According to a news release put out by Church of God Ministries today the new logo revealed without much fanfare Monday is only something they are "experimenting" with. They are seeking feedback on the new design.
Also included in the release are some explanations for the design elements of the logo. It helps explain what went into it, but it fails to tell a compelling story. That is disappointing. I believe that there is much more that could be said about the logo as it is.
Apart from these weak launch details, I really do like the logo. The previous logo is over 30 years old, and does not connect with our constituency or the wider world today. Most of the comments I have heard have been positive. Of course there are the naysayers who dislike change or who do not really get the significance of a logo and the identity and symbolism it provides for us.
With all the talk about "Be Bold" the last few days I do not understand the timidity with which this logo is being presented. We will never get consensus on a new logo, and if anything waffling will only cause confusion. The homework has been done. Let's move forward with this new identity. At minimum it expresses that a new day has dawned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What is our identity? I mean seriously. When I was young I knew who the Church of God was and I was so proud to be a part of the reformation movement. In days past I would have never even thought of leaving the Church of God movement. I can't honestly say that today. We have no identity anymore. And we will continue to have no identity as long as we honestly believe that moving the National Convention or changing the logo is a step in the right direction. This will do nothing. It MAY affect the numbers for a few years. But for the long term this is meaningless. Do we honestly believe that most people were simply waiting for a change of location to peak their interest in the convention??? I'm sure there are some that couldn't come because of the distance. But now we have moved it from others and they won't come. The point is distance will always be an issue no matter what. And maybe I'm crazy but I can't imagine that many people are very excited to go to Anderson to watch the convention on a screen.
Do we honestly believe a change to our logo means anything? We can say what we want about marketing. I can't remember the exact quote or who even said it. But it was something like...there was no breathe of professionalism in the ministry of the apostle Paul and thank God there is no breathe of commercialism either.
This logo is sad. It looks like something from an agricultural or recycling company. The cross is about as close as you can possibly get to not actually being a cross (and it is hidden well in the logo). There are no flames at all in this logo. This is a meaningless change. Someone wrote in your last post about the sad number of Pastors who are involved with state and national ministry. They have no reason to be involved. Any opposition to anything is labeled negative...or not relevant...etc.. I am deeply troubled by the state of the Church of God movement. I remember when I was very young growing up in a pastors home we would have revival meetings and the speaker usually stayed in our home. One of the greatest blessings was hearing them just talk around the dinner table about the truths we stood on as a movement. I was so moved and proud to be a part of this movement that stood on these truths. What happened? What are we doing??? Who are we? I don't know what the Church of God movement stands on or believes anymore. And I really don't believe Anderson does either.
It's easy to make the unsubstantiated statement that our old logo doesn't connect with our constituency, or the world around us, but why? You have said nothing to prove that. And furthermore, nothing to prove that a new one will make any difference at all. Please give some proof of these statements so we actually have something to discuss besides your opinion.
AMEN!!!! to these two comments
You stated "The homework has been done", but I am wondering how much really went into this logo?
A good portion of the explanation that you describe as "disappointing" was taken word for word from this website: http://www.empower-yourself-with-color-psychology.com/color-blue.html The text about the colors blue and green was posted on this website in 2009. I am wondering what the source for the remainder was?
After I pointed this out on the Facebook page, they altered the news article to remove the entire explanation. Compare the original here: https://web.archive.org/web/20131128153613/http://chognews.org/2013/11/27/why-a-new-logo/ to the current version here: http://chognews.org/2013/11/27/why-a-new-logo/
Now the article makes no sense at all...
The explanation given for the removal of portions of the article was that it, "contained un-original work product." If they truly put time and prayerful consideration into this, how did half of the meaning behind it end up being copied from dubious sources?
I have asked numerous times for an explanation as to why this was done to no avail. In fact, they keep deleting my posts questioning this issue. It seems we keep moving towards being a "de-facto" denomination where decisions are made by the few, handed down from above...
Post a Comment