4 ms·

While everyone is welcome to their opinion... 1. Shouldn't we aspire to let the community themselves decide if their passions would be furthered by a recogniza

While everyone is welcome to their opinion... 1. Shouldn't we aspire to let the community themselves decide if their passions would be furthered by a recognizable visual identity, and not impose our perspective on them in a patronizing way? 2. Your statement mostly conveys that you haven't learned much about the power of branding in general. A logo is not a brand, but often stands as the most recognizable avatar of a brand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4te2QNsHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4te2QNsHY It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. And you need a healthy brand to be successful in marketing that brand. I happen to believe that OSS contributors deserve to see that their projects put their best foot forward so that as many people can benefit as possible. Since I know Tim O'Reilly wants this as well, hopefully he'll be happy to sign off on this request.

eesmith 3y ago
> It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were the big "P&G" not it? (As another example, I recognize the Nestlé name brand, but don't recognize its logo with the three birds and the nest.) If it isn't a healthy brand, how would you describe the Proctor&Gamble brand? Unhealthy? And how would changing that brand improve things? I ask because it seems that healthy retail brand ends up with a recognizable logo in large part simply because so many people know it, making it hard to disentangle how important the logo is vs. the slogan, the product name, its effectiveness, and other properties. And it would seem those retail brand principles apply less to, for example, multi-national conglomerates. To be clear, that doesn't mean a recognized logo won't help a programming language advocacy and support group. I'm instead pointing out that I can think of quite a few seemingly healthy brands with forgettable logos, while you suggest that's nearly impossible. (To be doubly clear, it's nearly impossible to establish a well-known brand in the first place, either with or without a recognizable logo.)
- peteforde 3y ago
  I have to commend you, because this is the most impressively Apples to Flamethrowers comparison I've seen on Hacker News in 15 years.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    I have no idea what you are talking about.

eesmith 3y ago

> It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were the big "P&G" not it? (As another example, I recognize the Nestlé name brand, but don't recognize its logo with the three birds and the nest.) If it isn't a healthy brand, how would you describe the Proctor&Gamble brand? Unhealthy? And how would changing that brand improve things? I ask because it seems that healthy retail brand ends up with a recognizable logo in large part simply because so many people know it, making it hard to disentangle how important the logo is vs. the slogan, the product name, its effectiveness, and other properties. And it would seem those retail brand principles apply less to, for example, multi-national conglomerates. To be clear, that doesn't mean a recognized logo won't help a programming language advocacy and support group. I'm instead pointing out that I can think of quite a few seemingly healthy brands with forgettable logos, while you suggest that's nearly impossible. (To be doubly clear, it's nearly impossible to establish a well-known brand in the first place, either with or without a recognizable logo.)

peteforde 3y ago
I have to commend you, because this is the most impressively Apples to Flamethrowers comparison I've seen on Hacker News in 15 years.
- eesmith 3y ago
  I have no idea what you are talking about.