Re: New Logo Discussion

From: Pranam Lashkari (plashkari628_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-18 00:32:38

Completely agree with everything said here, the current logo has its
personality and meaning, while the new logo looks very generic (googling "B
logo with bolt" gave me tons of similar results in all shapes and sizes).
If we really wanna change something and modernise then I could get behind a
change like we see from windows 8 logo to windows 11 logo. So we can keep
our well recognized logo with all the meanings attached to it.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 01:05, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 7/17/24 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> >
> > Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options:
> >
> > 1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the
> > trademark
> >
> > 2. No change
>
> 2. No change.
>
> From the personal preference standpoint, I actually like the current
> logo more than the proposed new one. I think, it better represents the
> modular nature of Boost. Yes, Boost is a *collection* of libraries,
> despite that it may appear monolithic to some users, which is something
> we are moving away from. And the current logo is simply more
> aesthetically pleasing to me.
>
> I should note that the current logo is used as a base for a number of
> library-specific logos, which play nicely together:
>
> https://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos
>
> I don't see the proposed logo as being composable in the same way.
>
> No, "B" being the first letter of "Boost" does not give points to the
> new logo. There are plenty examples of logos being not letters at all,
> and yet those logos are very recognizable among the target audience. A
> few examples are Windows, Ubuntu, GNU, GitHub, StackOverflow. The
> current logo may not be as widely recognized as some of those examples,
> but I don't see how changing the logo would fix that, even if that is
> something that needs to be fixed in the first place. If anything,
> changing the logo reduces Boost's recognition.
>
> From the legal standpoint, I'm not even remotely familiar with the
> trademark law, so I cannot evaluate the legal consequences of the logo
> being owned by The C++ Alliance. But I do not like that an unrelated
> organization would control the logo and would need to be consulted
> regarding the usage of the logo.
>
> And I just don't see the sufficient reasons for changing the logo. You
> haven't stated the problem that changing the logo is supposed to fix,
> other than the supposed perception by the public, which I will address
> below.
>
> > One might rightly ask, "why not just start using the old mark often and
> > consistently?" This is better than what we are doing now (which is
> nothing)
> > but suffers from the problem that the old mark is associated with old
> > things which represent stagnation. A new mark, with accompanying guidance
> > on usage, transmits needed momentum to our Boost renaissance by informing
> > the public that things are now changing for the better.
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this marketing jabbering. Fundamentally,
> Boost has not changed. It always was, is, and hopefully will be a
> collection of peer-reviewed C++ libraries, and the current logo
> represents this quite well.
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to as "renaissance", but as far as
> I'm concerned there was no stagnation to begin with. Perhaps, you refer
> to us switching to C++11 as a baseline or better CMake support? In my
> view, those are, while important, but still incremental steps in Boost's
> evolution. Is it the new website? It's status isn't clear yet, and with
> the dispute between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation its future
> is uncertain (and this situation, BTW, does *not* improve the public
> image of Boost). Perhaps, there is some social side of things that I'm
> not aware of? But frankly, public relations are not my area of interest
> anyway. So, I'm probably not the kind of person you want to ask for
> opinion on social or marketing matters.
>
> In any case, whether there is a perception problem associated with the
> current logo or not, I'm not convinced that changing the logo would
> solve it. You can draw whatever logo you like, but if some people don't
> like or use Boost for whatever reason (which, I'm pretty sure, is not
> the logo), they won't like it more with the new logo either. The best we
> can do to fix this is to make Boost actually better in ways that affect
> those people - as long as we agree that this would be a change for the
> better. And, of course, there are people who will not like us no matter
> what, and that's fine, too. There's no point in trying to appeal to
> everyone.
>
> With that said, I can understand that you may want to "refresh" the
> current logo to better fit in the new website or something. That would
> be a more reasonable approach, IMO, as it would preserve the basic
> design and spirit of the logo, maintain the recognition among the
> community (however low you might think it is) and keep it compatible
> with derivative library-specific logos, but still freshen it up a bit
> and make it blend better with the new website.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
Thank you,
Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/