FIRST Email - Introducing Evolution of the FIRST Logo

[Travis Hoffman]

Hello. This is an important announcement for all FIRST Robotics Competition teams. Please share this information with the rest of your team in a timely manner.

Greetings Teams:

As we strive to build and maintain a powerful visual identify for FIRST, we are pleased to introduce an evolution of the FIRST logo.

Full details are available on our website at http://www.usfirst.org/about/news/newlogo2004.htm (http://www.usfirst.org/about/news/newlogo2004.htm) including:

Q&A
Artwork (jpeg and eps formats)
Standards
*************************************************
Here's the new logo...

[sanddrag]

Warning. Preliminary response. I have not read the link yet.

Oh, my. I think that is absolutely aweful

I will edit this post when I read the link

EDIT: I have read that link and I still stand behind what I have said. The old logo looked professional. It had class. This looks like something from a cartoon. I don't like it. Personally, I may make use of the entire 12 month transistion period, if you know what I mean.

[Brandon Martus]

Hello. This is an important announcement for all FIRST Robotics Competition teams. Please share this information with the rest of your team in a timely manner.

Greetings Teams:

As we strive to build and maintain a powerful visual identify for FIRST, we are pleased to introduce an evolution of the FIRST logo.

Full details are available on our website at http://www.usfirst.org/about/news/newlogo2004.htm (http://www.usfirst.org/about/news/newlogo2004.htm) including:

Q&A
Artwork (jpeg and eps formats)
Standards
*************************************************
Here's the new logo...
The S and T look .. off. Maybe its just an illusion..

[LBK Rules]

http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoR_color_rgb.jpg

Not to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's just plain uninviting, and bland.

I really can't think of a better way to put it.

I am usual not so critical, but I just don't like the logo, and I think it was a wrong move to change it just before a season. It should have been released during the championship.

[Joel J]

I have to say I don't really like this evolution at all. Not because it is different, but because it is ugly. No big deal, its just a logo.

[GeorgeTheEng]

I have to agree, the logo is a rather poor substitute for the existing one. On a white background, the circle fades out of existence without an outline.

[sanddrag]

I have to agree, the logo is a rather poor substitute for the existing one. On a white background, the circle fades out of existence without an outline.I hadn't even noticed that. I guess it just shows that with how often I see that shape, my brain kind of just fills in the missing lines.

[Kevin Sevcik]

The S and T look .. off. Maybe its just an illusion..

I think the kerning is a bit off. The S and T are too close together and it makes them look like they are seperate from FIR. Actually, from the blown up picture, I think the kerning needed to be tweaked on all the letters a bit. The I and R look too seperated as well.

I'm not entirely sure why the logo needed to change, but I think this is an attempt to "modernize" the FIRST logo. I think the original had a kind of classic look with the line art style. I also think the original had 15 years of advertising and recognition behind it, so a change to it should have been a bit smaller. Then again, I'm just an opinionated ex-student, so I don't know the logic that actually went into this decision.

Mostly, I think this will be tough on teams and RDs that have a goodly amount of material with the old logo that probably isn't going to get replaced in the next year. Plus, this design looks a little rougher on people that screen print T-shirts. The gray is just one more color and you'll have a heck of a time lining it up with the other colors.

I just realized something. This means no more classic gray FIRST shirts. I guess I'll have to hoard and cherish the limited supply I have at the moment.

[Elgin Clock]

I FEAR CHANGE!!!!!

Just kidding.. But seriously, I hope no one spent a lot of time on this new one. :ahh: It looks more aimed at a kid's competition. Like, Maybe FLL?

Also, as a former team advisor said about the Enron logo: It's feng shui is off. It is standing precariously on only one tip. The tip from the Square, and it looks like it will fall.... As did Enron's logo, and thus corporation.


CLASSICS NEVER DIE!!
http://www.logoloc.com/first/images/13330.lg.jpg

I wonder if those are gonna be on sale now? w00t!

http://www.logoloc.com/first/13330.html

[Rich Wong]

OMG! :eek:

*breathing stopped*.......................................... ..*breathing starts again*

Ah.....
it is different...
it's a little retro looking...
Ah.... it has greater international appeal! Qui? Si? Ho? Da?
:)

[Courtneyb1023]

maybe they are only doing this to make us realise how great the other logo was. They'll use this new one for a while, then go back to the old one that everyone knows and loves, and call it "retro"...i am going to choose to beleive that...

[JeffO]

Wow, I am not a fan of the new logo. In plain terms I think it sucks! I hope that first reads these and reconsiders. The old logo looks so much more professional, the new logo is just wrong.

[Kevin Sevcik]

maybe they are only doing this to make us realise how great the other logo was. They'll use this new one for a while, then go back to the old one that everyone knows and loves, and call it "retro"...i am going to choose to beleive that...

So the new logo is like New Coke? :D

[Venkatesh]

Last time they changed the logo (last year or the year before), the edit was a minor one, which some people favored and some opposed.

This time, I can't see any praise for the new logo. The old one was clean, elegant, and extremely effective. The message I got from it was that from the simplest building blocks of shapes, the triangle, circle, and square, anything that could be imagined could be built. The straight-line approach and the bold lines and colors on them indicated simplicity, not a new "suaveness". I will continue to use the old logo whenever and wherever I need to use a logo.

[Dorienne]

I kind of like the logo. It's just more different and FIRST has become warped -- in a good way. =D

*grumble* Now I need to change my avatar... *grumble*

[Kyle Love]

To me, that looks like a logo FIRST would have started with in '92. I really liked the "old" logo. The new one is way to plain and needs some "pop" to it and really grab attention.

-Kyle
*Just my thoughts*

[Jessica Boucher]

To start, I am not saying whether I like it or not. I would like to shed some light from the bits & pieces I know of the re-branding process, however.

Anyway, I really think we should give the re-branding some time to grow on us. There must be a very good reason for the change, and I am sure that they spent lots of time and money to come to this. Even though we may have differing opinions on it from HQ, if they did the process like it is normally done, the re-branding would include staff from all areas of the organization (FRC, FLL, etc...), including both types of stakeholders (sponsors and participants).

That's a lot of people that are standing behind this change. They would not put it out there as their final decision unless they believed in it.

The reaction we are getting here reminds me when I received an email last June from the Babson President announcing to the college their new logo (attached below: the old one is on the left). They had a short email announcing the logo, and then explained the reasonings behind the changes later on. Even though I was not a fan of it to start, a lot of the changes made sense after I heard the thought process behind it.

Re-branding is risky business. It could be a hit, or it could flop like New Coke. I'm hoping a more thorough explanation for the changes will be released before I make a definitive opinion.


PS - Who remembers when they officially changed from "US FIRST" to "FIRST"? That was a great marketing move.

[Elgin Clock]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the names of the fonts are for the old logo, and the new logo?

I would really like to know.... ;)

[Ken Leung]

To start, I am not saying whether I like it or not. I would like to shed some light from the bits & pieces I know of the rebranding process, however.

Anyway, I really think we should give the rebranding some time to grow on us. There must be a very good reason for the change, and I am sure that they spent lots of time and money to come to this. Even though we may have differing opinions on it from HQ, if they did the process like it is normally done, the rebranding would include staff from all areas of the organization (FRC, FLL, etc...), including both types of stakeholders (sponsors and participants).

That's a lot of people that are standing behind this change. They would not put it out there as their final decision unless they believed in it.

The reaction we are getting here reminds me when I recieved an email last June from the Babson President annoucing to the college their new logo (attached below: the old one is on the left). They had a short email announcing the logo, and then explained the reasonings behind the changes later on. Even though I was not a fan of it to start, a lot of the changes made sense after I heard the thought process behind it.

Rebranding is risky business. It could be a hit, or it could flop like New Coke. I'm hoping a more thorough explanation for the changes will be released before I make a definitive opinion.


PS - Who remembers when they officially changed from "US FIRST" to "FIRST"? That was a great marketing move.

Excellent post Jess. I don't think we should make up our mind just yet. There is always two sides to a story. Until we know the full story behind this change, we shouldn't speak ill of it based entirely on our initial reaction to the new logo.

FIRST have always tried their best to improve the program for the sake of our future. There might have been mistakes in the past, but I am willing to give FIRST the benefit of the doubt. Who knows, maybe after hours and hours of PR meeting, they really do think this new logo will improve the organization's image and make it easier to promote it to the main stream.

This decision has been made. It was a difficult one, but they made it. You don't just randomly change the logo one day and mess around with it whenever you feel like. They are also trying to be understanding of this change on everybody across the country, and trying to get through this transition as smoothly as possible.

Knowing FIRST for years, I know they WILL listen to the people and they DO care about our opinion. So, for now, let's just give them our sincere, constructive opinion, and see where they are going with it. If you don't like the new logo, point out exactly why, and I am sure FIRST will take your comments into full consideration before they decide anything else.

[Squirrelrock]

In general, I agree that the logo is too different. I've only been involved in two competitions before the one that starts in January, but still.

The logo could do with a little more definition on the shapes, especialy the circle. Also, the font that FIRST is written in could be changed for the better, and the spacing of the letters could be worked on a little bit.

$0.02

Squirrel

<edit>
Ok, so maybe this was repetition, or maybe it's emphasis. Can this be made into a poll, maybe the new logo vs the old logo?
</edit>

[Yov]

It's just a logo...

[Billfred]

<offtopic>So I suppose my volunteer pin is now worth something, eh?</offtopic>

I'm going to give it until Kickoff. If I still can't warm up to it, then I'll launch off on some tirade. Meanwhile...

(deep breath in)
(deep breath out)
(looks at new logo)
(deep breath in)
(deep breath out)

[Pat Fairbank]

I have to agree, the logo is a rather poor substitute for the existing one. On a white background, the circle fades out of existence without an outline.
I think the kerning is a bit off. The S and T are too close together and it makes them look like they are seperate from FIR. Actually, from the blown up picture, I think the kerning needed to be tweaked on all the letters a bit. The I and R look too seperated as well.
Also, the font that FIRST is written in could be changed for the better, and the spacing of the letters could be worked on a little bit.

I would not be too quick to criticize the design quality of the new logo. I just finished reading the Logo Standards Guide (http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoStandards_Q.pdf) and I suggest everyone else who has an issue with the design of logo do the same. The new logo was definitely not something that was thrown together in a couple of hours or even a couple of weeks - that document alone must have taken ages to design. (Does anyone else think it odd that the restrictions on logo use and modification are so strict, especially in comparison to previous regulations?)

According to the document, "the lettering is specifically designed and cannot be recreated by any conventional typesetting methods." If the kerning seems "a bit off", it was clearly designed to be that way.

That being said, I have to agree that at first sight, the visual appeal of the logo is somewhat underwhelming, but as Jessica Boucher and Ken Leung are wisely suggesting, I'm going to give it a while before judging.

[rocknthehawk]

:eek: i don't really like it.....MAYBE THE HINT IS HIDDEN IN THE NEW LOGO!!!!

[Koko Ed]

It looks squished up and crowded.

[J Flex 188]

FIRST said they realised the difficulties in transferring between the 2 logos, and most teams have not made up their 2005 uniforms as of yet, so theres no real reason to complain about when they decided to realise the new logo. Personally I think its a good time, as it gets people thinking again about FIRST just in time for the kickoff and before competition (so it allows enough time to order new shirts) and its stated that you can still use the old logo on shirts, just to use the new one whenever you can



I'm not entirely sure why the logo needed to change, but I think this is an attempt to "modernize" the FIRST logo. I think the original had a kind of classic look with the line art style. I also think the original had 15 years of advertising and recognition behind it, so a change to it should have been a bit smaller. Then again, I'm just an opinionated ex-student, so I don't know the logic that actually went into this decision.

Mostly, I think this will be tough on teams and RDs that have a goodly amount of material with the old logo that probably isn't going to get replaced in the next year. Plus, this design looks a little rougher on people that screen print T-shirts. The gray is just one more color and you'll have a heck of a time lining it up with the other colors.

I just realized something. This means no more classic gray FIRST shirts. I guess I'll have to hoard and cherish the limited supply I have at the moment.

[David Kelly]

After staring at the logo for the whole afternoon and after reading the Q & A and the document, I think that this is an excellent move on FIRST's part. Everybody talks about how FIRST needs to do a better job of promoting itself. FIRST took that step that we have been pushing them to do to help give FIRST a real identity. This is very similar as to what FedEx did when they decided to "re-brand" themselves (http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-archives/000273.php) from Federal Express to FedEx.

FIRST is a much different program than they were back in 2000 or so when they changed from the flat logo, to the 3-D looking one. I believe that made a positive impact for selling their brand. Right now, I see FIRST in it's 3rd generation. I would separate it out with these time periods of 1989 - 1998/1999, 1999/2000 - 2004, and finally 2005 - future. FIRST is selling a brand, and needs to make itself more widely known or accessible to help create more growth and support. I think FIRST made an excellent decision in putting together the guidelines for the "do and do-not's" of their logo. The FIRST brand needs to have the same look everywhere that they are publicized and seen.

I think that we should all praise FIRST for taking this HUGE step in what we all have been asking them to do, promote itself. This was a business decision and one that I believe will have a huge payoff down the road.

Good work FIRST!

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm just confused. I know we've been pushing FIRST to promote themselves more, I don't know that that requires a new "edgy" logo that sort of blends in with most modern logos.

I found this article which makes sense to me: Logo Design Workshop (http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd1000.htm#comment)

Anyways, I liked the line-art aspect of the old logo. I think that made it more distinctive, and if they changed it, it should've kept that aspect. Maybe make it sketchier looking or something, but keep it basically the same.

[Billfred]

Alright, so I looked at the standards file. And I have to say, on black this logo is vastly better-looking.

I think my main beef is simply the circle having no definition of the edges on white...but that's just me. But it's growing on me. Fast.

[Alexander McGee]

Personally, I think it's awful. I like the old one much better. Maddox's article about "extreme advertising" sums up my feelings for this. It doesn't even look better with the circle completed. The words FIRST shouldn't be offset, and there shouldnt be a difference in lettering position. And, I am just not a fan of the angled triangle, circle and square.

Oh well. Things change. We've just got to adjust I guess.

[dlavery]

Considering the alternative logos designs that they COULD have used (http://www.microsoft.com/h/en-us/r/ms_masthead_ltr.gif), the new one isn't so bad...

-dave

[JoeXIII'007]

Considering the alternative logos designs that they COULD have used (http://www.microsoft.com/h/en-us/r/ms_masthead_ltr.gif), the new one isn't so bad...

-dave

VERY TRUE!!!! But, I look at the old logo and I think 'FIRST is really something' and then I see the new one and I think :confused:. In fact there is a lot that can be done to the new logo to make it look much better:

-Outline the corners of the triangle, square, and circle to give it a nice, tech look.
-Space out the 'FIRST' letters and center align the word.

Otherwise, I'm willing to accept the new logo.

[roboticsguy1988]

I agree with a lot of the topic replies in this thread. The new logo is worse than the older one, and it does look like a cartoon, and it does look like something meant for FLL. FIRST could have made a better logo if they really wanted a new one. The old one really looked more professional, and a lot more attractive. :D

I also feel that the standards are somewhat strict :ahh: , however, i do realize that they have to be to a certain extent. Also i think that they should have two separate logo's one thats animated for such things as websites, animations, videos, etc. and then another thats still for things like Shirts, Printouts, Banners, etc.

[ShadowKnight]

I would like to say that for whatever reason, FIRST feels that this new logo embodies how FIRST has changed. FIRST has changed and they want their smbol to represent that change. As other have said, FIRST has not commented on why they have made this change, however I am certain FIRST has its reasons and they are valid. The important thing is not the symbol but what the symbol stands for.

[n0cturnalxb]

I think I mainly don't like the logo from a more artistic perspective. It's just.. not balanced, and balance is really important when it comes to visual appeal (at least, to me). Yeah, this might not mean much coming from a high school senior who's only been involved in FIRST since 2004, but..

The triangle's too tall/too high up compared to the rest of the shapes
The square is a bit too skewed.. reverse it a little and make it look more like a square than a diamond and I'll be okay with it
As for the text .. I don't really like the offset and would prefer a more spaced out, centered version..

But.. yeah, it's up to FIRST, obviously. If they feel that this embodies the changes that have occurred within FIRST.. then, okay. It's their logo. I hope they do release a more detailed explanation of the changes, though.. till then, I'll go read the logo standards guide.. thing.

[edit]
Thanks, dez250, but I've read everything and downloaded everything I could or should read/download. I still don't understand the exact reasoning behind the exact design that they settled on, but I'm okay. I'd still greatly appreciate it if FIRST ever comes out with a more detailed description of the reasoning behind this exact design.. but then again, I realize that this might not be possible. -shrug-

The logo's growing on me, though.. I guess. I'm still iffy about the balance but.. oh well. It does look a great deal better on black than it does on white.

The logo standards are ... very strict, though. I guess I'll have to rethink one of my preliminary website designs :P

[dez250]

Please as an effort to explain why the change has occured, read the Q&A section of the Evolution of the FIRST Logo (http://www.usfirst.org/about/news/newlogo2004.htm) and see why FIRST has decided to change their logo. Also The transition period for the new logo to be introduced is an expected year. To get the new graphics for print and electronic uses please visit the FRC Resource Center (http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/graphics/index.html) and to see the new logo standards for use and regulation, please see the Logo Standards Documentation (http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoStandards_Q.pdf) .

[ShadowKnight]

I would agree that a more detailed explanation of what changes they believe the new logo embodies would be appreciated by the FIRST community. The community will definately move on (in three weeks this will be old news anyway)

[Salik Syed]

I also agree the perspective on the shapes is totally "wrong" if i can say that... artistically speaking it just doesn't look right... the triangle and square are definitely waaaay to angled (making it seem vertically disproportionate)

[Pierson]

I FEAR CHANGE!!!!!

Just kidding.. But seriously, I hope no one spent a lot of time on this new one. :ahh: It looks more aimed at a kid's competition. Like, Maybe FLL?



This is EXACTLY what I thought. It looks very childish, like something I would expect to see at Toys-R-Us not something I would expect to see at a high school robotics competition where big name corporate sponsors are involved.

FIRST has never "disappointed" me, but this might be a first (no pun intended). Unless they plan on doing something radical with the logo, it is not an evolution but a de-evolution.

[Cory]

God that's ugly.

If that's the best logo they came up with when they were revising it, I don't even wanna see the others.

[Jeffrafa]

Alright - i'm not usually too big on commenting back about things such as this, but i'm gonna put in my say anyways.

I wasn't too sure about the logo when i initially saw it today, but i actually think its alright. It'll just take getting used to for people. There's a lot of comments about how the triangle is too big, the square is turned too much, and the words should be centered, but i think those things are actually fine how they are. The words being offset helps balance the triangle being larger, and the cartoony look to the shapes seems to help represent that FIRST is still all about having fun and learning at the same time. I've tried to imagine the same logo, only equalized shapes and centered lettering and i think it'd look much worse than this does - the differences make it creative and cool. I particularly like the bold, italicized FIRST - it gives the feeling of moving forward and progressing as well as the bold helps it to stay as a strong logo instead of just seeming silly.

I will agree with that it looks much better on black than on white because of the circle not being defined - but overall i think it is a good change and just the initial response from people is reacting to the change.

I'm sure much more time went into developing this new logo than many of us would guess. It most likely went through being selected out of many different ideas for logos, then refined countless times to what we have now. They certianly didn't tell someone two days ago to draw up a new logo for FIRST, they have probably been planning this for weeks.

To sum it up - I'm generally in support of the new logo, it was a good change for FIRST. As others have said, it would be nice to see something from first explaining more of the reasoning behind the change and maybe some reasoning to specific points of the design, but even if this does not come I am still in support of the logo.

[Kit Gerhart]

maybe they are only doing this to make us realise how great the other logo was. They'll use this new one for a while, then go back to the old one that everyone knows and loves, and call it "retro"...i am going to choose to beleive that...

...kind of like "New Coke" which didn't go over so well and thus begat "Coke Classic."

[Billfred]

Considering the alternative logos designs that they COULD have used (http://www.microsoft.com/h/en-us/r/ms_masthead_ltr.gif), the new one isn't so bad...

-dave
I want to point something out. Look at the O and S in Microsoft. Then look at the S and T in FIRST.

I'll give you all a minute to shake in your boots.

[Joe Matt]

After staring at the logo for the whole afternoon and after reading the Q & A and the document, I think that this is an excellent move on FIRST's part. Everybody talks about how FIRST needs to do a better job of promoting itself. FIRST took that step that we have been pushing them to do to help give FIRST a real identity. This is very similar as to what FedEx did when they decided to "re-brand" themselves (http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-archives/000273.php) from Federal Express to FedEx.

FIRST is a much different program than they were back in 2000 or so when they changed from the flat logo, to the 3-D looking one. I believe that made a positive impact for selling their brand. Right now, I see FIRST in it's 3rd generation. I would separate it out with these time periods of 1989 - 1998/1999, 1999/2000 - 2004, and finally 2005 - future. FIRST is selling a brand, and needs to make itself more widely known or accessible to help create more growth and support. I think FIRST made an excellent decision in putting together the guidelines for the "do and do-not's" of their logo. The FIRST brand needs to have the same look everywhere that they are publicized and seen.

I think that we should all praise FIRST for taking this HUGE step in what we all have been asking them to do, promote itself. This was a business decision and one that I believe will have a huge payoff down the road.

Good work FIRST!
So a cartoony logo that belongs in Toys'r'Us is supposed to show off gracious professionalism how? Quick question Dave, is there anything that FIRST puts out you don't like?

Wow, I guess we are almost there, perfect marketing....

http://www.kaidan.com/autolycus/images/battlebots-logo.gif http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoR_color_rgb_half_size.gif

(In defense of the logo, I like the B&W one a lot, just the colored one sucks)

[Alexander McGee]

I want to point something out. Look at the O and S in Microsoft. Then look at the S and T in FIRST.

I'll give you all a minute to shake in your boots.

Wow. You're absolutely right. That is frightening.

I think the new logo looks a lot like: Someone attempting to recreate the old one, having only seen the old one for a split second, and having NO graphical experience whatsoever.

I am frankly bewildered with the seriousness that FIRST has placed on this. I understand the importance of creating a new logo, but it is as if they expected us to hate it, but demand us to adapt regardless.

As someone who has been involved with FIRST since the conception of FLL, I have grow quite attached to the old logo. It means something to me. It brings back memories. Very good memories. This new logo probably wont upset people who haven't been involved as long as I, but you who have been in this as long as I know the feeling.

I just don't like it.

[David Kelly]

I want to point something out. Look at the O and S in Microsoft. Then look at the S and T in FIRST.

I'll give you all a minute to shake in your boots.

The O is opening its mouth like pacman to eat the S. :ahh:

[Dorienne]

I want to point something out. Look at the O and S in Microsoft. Then look at the S and T in FIRST.

I'll give you all a minute to shake in your boots.

AAAAH!!! No! =( Now I don't like it...Scary.

Is there somewhere we can write letters to, or a petition, to a specific person at FIRST to change it back to the old one?
Not too sure if that's possible. I think they're pretty solid on this change, if you read the Q&A on that page. *shrug*

[Alexander McGee]

Is there somewhere we can write letters to, or a petition, to a specific person at FIRST to change it back to the old one?

Just a thought...

[David Kelly]

So a cartoony logo that belongs in Toys'r'Us is supposed to show off gracious professionalism how? Quick question Dave, is there anything that FIRST puts out you don't like?

Wow, I guess we are almost there, perfect marketing....

http://www.kaidan.com/autolycus/images/battlebots-logo.gif http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoR_color_rgb_half_size.gif

(In defense of the logo, I like the B&W one a lot, just the colored one sucks)

Constructive criticism is the only kind that ever helps. Never did I say that this is the coolest logo ever and that they are going to make billions off of the new logo. I've stepped back and looked at why FIRST is doing this change. This is not something that just happened overnight and done by some middle school kid, like some of you seem to think. Just take a look at the documentation that was published with logo. Companies pay thousands of dollars and lots of time with consultants. This logo is MUCH simpler, and simple is good. It gets the point across without jumbling the message. Look at logos from companies such as Delphi, GM, Ford, CNN, FOX, and Sony. I could just go on and on forever naming BIG companies with very simplistic designs. I imagine that the same attitude was expressed at FIRST when they showed the new logo to the staff. I'm sure some may have no liked the decision, but they agreed that it is in the best interest of FIRST and all the stakeholders to make a move in this way.

As I said before, FIRST made a business decision and put lots of effort into this, although many of you would not agree with this (and also believe that I never criticize FIRST because I am trying to suck up to them so that I can get in on the inside to get secrets or work for them). I only criticize constructively, there is no reason to be all negative and cry about every single decision they make because you may not like it or want to know why they made such a decision. FIRST is not filled with a bunch of retards that don't know what the heck is going on.

[Joe Ross]

I think it's fairly clear what's happened.

Think about the evolution of the FIRST logo. First they added a TM symbol to it, then SM. They new logo is a Registered Trademark.

Years ago, everybody modified the FIRST logo for whatever they wanted. Then FIRST asked people to ask for permission before modifying the logo, and pretty much allowed almost all modifications. Then in the last year or two, they became much more strict about giving permission, and yet most people modified the logo without asking permission.

As Kevin said, we want FIRST to be able to promote effectively, but the old logo was so commonly modified, they had no real way to defend the tradmark.

So, they had to start over, and now they have a no modification policy. Now they will be able to defend their trademark.

Whether or not you like it, I wouldn't be suprised at all if this is the real reason.

[Kit Gerhart]

I guess I don't care much about the logo one way or the other, but there is one thing about the new one I don't understand. Why did they put lots of space between the first three letters of FIRST and then run the "S" and "T" together? They did what I was taught NOT to do when I learned to letter in drafting class. Of course, drawing with pencils is obsolete, so maybe that explains it.

[Alexander McGee]

I think it's fairly clear what's happened.

Think about the evolution of the FIRST logo. First they added a TM symbol to it, then SM. They new logo is a Registered Trademark.

Years ago, everybody modified the FIRST logo for whatever they wanted. Then FIRST asked people to ask for permission before modifying the logo, and pretty much allowed almost all modifications. Then in the last year or two, they became much more strict about giving permission, and yet most people modified the logo without asking permission.

As Kevin said, we want FIRST to be able to promote effectively, but the old logo was so commonly modified, they had no real way to defend the tradmark.

So, they had to start over, and now they have a no modification policy. Now they will be able to defend their trademark.

Whether or not you like it, I wouldn't be suprised at all if this is the real reason.

People are still going to modify the new logo. It's not going to be any different. The old logo was a registered trademark as well (see my signature). No one cares weather or not an image is trademarked, people will still be re-creating it and editing it to suit their needs, with or without permission. I mean, seriously, what is FIRST going to do? If some team with a modified FIRST logo on their t-shirt is at a competition, what would FIRST do? It's not like they will stop you from competing, or file a law-suit against you.

If "defending their trademark" is so important, then why change it? Why not crack down on the offenders and make them "get permission" to modify the logo? Like I said before, FIRST isn't about hurting teams. If anything, the "transition" period where 2 logos will co-exist will be most hurtful for their logo.

A universal logo is (A) never going to exist and (B) wont do them any more good than it already has. Look at the animation entries for the last few years. People try to re-create the FIRST logo in their animations, in 3D. These things get publicized WAY more than just images of people's t-shirts, banners, and robots.

I don't think that their intentions were to be able to "defend their trademark". I just think someone thought it was time for a change.

[Kevin Sevcik]

As Kevin said, we want FIRST to be able to promote effectively, but the old logo was so commonly modified, they had no real way to defend the tradmark.


I'll note here that this bears virtually no resemblence to what I said.... I said that we wanted them to promote themselves effectively, and I don't see how the new logo is any better at it than the old one. Especially since the old one already has several years of recognition behind it, and is obviously beloved by a large portion of the community.

It's like Linux turning Tux into a highly stylized penguin instead of his current cartoonish look. There would be a large uproar and no one would want to use the new logo cause they liked the old one.

I really see many teams and individuals sticking with the old logo, and I know that they're still going to use the triangle, circle, square symbology in their own stuff.

[Madison]

I'll note here that this bears virtually no resemblence to what I said.... I said that we wanted them to promote themselves effectively, and I don't see how the new logo is any better at it than the old one. Especially since the old one already has several years of recognition behind it, and is obviously beloved by a large portion of the community.

For purposes of intellectual property rights, however, FIRST must demonstrate that it intends to defend the use and appearance of its corporate logo and brand identity. In such matters, precedent can be exceptionally important and FIRST has demonstrated over the years that it was not interested in defending the identity of its brand by allowing teams and individuals to modify their logo in almost any way imaginable.

As an extension of that, the new logo gives FIRST new footing in its claims to defend its brand identity because, from the start, they've stipulated that no modifications may be made. What's left now is for them to follow through on those criteria, establishing precedent that protects them from copyright violation in the future. Once that precedent exists, FIRST can begin to aggressively market itself to a wider audience without any chance of its logo being coopted, defamed, or otherwise challenged.

I wonder, though, what steps FIRST might really take to defend its brand. Were it necessary, would FIRST sue a team for making inappropriate changes to its branding? While that might be necessary for continued legal defense of the organization, it will obviously breed resentment among its participants that are, in my opinion, its strongest tool and most identifiable brand.

Further, what happens now to teams and support organizations that have existing logos that rely on or are built from the old FIRST logo?

[Dave Flowerday]

I am frankly bewildered with the seriousness that FIRST has placed on this. I understand the importance of creating a new logo, but it is as if they expected us to hate it, but demand us to adapt regardless.
Are you referring to the lengthy document describing acceptable use of the logo? If so that kind of document is standard for a company logo. In fact, it's uncanny how similar that document is to Motorola's document describing the use of their logo. I'm guessing those documents are essentially boilerplate these days.
People are still going to modify the new logo. It's not going to be any different. The old logo was a registered trademark as well (see my signature). No one cares weather or not an image is trademarked, people will still be re-creating it and editing it to suit their needs, with or without permission. I mean, seriously, what is FIRST going to do? If some team with a modified FIRST logo on their t-shirt is at a competition, what would FIRST do? It's not like they will stop you from competing, or file a law-suit against you.
FIRST has asked nicely that we only use their logo according to their standards document. They will probably remind us in the kickoff material. If you (or anyone) disregards their wishes, I would not be surprised if they sent you a cease & desist letter. I really hope & fully expect that it would end there and we wouldn't need to find out what else they may do. If a C&D letter is sent and then also ignored, yes it's not impossible that FIRST could file suit. If they didn't, then they could not defend their logo if someone else used it for less ideal purposes. Welcome to the world of copyright & trademark law.
In the spirit of the oxymoron 'constructive critisim', I have posted a revised version of the logo that just looks right.
Wonderful... so in 24 hours we've already managed to disrespect FIRST's wishes. This is a pretty poor way to treat an organization that you care about.

[Lisa Perez]

Wonderful... so in 24 hours we've already managed to disrespect FIRST's wishes. This is a pretty poor way to treat an organization that you care about.

Seriously guys - let's just accept it and move on. It's simply the logo that has changed, not the ideals of FIRST... and said change is an unavoidable part of life.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is that if we get too preoccupied with how things look, we're going to miss the whole point of being involved in robotics altogether.

[Kevin Sevcik]

To me is just seems like FIRST is becoming a lot more corporate in some ways, and this is change and the more restrictive usage rules are indicative of such. I realize they need to get more organized to hand more teams, but the changes seem a bit odd.

[Karthik]

In the spirit of the oxymoron 'constructive critisim', I have posted a revised version of the logo that just looks right.
I appreciate that you're trying to help but, you should really read the FIRST logo standards (http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/resourcectr/downloads/FIRSTlogoStandards_Q.pdf) .

Specifically pages 14-16 of the .pdf document, the section entitled "Do not alter the logos".

We may not like the logo, but that doesn't mean we should go around and blatantly disrespect FIRST by ignoring their wishes.

[jgannon]

Unless I'm mistaken, this means that Chief Delphi is going to have to change that logo up in the upper left corner of this page, no?

The Cheesy Poofs are going to have to change their logo (http://team254.bcp.org/images/teamlogo.jpg), no?

That new sign (http://hammond.k12.in.us/TeamHammond/T71Images/signweb.jpg) in the town of Hammond, IN, now looks outdated, no?

I don't mean to troll, but it seems like this is creating a huge hassle for teams that already have artwork done. FIRST may want a new identity, but what about the teams that have had the FIRST logo integrated into their own (like Chief Delphi, for instance) for years? Now they are compelled to change their own identities?

[ShadowKnight]

Seriously guys - let's just accept it and move on. It's simply the logo that has changed, not the ideals of FIRST... and said change is an unavoidable part of life.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is that if we get too preoccupied with how things look, we're going to miss the whole point of being involved in robotics altogether.

We didn't fall in love with the logo guys, we fell in love with what the logo stood for. Sure, it has changed, but what it represented is something we all still love. Quibbling over something like which logo FIRST chooses to use is ultimately quite trivial. I hardly see how continued complaints about the logo coincide with the ideals of FIRST, particular gracious professionalism. On the playing field, when the ref calls your team on something that you feel was unfair, ultimately the gracious professional thing to do is accept the final ruling and not argue about it. The same principle applies here.

[Jon K.]

To me the hardest part of this change, is the fact that we have recieved permission to modify the old logo, paid set up fees for getting it screenprinted and embroidered, and now we can no longer use it. The other part is that when designing a website, you now have to form the website around the new logo, because you can't modify the background, and just sticking it on a website as is, in place of the old just wouldn't look right if you dont really have any white or black spaces on your site, as in with our website http://www.rage173.org where we have no white or black spaces, we will now have to redesign the site to make the FIRST logo look correct, and we will have to change around the font, because they also what certain fonts used with the new logo.

While I understand they want to re-brand and the reasons behind it, it just seems like it has become a larger hassle then they may have thought.

[DCA Fan]

I guess I don't care much about the logo one way or the other, but there is one thing about the new one I don't understand. Why did they put lots of space between the first three letters of FIRST and then run the "S" and "T" together? They did what I was taught NOT to do when I learned to letter in drafting class. Of course, drawing with pencils is obsolete, so maybe that explains it.
I think that's one of my concerns as well. If I get used to the logo and it's new look, the lettering will still irk me. Is there a reason it's there or was that just an honest mistake that can be corrected?

[Billfred]

To me the hardest part of this change, is the fact that we have recieved permission to modify the old logo, paid set up fees for getting it screenprinted and embroidered, and now we can no longer use it. The other part is that when designing a website, you now have to form the website around the new logo, because you can't modify the background, and just sticking it on a website as is, in place of the old just wouldn't look right if you dont really have any white or black spaces on your site, as in with our website http://www.rage173.org where we have no white or black spaces, we will now have to redesign the site to make the FIRST logo look correct, and we will have to change around the font, because they also what certain fonts used with the new logo.

While I understand they want to re-brand and the reasons behind it, it just seems like it has become a larger hassle then they may have thought. I'm no FIRST rep, but if I'm reading page 16 right...

Do not obscure and weaken our logos by placing them on visually active background patterns, strong textures, or incompatible shades of color.
...you can put it on other colors. You just can't wash out the colors, or use a really annoying pattern. Your site oughta be alright.

[Mike Martus]

Chief Delphi has made very careful changes to their team logo over the past 9 years. So small most people did not even notice. To us that's a good thing.

It is like raising the cost of an item by a penny many times over a long period of time, people will get used to it without complaining.

I used to pay $0.19 cents for a gallon of gas (this really dates me, opps!).

Whenever change happens fast and drastic people notice and opinions surface. That is what is going on here.

My $0.02

[David Kelly]

Chief Delphi has made very careful changes to their team logo over the past 9 years. So small most people did not even notice. To us that's a good thing.

It is like raising the cost of an item by a penny many times over a long period of time, people will get used to it without complaining.

I used to pay $0.19 cents for a gallon of gas (this really dates me, opps!).

Whenever change happens fast and drastic people notice and opinions surface. That is what is going on here.

My $0.02

Well, I did notice the new CD logo up at the top yesterday. :p

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think that's one of my concerns as well. If I get used to the logo and it's new look, the lettering will still irk me. Is there a reason it's there or was that just an honest mistake that can be corrected?

The S-T thing is another feature to help make the logo trademark friendly. The S and T were deliberately run together much like the s and o in Microsoft. This is a unique feature of the logo's type-setting so that FIRST can jump on people that typeset something the exact same way. Or that change the typesetting of the text but use the rest of the logo.

[AmyPrib]

Change happens - and we learn to deal with it.

But if I had one constructive critique to make, I would say that just outlining the new logo with black would make it look much sharper....not as "cartoony" as others have said. It would be sort of a middle ground between new and old logos. Ironically enough, this is one of the "do not do" items in their standards document.

But looking at their outlined example in their do-not-do section.. I think it looks pretty good.. It looks pretty sharp all on black background as-is, but the outline helps it out on white.

just my opinion..

[Sidney San Martín]

When I first saw the new logo page, I was shocked. I double checked the URL to make sure it wasn't a fake page. The older logo seemed much more professional, much more precise. And while the new one might grow on me, I don't want a logo I have to get used to. I understand that they're not going back, and that complaining about changes is pointless, but I can't help but wish that an online petition might convince them to abandon the change.
But this is now FIRST. We'll learn to live with it and love it again.

But I actually like the way some of their examples of illegal modifications looked :)

[J@GMFlint]

Like many others I am also a bit "surprised" by the new logo. :ahh:

What seems equally "surprising" is the great length that FIRST has went to provide their lists of "thou shall nots". I have seen many teams creatively employ the "old" FIRST logo into their team logo and identity tastefully and w/out damage to the integrity of the logo. It almost seems that they are being a bit over-protective, and that they clearly do not trust anyone to use the logo in any manner other than clearly specified. I know this is well within their rights to request this, I just wonder what drove them to this? Has someone been profiting from knock-off FIRST merchandise? Where are they going next? Royalty fees to use the "official" logo?

For 2005, it is not going to be financially feasible for our team to revise our banners and uniforms to fit the change -so we will not change this year, and try to come up with a financial strategy for 2006. I know they are allowing some time to change, but I wonder how long is going to be acceptable? Our jackets and jerseys are expensive but they have patches on them, so maybe we'll just remove the patch with the "old" FIRST logo altogether if they complain.

While we may not be able to affect change to FIRST' position, it is ultimately up to the teams to decided whether or not to use the logo at all. So, when it comes down to it, if it really bothers you -ask yourself/team the question: Do you really owe this "free" advertisement and exposure to FIRST at a cost to your team anyways? Going forward- Omitting the FIRST logo can be a cost savings to the team that doesn't like it the way they have dictated.

Don't like it, don't use it.

[Billfred]

According to the page, FIRST is transitioning to the new logo through December 2005. If you can use the new logo sooner, however, do use it.

[Alexander McGee]

While we may not be able to affect change to FIRST' position, it is ultimately up to the teams to decided whether or not to use the logo at all. So, when it comes down to it, if it really bothers you -ask yourself/team the question: Do you really owe this "free" advertisement and exposure to FIRST at a cost to your team anyways? Going forward- Omitting the FIRST logo can be a cost savings to the team that doesn't like it the way they have dictated.

Don't like it, don't use it.

I don't think that is much in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism. FIRST wants a new logo. I don't like it either, but it will defineatelly be going on our t-shirts and banners and robot. This "free advertising" as you call it is the lifeblood of FIRST. Not having it on your various things out of spite is not the right thing to do. FIRST exists and has grown because of how much the logo means to people. Heck, I even had the old one on my rear window of my car.

Obviouslly, FIRST has some important reason for protecting their identity. I don't blame them for wanting to have everything straightened out. This is one of the very first steps needed in obtaining an ISO9001 / ISO9002 certification. Did you stop and think what that could mean for FIRST if it were accomplished? They would save soooo much money.

Things change. Whine if you must, but understand that it's not going to do any good. It's progress. It happens.

[D.Stephenson]

dislikeing the new logo, but then i dont like change...

a few years ago we were thinking of changing our team logo, but in the end we didnt, because you shouldnt change somthing that represents the team or in this case a society of robotics teams.

I liked the old one, it was clean and defined with the black edging

[ShadowKnight]

I was looking at it today actually and I like it...it actualy seems cleaner and crisper to me...

[Courtneyb1023]

I think this new logo has some kind of hypnotic mind control. The first time I looked at it, i thought it was terrible, but now after looking at it several times, i think its actually pretty cute. hmm...

[roboticsguy1988]

Yeah, at first i thought the logo was terrible, but now i think it actually looks kinda good. I still say that it needs the outline but other than that, i like it, it looks nice now. :D Maybe i was just used to the old one to much. ;) Give me another week or two and i may love the new logo, instead of just liking it. ;)

[MikeDubreuil]

I did not like the new logo at first (no pun intended :p). It's starting to grow on me; however, the closeness of the S and the T is very irritating to me. My only guess is that the designer wanted to add emphasis to the words Science and Technology.

[Ali Ahmed]

I really don't like the new logo at all. It looks like a cartoon. it could work for FLL maybe but not for FRC. The old logo was way more professional and clean.

[gsensel]

I would like to see the triangle, circle (this one definitely), and square outlined, and the letters spaced evenly apart.

Of course the first part can be remedied by using the one on the black background, so always use it and the triangle, circle, and square can all be seen clearly. Now its just the letters that need fixing.

[JulieB]

way to sharp i dont like it

[n0cturnalxb]

.... I'm actually beginning to like the new logo, now. It looks sexy on dark backgrounds ;)

I still think everything's slightly too skewed.. but I guess I'm getting used to it.

[J@GMFlint]

I don't think that is much in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism. FIRST wants a new logo. I don't like it either, but it will defineatelly be going on our t-shirts and banners and robot. This "free advertising" as you call it is the lifeblood of FIRST. Not having it on your various things out of spite is not the right thing to do. FIRST exists and has grown because of how much the logo means to people. Heck, I even had the old one on my rear window of my car.

Obviouslly, FIRST has some important reason for protecting their identity. I don't blame them for wanting to have everything straightened out. This is one of the very first steps needed in obtaining an ISO9001 / ISO9002 certification. Did you stop and think what that could mean for FIRST if it were accomplished? They would save soooo much money.

Things change. Whine if you must, but understand that it's not going to do any good. It's progress. It happens.

I've been an Engineer in the Auto Industry for a quite few years now and know all about change, we live it on a daily basis. But thanks for your thoughts anyway. Aside from airing my questions and "surprise" about the change, my "don't like it don't use it" post was meant as advice for the people who HAVE been whining so adamantly on this thread, so let me try again, as there is also a business perspective to logo use.

For the people who really don't like or don't/won't get used to the new logo, they always have an option to NOT pay for the "upgrade", or even incur the cost to have the logo on team items regardless of the logo being used had it not changed. It has nothing to do with spite or GP. Teams pay handily to participate in the competition; THIS is the financial lifeblood of FIRST.

Does FIRST indirectly benefit from our free advertising? Of course, but FIRST will not suffer or perish because the logo is not used. The money we spend in printing the logo delivers no intrinsic value or ROI (Return On Investment) to the program. It has been my experience that the local community, or sponsor is more concerned about the logo and identity of the team they see in front of them, and not the organizing body in New Hampshire.

To put my point in a real world example:

You probably haven't noticed but on our newer GM vehicles many of the logos have been omitted to save $ whenever possible. Look at the floor mats, seat belt buckles, steering wheel and keys. Many models no longer have the GM or divisional logos on them. The absence of these logos has not diminished the quality of the product or reduced the value of the product delivered to the customer in any way. It HAS helped to reduce the cost to make the vehicle, and allow for the $ to be spent elsewhere- like on new product development or a community service like FIRST.

For a FIRST team, I believe the same holds true with respect to value. The absence of the logo will not detract from the value of participating in the program. So take this business model a step further beyond logo preferences, and extend it to any team who is trying to save money. The money saved could be used to reduce team uniform and advertising costs to help pay for an airline ticket or a hotel room for another student. Wouldn’t managing your money to be able to extend the experience of the competition to a student be more inline with the objectives of FIRST rather than spending it on advertising?

Hope this clears things up a bit

Joe


Regarding ISO: Please explain the savings you suggest.

[Alexander McGee]

Joe,

I would love to have an intellectual discussion with you, but this is not the place for it. Contact me via email if you wish to discuss these things further.

-Alexander S. McGee

[Gary Dillard]

I didn't see this addressed anywhere in the thread - any thoughts on whether you have to have the new official logo on your website for the website award competition? It was worth 5 points in last year's scoring; if we've spent alot of time this fall on our layout or an animation based on the old logo, will that cause us a problem? Even though it's a transition year, will we get scored down because we haven't included the new logo? I don't think it would look good having both on the website if we add it where it's easy to do and leave the old one till next year in the other places. What do you think?

[Billfred]

I didn't see this addressed anywhere in the thread - any thoughts on whether you have to have the new official logo on your website for the website award competition? It was worth 5 points in last year's scoring; if we've spent alot of time this fall on our layout or an animation based on the old logo, will that cause us a problem? Even though it's a transition year, will we get scored down because we haven't included the new logo? I don't think it would look good having both on the website if we add it where it's easy to do and leave the old one till next year in the other places. What do you think?
Gary,

How long should the old logo continue to appear?
The goal is to have the transition period last approximately 12 months. Ideally, by December 2005, the new logo should appear on all materials.
By that, I would imagine that they won't grade you down for using the old logo next year. But I'd check the manual on January 8 to be sure.

[Salik Syed]

We only appreciate constructive posts that do not defy the rules of ChiefDelphi.com.

ooops.... sorry i didn't know that abbreviation was against the rules....anyways let me restate....
I was extremely shocked i don't like the logo because it is not very pleasing to the eye..... nothing seems very well defined and the perspective is funny, i don't like the font.... but i really love the old logo... especially the font and the spacing between letters etc...