FIRST Email - Introducing Evolution of the FIRST Logo

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Billfred

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.

[Dorienne]

Originally Posted by Billfred

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.

Originally Posted by magnasmific

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]

Originally Posted by JosephM

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....



(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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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]

Originally Posted by magnasmific

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.

Originally Posted by JosephM

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

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]

Originally Posted by JosephM

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 .

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, no?

That new sign 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]

Originally Posted by Lisa Perez

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.