Proposal description
This decision proposal is cross-posted from https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-visual-identity-ogilvy-mather.33042/
Logo by Ogilvy + Mather
This is one part of a two-part decision proposal for the selection of a new visual identity concept for the Dash network. Two independent proposals have been submitted to the network for consideration and the better-supported of the two proposals will be selected for the final design. Should both proposals receive a net “no” vote, the current Dash logo will be retained.
Given the above structure, if you prefer the current brand, you should vote “no” on both proposals. If you prefer them both over the current logo, you may elect to vote “yes” on both proposals. A vote of “abstain” will have no effect on the final selection.
We would like to keep the discussion across both proposals in one place and we are designating the pre-proposal thread for that purpose. The pre-proposal (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) provides the background, context and process through which each firm arrived at their proposal. The pre-proposal post includes links to presentations on each of the logo options, including examples of watermarks, visual queues, color palettes, and backgrounds.
The proposal for the competing visual identity concept designed by Tharp + Clark can be found at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-tc-201804
As a reminder, the proposal that gets the most positive net votes will be the one selected, regardless of whether it garners the necessary 10% to fund. Again, this is not a funding proposal, but a decision proposal between these options. If neither proposal achieves positive net votes, then we plan to keep the current logo.
The rationale for not requiring a 10% threshold for this set of proposals is because the proposal system was designed for individual proposals. Submitting two independent (but thematically linked) proposals for voting and including the option to vote both “yes” and “no” effectively gives an inherent advantage to the current logo. We assume that many voters who support a design change will split “yes” and “no” votes across the competing proposals, even if they prefer both logos over the current one. Combined with “no” / “no” votes cast by supporters of the current logo, it is feasible we will see more “no” votes than “yes” overall. In this situation, it may be difficult for one of the new options to maintain positive net votes, let alone pass the 10% threshold, unless there is strong support for one option. This creates an “incumbent advantage” for the existing logo, which is appropriate given the costs of changing branding and adopting a new logo are high.
This “incumbent advantage” can be eliminated by the voters supporting a new logo, if they so choose, by voting “yes” on their preferred new logo and “abstain” rather than “no” on the competing logo proposal if they also prefer the second logo over the current one. They can also vote “yes” to both if they prefer both to the old logo. The governance system allows you to change your vote after you cast it by voting again. Keep this in mind if your opinion changes or you are unsure how you would like to split your votes across “yes” “no” and “abstain”.
A minimum of 20% vote (954 votes cast minimum for each proposal, including “abstains”) is necessary for a proposal to pass.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @fernando in the original pre-proposal Dash Forum post (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the April 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash decision proposal reimbursement
Logo by Ogilvy + Mather
This is one part of a two-part decision proposal for the selection of a new visual identity concept for the Dash network. Two independent proposals have been submitted to the network for consideration and the better-supported of the two proposals will be selected for the final design. Should both proposals receive a net “no” vote, the current Dash logo will be retained.
Given the above structure, if you prefer the current brand, you should vote “no” on both proposals. If you prefer them both over the current logo, you may elect to vote “yes” on both proposals. A vote of “abstain” will have no effect on the final selection.
We would like to keep the discussion across both proposals in one place and we are designating the pre-proposal thread for that purpose. The pre-proposal (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) provides the background, context and process through which each firm arrived at their proposal. The pre-proposal post includes links to presentations on each of the logo options, including examples of watermarks, visual queues, color palettes, and backgrounds.
The proposal for the competing visual identity concept designed by Tharp + Clark can be found at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-tc-201804
As a reminder, the proposal that gets the most positive net votes will be the one selected, regardless of whether it garners the necessary 10% to fund. Again, this is not a funding proposal, but a decision proposal between these options. If neither proposal achieves positive net votes, then we plan to keep the current logo.
The rationale for not requiring a 10% threshold for this set of proposals is because the proposal system was designed for individual proposals. Submitting two independent (but thematically linked) proposals for voting and including the option to vote both “yes” and “no” effectively gives an inherent advantage to the current logo. We assume that many voters who support a design change will split “yes” and “no” votes across the competing proposals, even if they prefer both logos over the current one. Combined with “no” / “no” votes cast by supporters of the current logo, it is feasible we will see more “no” votes than “yes” overall. In this situation, it may be difficult for one of the new options to maintain positive net votes, let alone pass the 10% threshold, unless there is strong support for one option. This creates an “incumbent advantage” for the existing logo, which is appropriate given the costs of changing branding and adopting a new logo are high.
This “incumbent advantage” can be eliminated by the voters supporting a new logo, if they so choose, by voting “yes” on their preferred new logo and “abstain” rather than “no” on the competing logo proposal if they also prefer the second logo over the current one. They can also vote “yes” to both if they prefer both to the old logo. The governance system allows you to change your vote after you cast it by voting again. Keep this in mind if your opinion changes or you are unsure how you would like to split your votes across “yes” “no” and “abstain”.
A minimum of 20% vote (954 votes cast minimum for each proposal, including “abstains”) is necessary for a proposal to pass.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @fernando in the original pre-proposal Dash Forum post (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the April 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash decision proposal reimbursement
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
1. Scale of the mark to the topography is off.
2. The D in the DASH doesn't match the design of the overlayed D's
3. Gradient blend is busy and so the usable backgrounds would be limited.
5. Gradient blend would also make it expensive to print.
4. Coloring would be inconsistent across different printing processes.
6. Can't really be embroidered on polo shirts and what not.
She kept going, but I can't remember the rest.
It's sad that we already paid for an ugly and unusable logo.
Link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_-m5wcBR0
1 It only evaluated which is the best logo among 3, and the 2 other logo's are fairly bad;
2 They didn't even evaluate its performance compared to our current logo;
3 Many of the aspects on which they evaluated the logo's (solid, trustworthy, inspires confidence, global company) are not necessarily good aspects for Dash;
4 They didn't evaluate any other colour schemes;
5 The majority of their sample (80%) first world males who know about crypto is not our best target audience.
But I did add that it doesn't really affect the logo. If you personally like the O&M logo better, or it was a clear winner among your friends. That's a totally valid reason to choose this logo! Just don't base your decision on the research O&M provided because imho, the research is not very good and not very useful in making this decision.
(Forewarning: this is all "in my opinion")
- The proposed logo is not an upgrade or an evolution to our tried and tested logo (no pun intended) - it is a complete departure from our logo. O&M specializes in logo improvement but went a completely different route with Dash - why? This makes the proposed logo difficult to "evolve" because it is so far detached from an identifiable existing character that it must stand on its own. Being able to evolve a logo is necessary because it is already D.O.A. It is stated that the logo represents "2 tier blockchain", however Dash is going to a higher Dimension with 2+"tiers". Is the next step 3 Ds? I would much rather Dash have a chance to become a Unicode symbol that can stand alongside the € £ ¥. The proposed logo has little to no chance of that.
- A logo that stands on its own without the "name" of Dash incorporated into it may be ok if you have a billion dollar marketing budget to make it a household, recognizable symbol - but we don't - yet. I think we should be maximizing the marketing budget by maximizing the information presented in the initial impression of Dash to noobs with an easily identifiable character that can be linked to the word "Dash". To make it a verb, as in "to Dash". Not to "2 tier rainbow chain".
- The proposed symbol is difficult or impossible to incorporate into guerilla/grassroots/meme marketing materials. The "double D" doesn't work with "ash" to create "Dash", "Dashy" , "to Dash" or any other viral type of marketing. It is standalone and sterile. Perhaps appropriate for an established incumbent - not a startup that needs organic growth and viral community engagement. Mark Mason can't work with it. Nuff said.
- The "double D" symbol needs the "Dash-Digital Cash" presented as part of the logo in every case. We should be aiming to make Dash synonymous with "Digital Cash" in the public lexicon, not having to write it out every time to explain the logo. This detracts from the awesome potential value of the brand name and significance of "Dash". For example, you don't ask for a "tissue", you ask for a "kleenex". We should be aiming to make Dash the "kleenex" of cryptocurrency/digital cash. To become the household name for a segment is the ultimate goal and achievement. This requires the brand name to be visible in the symbol, IMO to get the most from the budget. With O&M branding power and Evolution platform, I think it should be a goal, albeit lofty. "Shoot for the stars..."
- With the logo and "Dash - Digital Cash" required on all promotional materials, there is a huge amount of space taken up and is redundant and obtuse. Why must we write a dissertation to describe the logo? If you have to explain it, it's too complicated. K.I.S.S. principles apply, especially with limited budgets.
- The survey data presented does not use the actual Dash "D" logo in the blue colour and is therefore flawed. This research is meaningless. If O&M conducts research like this it is not indicative of an honest practice.
-The logo is not recognizable from a distance and looks like a rainbow unicorn's horseshoes at best, and slavery chains at worst, as claimed by impressions received by Drako at KuvaCash. Do we want to risk being associated with that for little to no reward?
In conclusion, you can see there are many technical arguments against this proposal, besides the many obvious social stigma arguments against the design, on which I have decided not to elucidate.
I hope you consider these (and other) arguments before voting.
I'll start with some points of agreement - Yes, the O&M logo does seem "busy" and from far away perhaps not recognizable. To be honest, I'm not so much a fan of the O&M logo though it is growing on me, but the T&C seems even worse. From afar or up close, it looks like "ash" and a power on/off symbol! How do you know what it even is, unless you already know Dash? Then you still need to also say "Digital Cash" which you've agreed takes up space, but also run the risk of misinterpretation: "ash - Digital Cash with a tilted power button" (?!)
I agree the survey data may be inaccurate. I'd like more comparative research done, with what we're actually comparing (T&C, O&M, and actual original). And in the end, I think the results of that data is more important than any of our own personal feelings.
I would prefer to have O&M to make another attempt, because it's part of their contract. Even though I'm not a big fan of this O&M logo, and think the T&C one is more confusing, a lot of your arguments don't make much sense to me.
Who cares if the logo can stand on its own or not? The Linux logo is a penguin. If you see the penguin next to the word Linux, do you think it's too wordy? I don't think so. The Wi-Fi symbol is a few curved lines. It's not one of the letters W-I-F-I but it's still recognizable. The medical logo is a winged caduceus. That's super busy and few can even draw it, but everyone can recognize it.
Who cares what the logo "symbolizes" (2 tiers or chains of blocks or anything else). No one knows what red and orange intersecting circles means, except for trivia buffs, but it is recognizable and memorable. The logo just needs to be recognizable, and if someone finds out it means that back in the history of Dash we used to use a chain of blocks oh and there used to be 2 tiers then that's kinda cool for the history major, but no average person needs to know or care as long as they can recognize the logo.
We don't need to "evolve" everything just because the code name of our main product is called "Evolution" - that doesn't make sense either. What we need is a recognizable logo that the average person likes, trusts, remembers. Not sure if that's the O&M logo or not, but to say it's not an "evolution" isn't really relevant.
Unless you're talking about losing all of the "brand recognition" that we've built up. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we have consistently less than 1% of the entire crypto space market share, which of course is less than 1% of the entire financial sphere. We're so small and it's still incredibly early days.
I don't think we should let our attachment to our own feelings get in the way of the bigger picture. I'm not sure if the O&M logo is the best, but what I know is... core reached out to O&M to request a logo that could appeal to the average person. Apparently this is what we got. Do we want to go with what the "experts" and "market research" and experience say? Or do we stick with our own personal preferences? That seems to be what this decision is about.
- Le choix est orienté vers les autres ceux qui ne sont pas dans Dash. Comme évolution est tourné vers les autres.
- L'étude Ogilvy & Mather existe et fait clairement resortir que ce qui s'approche de l'ancien logo et donc de celui proposé par T&C, est ce qui est le moins bien noté, et celui qu'i s'approche le plus du leur est le mieux noté. Il n'y as pas d'autre étude qui viendrait à ce jour prouver le contraire. Seulement des spéculations.
- Les gens veront principalement ce logo sur : les sites webs, leur télephone et sur les deventures des magasins. regardez de nouveaux les exemples a ces endroits. Les T-shirts sont juste pour nous les fans, pas pour les utilisateurs.
- Nous allons devenir plus grand que Bitcoin et Eth, nous allons sortir du petit monde des crypto pour passer dans le monde réel, une simple petite lettre ne peut pas nous résumer.
Ce nouveau design est pour permettre l'adoption de masse, non pas pour réconforter la communauté, nous n'avons pas besoin de ça, nous connaisons la technologie, nous sommes Dash.
Pensez evolution penssez adoption de masse, pensez aux autres.
#######################
English google translation :
I voted for Ogilvy & Mather, my reasons are:
- The choice is directed towards others who are not in Dash. As evolution is turned to others.
- The Ogilvy & Mather study exists and makes it clear that what comes close to the old logo and therefore the one proposed by T & C, is what is the least rated, and the one that comes closest to theirs is the highest rated. There is no other study to prove the opposite. Only speculations.
- People will mainly see this logo on: the web sites, their phone and on the stores' deventures. look at the examples again at these places. T-shirts are just for us fans, not for users.
- We are going to become bigger than Bitcoin and Eth, we are going to come out of the crypto little world to get into the real world, a simple little letter can not sum us up.
This new design is to allow mass adoption, not to comfort the community, we do not need that, we know the technology, we are Dash.
Think evolution think mass adoption, think of others.
I already left a comment in the pre-proposal thread that is referenced (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/page-7), but since there are also comments being placed on Dash Central (which is only natural) i will copy my comment onto Dash Central as well.
I decided to vote for the Ogilvy & Mather logo design as it seems the most eye-catching and unique logo design of the three logo's, most capable of reaching its planned target group :
* male
* age 30-49
* non-tech savy, mainstream
Link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nCpQdZQfdVF7IriKVmUnWLLDAOlN916O/view
I would have preferred a double-layered DC in this design instead of the double-layered DD as that would make the connection to Digital Cash far more easy to make while maintaining the double layer message, but in the end a good and consistant marketing campaign should drive the double-layer message through anyways.
This is not an art contest (which logo you like more), but a strategic decision (which logo will help us achieve our goals).
With that said, let the voting begin!
Sorry, while I agree it's difficult to cast away personal preferences, I think it's more important to listen to the experience of others and look at the data (of which we perhaps do not have much that's accurate yet), and make decisions based on your analysis of that. Not take the anecdotal opinions of a few people you talk to.
1. The "DD" logo stands for Dash DAO; a movement for change, a voice for freedom "Digital Cash" is just a strapline, a much smaller part of what dash truly is. If you're voting for currency symbols, you've forgotten what dash stands for.
2. I reject comments that O&M's logo is too "corporate". Who says a DAO can't be professional and compete with visa and mastercard?
3. I am outraged that Core feels they can ignore the rules of super majority. If one of these logo "wins" according to their newly invented rules, I will be causing havoc. In particular, I may attempt to overturn the decision via the newly formed dash trust i.e. Core must abide by masternode wishes. This is governance by blockchain, not Core. To be clear, in the most recent conference call, Ryan said the treasury / governance system was working as planned, that any updates to it were considered low priority.
While the O&M logo is well presented, I think it’s more likely to attract short term speculators rather than to be positioned for mass adoption.