[Lnc-business] UPDATED - logo picker

Sun Apr 19 17:51:26 EDT 2015

Dan:

I think you bring up some very valid points.

Vicki Kirkland
Region 2 Rep

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150419/f6c1cdb7/attachment-0002.html>