********QUOTE ********Hi Max. This is Santi, MD at Ogilvy Madrid. Thank you for participating in the logo debate! I answer you at each point: HI SANTI, THANKS FOR COMING BACK WITH YOUR COMMENTS I ANSWER INLINE BELOW.
1. The Dash brand is not widely known outside the cryptocurrency sector, but within the sector it has a recognisable mark that has gained considerable equity. The 'D' mark with '-' is a very clever and original device - a hint to the 'blockchain' while also mirroring 'C' which indicates 'Cash'. In addition to this, it is minimal while being bold enough to stand out and be seen, for example, a tiny app logo as seen on a hardware wallet, or coin list on an exchange. It would be good if we could retain our heritage in the brand - if you look at other world-leading brands (Ford, Starbucks, McD's etc) you'll note that if the original brand really did stand on its feet and achieved recognition, it was then very carefully tweaked over many years to keep it in line with modern styling. I like that Michael and Chris were humble enough to go 'full circle' on the brand and arrive at the conclusion that the 'D' mark was essential to retain.
In our opinión, Dash should have an image that reflect that it is a challenger brand in a challenging category. Per our research, 83% of people that are familiar to cryptocurrencies dont even know that Dash exist, while only 9% dont recognize Bitcoin.
Changing our logo and branding is an opportunity to stand out faster in the category. Dash should shout out that it is the next big thing in crypto, not only make an evolution of the current logo. SURE BUT THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE BRAND IDENTITY TO HAVE LONGEVITY AS WELL AS BEING NOTICED
There is a huge opportunity to stand out and to present ourselves as a brand that aims to lead the change in the cryptocurrency world and this was the goal of this exercise when Dash board contacted us. THIS IS STILL THE AIM, FOR ANY BRAND REPRESENTING INNOVATION
2. The O&M logo has several technical issues - for one, using gradient colours and especially hot pink and electric blue is very seldom used in logos - for good reason (note on my attached file the lack of any logos in that colour space). It is difficult to produce the colour gamut across print/web/mobile and in balance with background images, and the colors clash terribly. Pink and electric blue are non-serious 'funtimes consumer brand' colours (Ben and Jerry's, Tampax from the '90's, Barney the Dinosaur...), NOT colours to build a brand that will be storing your money. See the large colour gaps in the brand colour wheel attached, and the kinds of brands that are close to those colours - there's a reason for that gap and it's not because a 'zany' colour scheme has longevity.
Our logo and branding proposal tries to turn Dash current image into a challenger. We have merged Dash ́s “D” with the core of the technology – the blockchain – so we reflect that “Dash is THE blockchain” with a modern and sharpy design. I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THIS, BUT IT'S NEITHER ORIGINAL, DISTINCT OR CLEVER. WERE THERE OTHER OPTIONS?
We have introduced a challenging pink color mixed with the current blue one, trying to stand out without losing our essence. You could say pink is an odd color for finance. Though, it has been successfully used by Virgin ́s Northern Rock bank and Shawbrook Bank in the UK, Self Bank in Spain or Bank of Australia. All of them brilliant challengers in the financial industry. IT'S AN ODD COLOUR FOR FINANCE, NORTHERN ROCK WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND HAD TO BE ACQUIRED BY VIRGIN. ARGUABLY SELF BANK IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EXECUTION TO HOW YOUR TEAM HAS DONE IT (NO GRADIENTS, FLAT MIX COLOURS), AND THEREFORE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCHEME. SAME EXACT COMMENT GOES FOR BANK AUSTRALIA.
It stands out in the crypto world. Only a clear winner, full of confidence, would choose pink, as Richard Branson once did with Northern Rock. Gradients are only a visual resource. It is a great resource to mix two colors, as we want to do with blue and pink. Instagram logo does the same with pink and yellow. YOU DID NOT ADDRESS MY COLOUR WHEEL ARGUMENT, IT CAN BE A GOOD IDEA TO COMBINE COLOURS BUT NOT IN THE WAY THAT YOUR TEAM APPEARS TO HAVE DONE.
In case the gradient is not applicable, we also suggested uses of the logo with different flat colors that also work well for the brand. NOT SURE WHAT 'NOT APPLICABLE' MEANS - FOR THE MONEY SPENT ON THIS, IT SHOULD BE A FLAWLESS EXECUTION
3. In the O&M logo, the DASH font itself in the legend is not balanced, being too tall with mis-spaced kerning between characters. The 'Double D' mark and style and even the colour is not original at all, it is also non-distinct (read: blurry and barely recognisable at a distance) and does not match or balance with the font that the underlying DASH is written in, and furthermore has an unbalanced tilt. PLEASE CAN YOU ADDRESS THIS. THERE ARE OBVIOUS TECHNICAL ERRATA HERE. THESE ARE RUDIMENTARY MISTAKES THAT A BRAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SHOULD NOT MAKE, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS.
4. The concept of the double-D looks like a pair of shackles (google 'Slave shackles' if you want to see what I mean) - I was particularly not happy about this, as my own project is launching Dash in Africa and I think that even though it is unintentional, once you see it, it's difficult not to make that association.
I HAVE READ THE STUDY, IT WAS AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, EXTREMELY POORLY DESIGNED, THERE WAS NO QUALITATIVE PHASE OF SUBSTANCE, AND I DON'T SEE THAT WORK WAS DONE TO ENSURE THE RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN APPROPRIATELY SCREENED NOR THE CORRECT CONTEXTUALISATION GIVEN. WHO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED THIS STUDY, AND ON WHAT PLATFORM? WAS THIS DONE BY A THIRD PARTY, AND WHO DESIGNED THE RESEARCH PROCESS?
Regardless of our personal opinions, we have compared Dash current logo with our new proposal and the facts show (current Dash logo vs. Proposed O&M Logo)
1. “Grabs your attention the most”: +46 pp. (11,8% vs. 57.8%)
2. “You like the most”: +35,2 pp. (17,5% vs. 52,7)
3. “Technological company, innovative, forward-thinking and modern”: +18,6 pp. (26,7
vs. 45,3%)
“Solid company, trustworthy and that inspires confidence”: +18,6 pp. (26,7% vs. 45,3%)
4. “Global company, with international presence, a leader”: +12,2 pp. (24,9% vs. 37,1%)
AS ABOVE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A PROPER STUDY WAS DONE, BUT SOME KIND OF ONLINE SURVEY
And over all:
“Which one do you like the most?”: +32,1pp. (12,8% vs. 44,9%)
You can see all the results in the documents attached to this proposal. I'VE BEEN THROUGH IT IN SOME DETAIL - IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A SOLID STUDY.
Will post up more comments/critique in a bit, hope this is helpful.
Comments inline to yours above;
