[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.