue of Liberty
> image; not so with the word “Libertarian”.  This is why many of the truly
> recognizable logos tend to be simple squiggles of some sort.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region 1
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>
> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>
> 303-263-4995
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Wiener
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:13 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* Aaron Starr
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker
>
>
>
> Thank you, Arvin.  Now that I can see the logo candidates side-by-side,
> here are my impressions:
>
>
>
> 1. "Torch Eagle" -- Not bad, and I could live with it.  But I'm not as
> enthusiastic as I was at the LNC meeting.
>
>
>
> 2. "Torch Flower" -- Meh.  I could tolerated it, just barely.  There are
> several better options.
>
>
>
> 3. "Liberty Bell L" -- No.  I'm not a fan of negative space, and if
> someone doesn't immediately recognize the bell portion it looks pretty
> stupid.
>
>
>
> 4. "1996 (prior) Logo" -- This would be my default choice if we can't
> agree on anything else.
>
>
>
> 5. "L-Looping-P" -- I can't make up my mind about this.  On the one hand I
> appreciate its clean form and simplicity, and the way it could lend itself
> to good branding.  On the other hand, it seems like it would only be
> effective if we spent $100 million on a marketing campaign to establish it
> as the LP symbol, similar to what giant corporations would have to do to
> re-brand themselves.  Plus it lacks any inherent meaning, which may not
> bother the general public but would matter to a lot of libertarians.
>
>
>
> 6. "Crown-in-Torch" -- I like it.  It has a touch of elegance and
> maintains the LP's torch of liberty theme.  I wouldn't necessarily put it
> in first place, but I'd classify it as one of the leading contenders.
>
>
>
> 7. "Stylized Lady Liberty" -- It's okay, but I think it's a bit inferior
> to #4.
>
>
>
> 8. "Old Logo" -- Too dark.  Not as good as #4.
>
>
>
> 9. "Rosie the Riveter" -- This has possibilities.  But this was a
> conceptual suggestion, and needs to be simplified and stylized a bit to
> make it more practical.  Aaron Starr had proposed this, and said he was
> going to follow up with the Texas LP and contact the designer to see if an
> improved version could be made.  I'm copying Aaron on this email, to see if
> he's made any progress along those lines.
>
>
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
>
> --------------------
> From: *Arvin Vohra* <arvin at arvinvohra.com>
> Date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:33 PM
> Subject: [Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> Hi guys - here is an updated image showing the logo options.
>
>
>
> -Arvin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.**
> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is
> the key to science.** It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your
> guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what
> his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there
> is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150419/ce1b48c8/attachment-0002.html>