Mozilla underwent through a Brand transformation and the new Branding guidelines were released. Gradually, the Brand guidelines were applicable on the various products, projects and programs. In accordance with this change, the Mozilla Reps logo needed the brand alignment as well.
The Mozilla Reps Council got in touch with the Mozilla Branding Team and as per the guidelines, a new logo was approved during the All Hands. The Reps Council is happy to share the new logo of Mozilla Reps.
I like it somewhat better than the first drafts we saw long ago, though I have slight issues with how the word “Reps” somewhat doesn’t fit with the Mozilla logo in terms of size and the “p” but I guess that can’t be done much differently (just somewhat disturbing optically).
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Mozilla logo and the red icon with the “Reps” looks good and fitting as well, though somehow it doesn’t completely gel optically - not that I’d have a better idea though.
What I like less is that it feels like in the end, this version all was drafted, decided and finalized behind closed doors and we can only accept it. But I guess in a large organization, that’s how things work.
Overall, it’s time we update the new Mozilla style and thanks to everyone involved for the work put into it!
I’m happy that you’re stating this as a feeling and not as a fact, thanks. There were previous discussions on Discourse:
I’d argue that at least “drafting” was very much done in the open. From what I see in those threads summarizes to the following:
Nobody gave feedback for the icon part of it
Regarding color, most people wanted the reddish-color as it’s “as close as possible” to the previous logo
Now, that’s the reason why the icon is the same as in the draft, there apparently was no reason to change it. For the color, listening to the feedback was very much done and it was made even closer to the previous one (really hard to define that logo’s color as it has a gradient). Now, so far I’d say that was pretty open.
Coming to the alignment of Reps/mozilla. This is part of the overall branding guidelines, there was not much differentiation possible. Yes, it could be a more open and documented process there, that seems like a different can of worms to go into, as branding is not program-dependent but the whole organisation.
The decision to change the logo was made a long time ago, I didn’t see anybody speaking out against it in the drafting phase.
The finalizing didn’t leave a lot of options open, considering brand guidelines and the feedback there already was. I would love to hear what you would have done better or any suggestions for the future from your side. I heavily doubt an open vote or similar would have made remotely sense, due to the facts stated above. Happy to have you disagree with me though.
It may just be the feeling that it took a long time so there must have been a lot of back and forth behind the scenes. But maybe it was just that some involved party dropped the ball for some time due to being overloaded with work (I know how that feels). Also, missing the reasoning you brought in now was not referred to or listed in the post of the new logo makes it feel more distant in decision-making to me than when you put it in context like you did in your reply.
Come on Michael. You’re being disingenuous through omission.
After 6 whole months of zero momentum. I got stuck in with some new designs. For you to state “nobody gave feedback for the icon part of it” is not a representation of the facts…
- New Reps Logo (post 8 )through…
- New Reps Logo (post 23)
…is me drafting designs in frustration. I exist.
Now 10 months after the original design we’re presented with a design which we did not vote on.
It’s not exactly optimal on dark backgrounds either for the record…
Just another point, I was not personally involved on that but I followed the status in the last year inside the lasts council.
We had the problem explained by Michael during the time of guidelines. We got it a lot of drafts and proposals from the community but at the end they wasn’t fit with the guidelines.
Council members got a lot of meetings with brand team about it, initially for our red that wasn’t available and later to define the positions of mozilla logo.
At the end this logo was the only choice so this was also one of the reason we didn’t make a public vote.
We had also discussion inside the council about it and mainly to keep our red and this taken a long time to have the guidelines updated. Later when we discussed with the position we had no choice, so I understand the feeling that wasn’t open to the community but we had no choice.
The problem of guidelines is happening also in many other communities because the rules are very strict and there is no such margin to vote in some cases.
The logo drafts didn’t strike me as feedback on the icon though, as you were using the same icon as well, just in different shapes (round for example) additionally to the old one. I have not seen Reps Rebranding - Next Steps indeed though. Fair enough. Sorry.
