Comments on: Vote: Is Our Age a Benefit or a Liability?

By: Kathleen Crow

Kathleen Crow — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:39:54 +0000

My thoughts are that 1798 is not necessary in the tagline as long as we don’t totally forget the importance of the company’s rich history. There is so much to learn from it. As an employee, I find it helpful to be reminded of it from time to time.

By: Elaine

Elaine — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:44:18 +0000

I understand the dilemma and I’m sure your creative team has already suggested this therefore I’m just being redundant however the solution appears simple. Why not combine the house logo, year, and tag line in a new way? You don’t have to say “Since 1798″ at the bottom instead list the 1798 on the house then new tag line under the house where you want it now.
This will work if you design it go down the house b/c it can go in color, b/w, and reverse color – plus you’ll still be able to see the year. Many that look at this might think it is the house address which only adds to its character and story of why you decided to combine the two logo’s when you made all the companies one.

Just a thought.

By: John F

John F — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:27:46 +0000

I’m not an employee, but as a consumer and reader, I’d suggest keeping the “1798″ in some form or fashion. You mentioned Nike in your original post and they use “1971″ on many products. I think the suggestion to incorporate the year as the house address is very classy and subtle. “Wired” magazine uses taglines below the title on each issue’s cover that have several different meanings. I think the house address could be the same for you.

By: Jamey C

Jamey C — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:27 +0000

As a designer I say use the date as a fact, but don’t box yourself in by including it in the logo, particularly if you want to add a tag. You can only get away with promoting two or at the most three ideas in a logo before it gets cluttered and starts working against the viewers sense of confidence in your company. An image, your name and a tag will max it out. The date is an important fact, but many companies fake it (look at nostalgic sportswear for example, everything was Est. in the early 1900’s) and the younger consumer is oblivious to what that kind of longevity should tell them about the company. I like the house mark by btw, feels classic but not stuffy, which is a tough line to walk.

By: Michael Hyatt

Michael Hyatt — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:27:33 +0000

Michael DiMarco’s blog post is definitely worth reading in this context. He makes some realy valid points. Maybe we can have it both ways. (Mark Whitlock and others also suggested this.)

By: Vance Lawson

Vance Lawson — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:52:25 +0000

I voted yes to keep the 1798 reference for many of the reasons cited in the comments section. I can say that it was favorably perceived and commented upon by many of our third party stakeholders over the years (customers, bankers, vendors, investors, investment bankers, etc).
Personally I like the idea that it grounds us and reminds us of the Company’s nobel beginnings (the intent to get Christian literature to the masses). Like the famous philosopher Casey Casem said when closing his countdowns “keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars”. 1798 is our “feet on the ground”.
Please pardon one more analogy… The stones of remembrance when the children of Israel crossed the Jordan river. They placed the stones there so that when their children and grandchildren asked about them, they could tell them what God had done for and through them. 1798 is a Stone of Remembrance for us.

Having said that, Rachel raises an interesting idea that might be pursued. Perhaps 1798 just becomes prominent on the House Logo as part of the house (a house number for example). This would offer the opportunity to allude to it in conversations or answer the question of its meaning to the curious.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Vance

By: Michael DiMarco

Michael DiMarco — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 06:11:58 +0000

Mike,

I expanded my take more over at my blog if it helps clarify. Thanks for letting me weigh in and for the inspiration!

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:50:04 +0000

I think that changes should be made when we have compelling reasoning/logic that suggests the anticipated benefits of the change will outweigh the negative repercussions of it. “Run TO something, not AWAY from something.” Too often, I think changes are implemented only because the change “might” lead to new benefits. I cite HOV lanes and year-round school calendars as examples.

Some may argue that “nothing ventured, nothing gained”, or “change is necessary”, but those types of comments are usually out of context. In my opinion, those are the lazy man’s rationale unless there is supporting justification. Not that those statements never apply, but that they must have supporting information in order to be a valid justification. Changes, especially from a successful endeavor, should be assessed as calculated risks after evaluating the risks and benefits of both options. (In this particular poll, I have to admit that without knowing the new slogan, I don’t see how anyone could vote for an “unknown” slogan to replace the successful, existing one.) I feel the date needs to stay somewhere with the logo, although I’m not adamant about the current location.

I don’t know how much weight this voting process carries, but seeing that the results are close to 50/50, there is obviously no compelling argument affecting change. If it ain’t broke, don’t break it!! “Since 1798″ should be considered the heavyweight champ that can only lose by a knockout, not a split decision.

By: Michael Hyatt

Michael Hyatt — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:29:11 +0000

Jim,

Great comments. I love your last sentence!

Mike

By: Jim Seybert

Jim Seybert — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:26:24 +0000

The “Since 1798″ works to your advantage as long as you don’t act like a company that’s been around since 1798.

Keep doing what you can to avoid corporate Osteoporosis and Arthritis. Don’t let your history dictate what you’ll be tomorrow, but rather let your tomorrow color the way people view your past.