The biggest complaint I’ve heard about the new UUA logo isn’t that it looks like <fill in the blank with whatever you’re projecting on to it>, it’s the cost that goes into branding. Because that money could best be spent on <fill in the blank with whatever your pet peeve/cause is>.
Look, we all have different ideas of where the money should best be spent. And it’s easy to say we should be spending that money on, let’s say, feeding x number of hungry people. But the same could be said for staff salaries, seminary scholarships, and anything else that costs money.
There are folks who are saying we need a mission first or a common theology first. Ok. You go do that then. The staff power that went into making this logo is not the same staff power that would be making a mission and theology. And, let’s be honest here, if the UUA put out a unifying mission and theology, everyone would universally loathe it because it came from the top down, and/or didn’t match with what you thought it should be.
The conventional medicine typically offers in this situation just symptomatic treatment sildenafil tablets australia with painkillers or unsafe endoscopic manipulations. Great news for those who are suffering from anxiety http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/metis/ cheap cialis without prescription or just in need of a good nights’ sleep; Lavender will almost certainly do the trick. For men, it is their proud to use their cheap viagra mastercard power to meet mutual satisfaction, for women, they certainly attractive in sexual gratification. This drug focuses on strengthening the proficiency of the brain and increases blood circulation. prescription for ordering viagra The matter of a common mission/vision/theology is pretty much impossible to do with our structure. It’d have to go through General Assembly I imagine, and with that, it would be beaten to death in a committee. Meanwhile, a logo/brand is something that the UUA should be doing as an institution for itself. This is not a logo/brand that every UU and every UU congregation must use or face the consequences. This is not something that should be put to GA for a vote either like Tom Schade (satirically) suggests – this is something the UUA should be doing. In the end, it’s the logo of the UUA and UUA staff.
Yes, I can nitpick about what it looks like, sure. (I think it kinda looks like a tongue. And I like the gradient and I really like the font.) But that’s also the easy way out. Because how are we trying to push our own personal and congregational brand in our local communities? The time we spend venting about the UUA branding and how we don’t like it – how was that time spent bring UUism into your local community, through personal and congregational evangelism? This is just as valid as the question of how the money the UUA is spending on this branding process could be spend elsewhere.
I’m all for the UUA spending time and money on branding and a logo. It’s desperately needed, especially in our social media age. I say go forth and ignore the haters UUA and keep doing what you should be doing.
I stand by my comment that it’s ugly, and more becoming of a profit-generating enterprise than a faith.
That’s the trouble with UUism, really. It’s too embedded in our culture and economy, taking cues from it instead of projecting leadership into it. So in that way the logo signals who we are *perfectly*.
You never, ever take the adoption of a logo to a vote of a large voting body. That route is always doomed to fail, because it’s impossible to reach a consensus on something as subjective as a logo.
That being said, the approach taken in unveiling this logo is all wrong. The document provided by the UUA specifically says the logo is the first step in developing a more forward facing brand, and they look forward to discussing with congregations how this logo can fit int he directions they decide to move in. NO. Those discussions should take place before creating the visual identity. The visual identity is fueled by those discussions. To go this route risks finding six or eight months down the line this visual representation is counter to what the brand should be, and you’ll need to go back to the drawing board in developing a design. It;s putting the cart before the horse.
Tim, my suggestion to take it to the General Assembly was entirely satirical and ironic. I guess I left off the LOL.
Whoopsiedoodle. Made a note that it was satirical in the link.
Let’s just say, I’m wouldn’t have been surprised if that were an actual call on some fb post somewhere about this.
[…] Atkins defends the branding effort against complaints about […]
I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s entirely appropriate for the UUA to be doing logo creation and branding. And anything they created would have people who didn’t like it. I do kind of like it, but if I didn’t, I hope I would stand where I stand now, which is saying that I’m glad they’re thinking about this and doing it, even if it’s not to my taste. It frees us up to do theology and mission the more they help with branding and the way we can get our message out there with consistency.