Why do we need a new logo anyway?

Following the latest post, it was clear that there has not been enough explanation, or discussion around why Drupal needs a new logo.

We need the fish

A few of weeks ago in Szeged, I sat down with Larry, to discuss some of the finer points of the ‘branding’ deliverables that were indicated in the RFP process. He explained that Drupal needed a new logo that could be trademarked, in order to protect itself legally. Druplicon can’t be trademarked because of it is licensed under GPL. Those are the business reasons for doing so. Larry’s latest blog post goes a long way in explaining why this item appeared on RFP, and why my firm was briefed to undertake the work as part of the d.o redesign.

But Druplicon can’t be that playful community spirit as an official logo. Official logos more rules they have to follow, both marketing-wise and legally. If Druplicon were the Official Logo Of Drupal(tm), it would have to be trademarked. Random fish would be harder to do, as we’d run the risk of it hurting the trademark’s standing. We couldn’t use it as the default “logo” graphic on new Drupal installs.

Larry goes on to say:

No, Druplicon is not a logo. It is a mascot that we’ve been using as a logo. Think Tux the Linux Penguin. Or think the elePHPant, which is distinct from the actual PHP logo. As a mascot, we can have cookies.

These are sound business reasons on why Drupal needs a logo, separate from the Druplicon. But, aside from that, why do I personally think it’s time the Drupal logo had some attention?

What’s wrong with FF Max?

This question has cropped up a lot. Not only with the community, but with the DA as well. Why am I suggesting we change it? Without Druplicon tied to the logo (as it can’t be for the reasons Larry stated), then we’re left with FF Max.

Personally, I’ve got the following reasons for suggesting the change:

  • What makes FF Max interesting are the small details in the letters. However, at small size, those details degrade. At about 12pt and below, FF Max doesn’t look all that distinctive.
  • Most display typefaces are designed to solve a specific purpose (a lot of text faces too, like FF Meta, Frutiger, or Johnston). I’m not sure of the intended usage of FF Max, but I don’t feel it works particularly well for a logotype.
  • I don’t feel there is enough character, or the brand ‘voice’, of Drupal (the software), or Drupal (The community) using FF Max.

I understand that changing a logo is a big deal. I hope that giving some of my rationale, together with Larry’s thoughts, and the DA’s business reasons, we’ll collectively go some way in explaining ourselves.

Thanks for all your feedback so far. It’s been invaluable in assessing the changes that need to be made, and we’ll continue to work as openly as possible.


Comments

Mark -

This comment is actually meant for your “Cap D or Not?” post, but comments seem to be closed on that post, so I’ll put it here.

First, let me say I’m thrilled that the intensity of the first round of feedback didn’t discourage you from your open approach to design. It must be hard to make sense of all the opinions.

Four comments on the wordmark:
1) I really like the direction the wordmark is going, and I’m loving the splash.

2) I like the ‘cuts’ on the font, in theory, but I think they are a bit too abrupt/jarring, leaving the sense of a lump or bulge right before the cuts start, and they draw my eyes way more than they should. This effect is compounded by the fact that the cuts start directly at 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock, so the change in the curve seems particularly sudden. If the cuts were wider (ie, starting earlier on the curve… say 10 o’clock), and/or if the cuts were not quite so deep, I think they’d give you the same benefits without drawing as much attention to themselves.

3) I’m sure this was mentioned in the first round, but the ‘r’ seems inexplicably thin to me…

4) I think you’re absolutely correct that the lowercase ‘d’ looks better, but I don’t know whether that was ever in question. The question, rather, is whether an uppercase ‘D’ is a requirement that can’t be violated? If it is, then obviously it needs to be uppercase. If it isn’t, then the lowercase ‘d’ clearly looks better. I don’t have an opinion on this, but I know others do…

Brad's Gravatar

BradThu 18th Sep 2008 at 5:34 pm

Actually, I take back my recommendation in part (2) of my earlier comment (5:34pm), as it would create more problems than it would solve. However, my critique of the cuts still stands. smile

Brad's Gravatar

BradThu 18th Sep 2008 at 5:38 pm

Me too -> This comment is actually meant for your “Cap D or Not?” post, but comments seem to be closed on that post, so I’ll put it here.

Impressive work. It’s so much more organic than the first sketch. It is very professional, distinguished and innovative.

I vote for the capital D version as I find that one more balanced: “The left vertical stroke of the D matches the last letter “l” vertical stroke.

While the “drupal” version is nice, I find it off balance.

Jacques (xmacinfo)'s Gravatar

Jacques (xmacinfo)Thu 18th Sep 2008 at 7:59 pm

Glad to see that lots of people share my same interests and thoughts.Gread Blog. I will continue reading it in the future. Nice layout too.
Cheers,
Restaurant Web Design

Restaurant website design's Gravatar

Restaurant website designFri 3rd Oct 2008 at 3:40 pm

Most recent entries

Categories

News RSS feed

From Mark's blog

Books & Publications

Five Simple Steps
A no-nonsense guide to learning graphic design for the web.
Web Standards Creativity

A nice book published by Friends of Ed