Proposal description
This decision proposal is cross-posted from https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-visual-identity-tharp-clark.33043/
Logo by Tharp + Clark
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 discussion. 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 Ogilvy + Mather can be found at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-om-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 Tharp + Clark
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 discussion. 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 Ogilvy + Mather can be found at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-om-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
What I am affraid of is that some MNO have already voted and will be to lazy/forgetfull/slip their mind/etc to change there vote from no to yes. I am close to 100% certain that is the casing reading and seeing how many people changed their minds a couple of day's later after seeing this one.
Link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_-m5wcBR0
I am not a fan of the O&M logo either!
Sometimes if you've been staring at words too long they start falling apart.
Just my opinion
I think that OM seem a bit old school and perhaps don't understand what DASH is really about. I think that a more dynamic up to date PR firm would be a better choice.
I feel our current logo works better because
a) simpler
b) we don't see the word "ash"
c) Our current logo gives a sense of speed e.g. Instant send being one of the best features of DASH.
d) We don't have to worry about re-branding all our previous work.
Therefore my decision is our current logo is better than these two logos designs. Therefore voting "NO" to both logo designs.
I disagree about keeping the current logo. I think our current logo is barely legible and is not suited at all as we move forward with evolution.
Tharp & Clark have produced something quite brilliant, very versatile and very readable... and there is a good reason for this, they know their stuff.
Michael Tharp is ex partner at Lippincott, brand strategy and design. One of the top 5 brand consulting companies in the world.
I agree with everything djcrypt0 has said in his comments below, so rather than rehash, scroll down and take a look if you haven't already.
T&C for the win!
Thanks guys
To answer your question, no, I do not see the word "oogle" when using Google . Probably the reason for that is because the letters are all standing on their own with the Google trademark possibly because they are different colours which makes it not possible to see different words in the google logo.
Different colours would obviously not work with our logo of course as we want a feeling of consistency and stability to our brand as it is to do with finance. Google wants to portray is creativity, flexibility and playfulness. We obviously don't want that in something like a currency.
What I like so far about the work this team have done on this version of the logo is this:
a) the new color is good I would say better than our current because it is fresher and more optimistic
b) the softer rounder letter structure. I agree with that design.
c) the lean forward.
d) the D which can be made into the unique logo D on its own.
e) overlap with our current logo. Consideration has been given to our current ecosystem and to the work that has been done previously.
All of the above are positives for the work done so far. However the fact still remains as I see it and is the reason why I still vote NO this logo has the word "ash" standing out. Not just partially but prominently. This is not the case with our current logo because everything is caps meaning the first letter is not sufficiently distinguished as separate from the trailing letters. In this logo they are.
If this logo could be tweaked to keep the elements that work but deal with the issue of the word "ash" standing out I could see this as going a long way to improving this logo but as it stands right now my vote remains NO.
You talk about a fact that dash reads as ash, but be honest and hold the same 'fact' in your mind, go view O&M's logo and you will probably find yourself seeing ASH stand out as well, with your eve drawn to the A.
Tharp has the hyphen (an actual dash) in the D, which reinforces the brand as being Dash. The h is the same height as the D, which balances out the logo and ties it together. And it works both fractally and as a whole.
Our current logo is too robotic and militaristic, so far less likely to attract the mainstream. And it is barely legible in comparison.
Tharp & Clark for the win by a mile!
Run a test. Print out the logo. Don't say any words to lead anyone's thinking, but just show it to your friends, family and colleagues. You might find they will read Dash every time as Dash as their first response.
Peace
Assuming this logo is the top voted at the end of the cycle, when are other projects in the network supposed to switch over to it? Will there be additional rounds of revision or is everyone more or less supposed to switch over as quickly as possible?
My reasoning for this is because its main purpose is to be viewed on a screen!
This is not an art contest (which logo you like more), but a strategic decision (which logo will help us achieve our goals).
But is that what we have here? Does our "exact demographic target market" = early adopter techy/finance/freedom-lovers who have been working with specific images with which they've spent years with and have a strong emotional investment?
Or is the target market the "average user" as core requested O&M to create a logo to appeal to?
If we're the only users of the technology then yes we are the target market. But I hope you agree we want a look that fits with the "mass adoption" this community has been talking about.
To me the best option of all is to have another large survey comparing the "actual original" logo directly with O&M and T&C's logo (along with perhaps other random icons/logos). Then we will have more concrete data with which to make decisions, instead of going with our own biased feelings/opinions.
Regarding target market, I think the top priority is to serve your current user base. If you can tweak your brand such that you don't lose your base, and yet can appeal to a wider audience, even better.
That's exactly what T&M was designed for, and that's exactly what it's doing.
The big thing that really made it for me was seeing the mock-ups of real world use cases and seeing how poorly O&M's logo scaled (especially at small scale). The T&C logo scales beautifully and while I was initially put off by how far the "dash" protruded from the D, at small scales, it actually makes the "D" stand out and catch your eye and draw it in, one of those little subtle graphic design things that makes all the difference.
It's more reserved, but ultimately probably a better choice for Dash.
Read the slide deck - it's like they have some insider help?
I think this is an improvement worth pursuing.
Notable features:
-Friendlier with more curved edges and a more approachable and easier to read font with lowercase "ash". Less objectionable for increased adoption.
-The "Dollar, Euro, Yen" all have lowercase letters. If Dash is to be a "currency", it should have similar formatting.
-Doesn't seem like an acronym like with the "all caps" of the incumbent design
-Is evolutionary and provides continuity to existing design. If some people don't "update" it's not an obvious, major distraction
-Retains the iconic "D" for continuity and ability to integrate into viral marketing, t-shirts, possible Unicode symbol integration and eliminates wasted space (compared to O&M)
-The logo can allow Dash to be a verb in marketing
-Provides a professional slide deck with more common, easier to use font than incumbent
-Support for continuous improvement and a "living design" going forward with a solid company that understands the project.
As a bonus: Voting Yes for this proposal rewards an entrepreneurial firm that wasn't guaranteed anything but did a great job and nailed it, in my opinion.
Free market FTW!
Thank you, Tharp & Clark.
I used to be in your camp. However, I ask you to reconsider voting to keep the existing logo, and rather vote for T&C, even if it's not 100% what you want. The stakes are too high to roll the dice with another round of rebrands. T&C is close enough for me:
- It is amenable to a currency ticker
- It retains many good aspects of the current logo (iconic D, forward slant, solid blue color, scales well, etc.)
- It includes many improvements (lowercase, scaled back masculinity without going overboard, etc)
Again, please vote T&C so that there's no risk of losing what you love in a later round. We can always iterate on our base design, unless we lose it completely to a design that throws so much of it away, like O&M.
With that said, let the voting begin!
But try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who's never seen or heard of Dash before. What do you see? Looked at from afar (or up close) it's difficult to tell what this is.
I always see "ash" after a "power on/off" symbol. You have to either already know what Dash is, or have it explained to you. Not good for mass adoption.
The O&M logo doesn't need explanation. It's just a symbol. Who cares where it comes from (chains, layers, whatev) - do you know the meaning behind overlapping red and yellow circles? Nobody cares, except for trivia buffs, and no one needs to know as long as it's recognizable.
Core went to O&M and requested the creation of a logo that appeals to "the average person" and it's apparently what we got - my own *anecdotal* evidence (since everyone is sharing) is my friends prefer the O&M logo. This baffles me, but think about it.... maybe you just like the more familiar "Dash" because *you're* used to it. And the O&M logo *is* recognizable/memorable/preferable for some reason. But don't just take your own anecdotal evidence, do a large survey. Oh wait we already have one.
To be honest, I don't much like the O&M logo because it seems too busy and complicated, and if I had to draw it myself I couldn't get it right - but maybe that's not important as long as it's recognizable. Ideally I'd prefer a recognizable symbol, like a shape or graphic. But it shouldn't really about what I want or prefer, but what is best for the network. Right?
Unfortunately, I've come to dislike the T&C logo due to the "ash" and "power on/off symbol" issue. Why don't we have O&M come up with something else, since it is part of their contract?
I applaud O&M for having taken a risk and going all the way (I wished T&C had done the same actually), but perhaps they went one step too far, as the Dash identity is completely lost.
We really need a rebranding and the T&C logo is an improvement over the current logo.. so voting yes.
https://cl.ly/2H1O3S2C2s0T
Our Logo should excite people and build a community, not a company.
If i had to choose, i would choose T&C, much better thought process and knowledge of Dash needs. This logo or something like it grows with Dash, not totally blow out the current image, build upon it.
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.
2. Somewhat disagree.
3. Completely agree.
I think a better approach would have been two rounds of voting.
- Round 1: O&M vs T&C, highest points moves to round 2.
- Round 2: Winner of round 1 vs existing brand.
Round 2 would be a normal funding vote where implementation costs are included. The normal supermajority would be required. To me that seems the most accurate and least controversial/contentious path forward for such a critical decision.
It's too generic and that paperclip look when it's used as an icon just kills it for me.