FIRST Email - Introducing Evolution of the FIRST Logo

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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.

Originally Posted by Squirrelrock

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 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]

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

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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 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

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.