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