Proposal: Visual Identity - Ogilvy & Mather

[glennaustin]

This decision proposal is cross-posted at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-om-201804

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

Manually vote YES on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many 669d6c54e2c2e3c086a3f246ae681f65da14d67aac04a17ab0994abda367884c funding yes
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many 669d6c54e2c2e3c086a3f246ae681f65da14d67aac04a17ab0994abda367884c funding yes

Manually vote NO on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many 669d6c54e2c2e3c086a3f246ae681f65da14d67aac04a17ab0994abda367884c funding no
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many 669d6c54e2c2e3c086a3f246ae681f65da14d67aac04a17ab0994abda367884c funding no

 

[TheBigCat]

This logo has no sense of movement to it at all. The double D’s over the word “Dash” do nothing for it. The font itself looks somewhat primitive almost like it is for a children’s toy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[demo]

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.

Although I may not disagree with your rationale, you should have firstly put your rationale into a vote, then put your current proposal into a vote.

It is unfair for this governance decision to pass based on the above unvoted rationale, while other similar decisions to be considered as rejected (like the adaptive proposal fee of @GrandMasterDash which also received more "yes" votes than "no" votes)

more info here.