[Also posted in http://groups.drupal.org/drupal-org-redesign-analysis]
I know I am weighing in on a sensitive topic. I found that out yesterday today with my poorly received attempt at a humorous blog post entitled "Decapitate Drupal, please". I was unprepared for the negative response I received (though I did get some positive response as well). Someone rightly pointed out that Drupal Planet was not the right place for the discussion and suggested I come here. So, here I am.
The event that got me thinking about this issue went as follows: I will preface this by saying that I have no complaints about the Drupal update process. Many people thought I was complaining about that, but I wasn't. I think it is great. We did an update on a customer site yesterday and accidentally over-wrote the favicon we designed for them with the Drupalicon. We didn't notice. They noticed in the morning and we replaced it with the right one. No big deal and, yes, it was our error. We'll survive.
The interesting part came in the message from the customer. The customer thought perhaps they had been hacked as their icon had been replaced "with picture of a kid wearing a dunce cap". A dunce cap is an old grade school method of shaming kids who are not trying, in the opinion of the teacher. the teacher would make the kid wear a pointy hat. The hat was called a "dunce cap".
I believe this perception by my customer, who had never seen the Drupalicon, is of great value. I believe it would be shared by many people on first encountering the Drupalicon, which is in effect the Drupal "brand". Many people might not come to the conclusion that the Drupalicon is a kid in a dunce cap, but I assure you they would also not think of it as a professional logo. It is not. It is somewhat juvenile and hacker-ish. This does no good for the Drupal community. It means the Drupal community is succeeding in spite of the brand, not because of it. The brand does not have its shoulder to the wheel. It is a flat tire. Of course, there is no need to take my word for this. I have a proposition.
The d.o. redesign presents a great opportunity to talk about the Drupal brand. What is a brand? A brand is a customer experience represented by a collection of images and ideas; often, it refers to a symbol such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme [wikipedia]. We navigate our world to a certain extent by virtue of the syntax and semantics of brands. We also evaluate the viability of transactions and projects based on the brands associated with the participants in the transaction or effort.
Regardless of what we might wish to be the case, the brand does have an effect. First impressions are very important. In the course of negotiations and planning, a negative brand expereince can form a background noise and have a detrimental impact on your overall effort. "They seem good, but what's up with that logo?" It is something people take seriously on a very deep level because the mechanism of brands is so deeply ingrained in our psyches.
Now, it may be that I am just talking out of my assumptions and not the facts. What to do?
Rebrand Drupal.
I suggest that as an open community we put everything - even the name "Drupal" - up for evaluation. Don't be scared. re-naming projects like this one happens all the time, and if done right, it works well. I would like to begin the discussion by proposing a process.
-
Ask - survey a range of people including branding professionals, Drupal stakeholders, Dupal consulting and integration companies and the general Drupal community. Ask them all about the Drupal brand and see what we get back. My company hosts online surveys as one of our service offerings, and I would be happy to offer the facility in support of the effort. I will also commit to leverage my relationships with branding pros to get them to help design the survey so the information we get back is as useful as possible.
-
Evaluate - Allow the community to digest the results. It may be that no action is required, but I would find this surprising. I predict a rebrand will be suggested, perhaps not as fundamental as renaming the project, but that should be an on-the-table option, for the sake of the health of the community and project. I believe I read somewhere that Dries is calling his new Drupal-based installation project Carbon, so it seems that Drupal can go forward under another name.
-
Rebrand - the branding process as practiced in the commercial sphere may not be appropriate for an open-source, open community project like Drupal. There are many more sets of stakeholders in the world of Drupal. People put in ther sweat out of commitment and care, and any rebranding process would need to reflect the multifacetted nature of the community, its aspirations, motivations and identity.
I suggest we be as innovative as Drupal has always been and research and develop an "Open Branding Process" based on commercial branding but embodying the values of openness. The outcome should be an "Open Brand". I have seen some discussion online about the characteristics of an "Open Brand" and they mirror the general values of the open-source community and the various discussions going on about "openness" that have emerged from the growing global trend in this direction.
In my mind, the open branding process would differ from the commercial branding process in interesting and significant ways. There is a very ambiguous and blurred relationship between consumers, producers and other stakeholders in the totality of the Drupalsphere. This blending and intermingling has been well-documented in publications like the cluetrain manifesto and others. An opportunity exists for Drupal and its community to break more new ground in the way we do this. I would be very excited to be a part of the process. There are obviously energetic people fully engaged in this process and I am happy to lend my energy on this topic should people see it as a viable and desirable part of the process.
The opportunity seems to be here with the discussions and planning around the d.o. redesign. If I get a positive response to this post, I will put more effort into planning the process, and the first stage will be general approval (by the Drupal Association or whoever is required to be party to the decision) of the process involved in deciding if a rebrand is required or desirable.
Let's do something new and original...and open...by creating a new Drupal brand to launch with the redesigned drupal.org.
I see some good work and thought has been put into some of the issues I raise, in particular http://groups.drupal.org/node/8774 by jwhatcott speaks directly to positioning issues and makes suggestions about how to move forward. In paricular, the article at http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/topics/03/0307el is a good introduction to some of the issues around branding.
I would be happy to work with anyone and everyone who would like to see what an "Open Branding Process" might look like, and whether it can help Drupal.
Comments
Free as in Liberty
You know - you are completely free to go right ahead and rename and re-brand Drupal to whatever you like and sell that to you clients instead of the alien-child-wearing-a-dunce-cap-who-plumbs-communities-brand. In fact anyone can do that.
Aquia is distancing themselves from the Drupal brand - and indeed re-branding and re-naming their Drupal offering
"Aquia is not Drupal - Drupal is not Aquia" and "Carbon - First commercially supported release of Drupal" - Jeff Whatcott March 3 2008
(OT : Jeff if you're reading "Drupal is the FIRST commercially supported release of Drupal. Not Carbon. But, that is a really good try at a differentiator. Just so we're all clear, Carbon will be the first commercially supported release of Carbon. :) )
There is no question in my mind that Drupal is positioned as a developer's dream platform. I don't think it was intentional. I do think people have tried to position it differently - but at the end of the day - it is what it is. And I think that's fine - particularly since it opens the doors for other people to position their distro of Drupal their own way - yet still have their offering propped up / enhanced by the existing brand identity.
Anyway - I really hope that Association funds aren't spent on a branding exercise for Drupal. I also hope that not too many person hours are wasted on this discussion. Yes pay an information architect to re-do drupal.org. Yes, help make drupal.org meet the needs of new visitors and better communication what Drupal can do for them. When those jobs are complete THEN see if you need to re-brand, re-name, or re-position Drupal.
andre
Clarifications
Hi Andre. Let me be very clear. We are not distancing ourselves from the Drupal brand. The quote you referenced above was intended to make sure people don't attribute Acquia as the creator or controller of Drupal and the Drupal community. Additionally, it looks like our use of a provisional code name has confused you. Sorry about that. Let me explain.
"Carbon" is a provisional code name that will be replaced by a real product name when we release. That final name will probably follow the familiar pattern established by Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu Linux and include "Drupal" in the name (with appropriate trademark attribution). So just as those products are commercially supported distributions of Linux, the Acquia [Insert Carbon Replacement Name Here] Drupal distro will indeed be a commercially supported distribution of Drupal.
If, in the intervening months, the community decides to rename Drupal to something else, we would follow along with that new name.
Glad to hear it
I personally wouldn't have been offended if Acquia had distanced itself from the Drupal brand... but I'm glad to hear that it is not the case.
I was attempting to use Acquia as an illustration that a company could completely come up with a unique brand for a distribution of Drupal that never mentions 'Drupal' and they could position that brand/product in whatever way they like. This looked to be what you (Acquia) were up to - but once again - glad to hear its not the case.
With regard to 'carbon' being the 'first' commercially supported version of Drupal - I was just being a smart ass pointing out that Drupal is commercially supported by countless numbers of development and hosting shops with some sort of service level agreement - and therefore "Acquia Brand Drupal (codename Carbon)" wont be the "first" commercially supported version of Drupal.
andre
Commercial Distros : a good thing for Drupal's future
As a relative newcomer to Drupal (10 months now) and a long career in software project/product development (25 years), I was happy to learn about Acquia's plans at DrupalCON and a little discouraged at the tone expressed in some of the g.d.o. threads around distros and marketing in general. I guess the culture clash between coding/business concerns is inevitable at this point in Drupal's evolution, but I would encourage restraint as a value in discussing/imagining how those facets of platform development outside of coding (e.g. testing, versioning, distributing, marketing, etc.) might evolve. Ultimately, the ability of core software platforms/applications to flourish (e.g. Linux, Apache and, hopefully, Drupal), requires the dedication and perspiration of people with many different talents: coders for sure, but marketing folk, project managers, business managers, etc. all play crucial roles in turning a software project into a software platform. The energy and enthusiasm at DrupalCON was thrilling. Let's continue that trajectory by embracing the talents of new community members outside the already-strong domain of core/module development. Thanks.
Thoughts on Branding
Hi Evan. Thanks for courageously jumping into a thorny topic. I missed your original blog post, but I hope you don't get slapped around too much. People tend to get pretty emotional about branding, especially in developer communities, because the identity of the technology is so intertwined with their personal and professional identity.
I think you've raised some very interesting points, and I hope that our community can rise to the opportunity to have a dispassionate, clear-headed discussion about it. We'll all be better for having had the discussion, even if it ultimately yields no change.
I should stop here and clarify that when I talk about brand, I'm not talking about the logo. More context is available here. The logo is just one expression of the brand.
One of the challenges of approaching Drupal branding is that there is no consensus about what the brand stands for today, let alone agreement about what the brand should stand for in the future. The incredibly long but non-converging thread about the Drupal tag line demonstrates the degree to which this is a problem. There is no positioning statement for Drupal today, and I've so far failed to get the community to engage in a serious discussion about that. Defining the brand persona and personality and conversational tone of Drupal remains elusive - is Drupal a slightly crazy but talented punk rebel, a polished and reliable professional, or something in between?
If I could dream for a minute about what I would do if a) Drupal were a company with a real marketing budget, b) we had a professional marketing staff in place, and c) it were up to me, this would be the point where I recommend doing a bunch of basic ethnographic and psychographic profiling market research on Drupal and its competitors. That would yield defensible data on how Drupal and it's competitive set of alternatives is perceived by it's own users, competitive technology users, prospective users of various demogrpahic profiles, etc. From that base, we could chart where the Drupal brand is today, where people expect/want it to go in the future, and what is achievable given the competitive landscape out there. Then we'd hand this data to a branding agency and challenge them to come up with some branding identities that build on Drupal's past and take us where we want and need to go. Then we would spend a year implementing the new brand in the context of a global marketing strategy for Drupal. Doing the branding part of the above (but not the marketing strategy) would cost around half a million dollars. Dream on :-)
So if that's the dream proposal, what's the the realistic proposal? Well, I think the first milestone is to see if we can muster a team of marketing professionals from within the community who care enough to dedicated time to the project. The next step would be for this team to generate an actionable proposal (something much less grand than the above) and deliver it to the Drupal Association for funding and commitment to act on the recommendations.
So what do you think? Who's up for this?
name change?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people in the community interested in changing the name. Even on a purely marketing level it's already got stuff that half-million dollar budgets can't buy - instant recognition (with a certain section of people, but still), and a google page rank of 9. Also as Jeff Whatcott points out, although Acquia is trying to make clear it's distinction from Drupal (something which isn't immediately clear to some commentators, as we saw with some very poorly researched articles during the 6.0 release) - that's not because the Drupal brand is 'bad', it's more to avoid being perceived as using that very well known brand inappropriately - or at least that's how I understand it.
Although the tag-line thread is quite long, there were about 5-6 proposals that a few people were quite keen on ('Drops make oceans' for example).
Personally I'd like to see every bit of association effort being spent on the d.o redesign and getting that done as smoothly as possible within a reasonable time frame - the hardest bit of that is going to be architecture. Drupal's great at separating content from presentation so I don't think these need to be tackled at the same time (and I'd hate to see the redesign bogged down in a rebranding discussion).
Re: Thoughts on Branding
Interesting and useful comments on the Drupal "brand". In general, I agree with your description of how a business should go about branding a product or service. But I see some important differences between proprietary and open source products. In a traditional business, the people making and supporting the product are being paid for their work. The business has considerable freedom to brand its products in a way that will, they hope, maximize profits, revenue, asset value, etc. The people behind the product will generally go along with whatever leads to the desired business outcome - they want to stay employed. It ain't that way in the open source world.
In the open source world, the people behind the product and its support do not receive any direct payment for their labour. They participate for a variety of reasons. They want to give back to the community. They see career opportunities flowing from their community contribution. They see the prospect of related profitable work. They enjoy being a recognized and respected member of the community. ... You get the idea - continued contribution depends on receiving valued rewards (other than direct cash payment). In my experience, voluntary associations only flourish when the association finds valued ways to reward its contributors.
The Drupal open source world is no different. It flourishes because developers are rewarded for their contribution to the community. The "brand" in the open source world must pay as much attention to the rewards delivered to those who develop and support the product as it does to those who use the product. Branding needs to be a different kind of exercise. The brand must be something that wins the enthusiastic support of those developing and supporting the product, as well as winning the support of those who might consider using the product.
This thinking leads me to want the Drupal "brand" two have two critical dimensions: It needs to appeal to developers as the preferred web development platform, and it needs to appeal to users as the flexible, adaptable, and cost-effective platform to use for their web applications.
I'm not a branding expert, but I have worked in almost all aspects of IT product development/marketing/deployment for several decades. And I can see personal benefit from giving back to the Drupal community. I'm prepared to help with "branding'.
I just don't see it...
I just don't see what you see, evanleeson.
I work with one of the most un-hackerish client demographics out there -- small businesses in the rural midwest (USA). One might expect the Drupal brand to seem a little too "out there" to mom and pop gun shops, community groups, quilters, and so on, but it's never been a problem for them or for my more corporate clients.
"Drupal" and the drupal logo are simple, memorable, and unoffensive, what more do we need? Surely, we don't have to look far to find successful businesses with names that may have seen odd at first, but later became household names. ***Hums innocently in the direction of Google.***
Just my two cents,
Susan
Part of branding is consistency
I think the subject says it all but Drupal hasn't "failed" thus we don't need to seek a name or identity change.
People still can't pronounce Linux correct nor do a lot of people understand what it is but Linux isn't getting a name or identity change nor did it ever. The word Drupal isn't offensive nor translates oddly. Personally I think changing the name or identity of Drupal is a massive, massive (read HUGE) step backward with the possibility of pushing Drupal so far backward that it can't catch back up.
Drupal is currently being utilized in almost every single country on this planet. This took years to accomplish, a name change would destroy this overnight.
To me this is a recipe for disaster. A huge recipe for disaster.
When your clients freak out about the word "Drupal" sit them down and educate them.
After all what the heck does "alfresco" "joomla" "linux" "acquia" "microsoft" "hp" "clorox" "'ajax (the cleaner or the technology?)" mean?
The answer, of course, is nothing absolutely positively nothing. Its a name and nothing more.
You take the name and you use it over and over and over again until those that use it understand what it is.
In short. You have a solid firm vote against any name change.
Logo: Don't agree with you. educate your clients.
Linux is a freakin' penquin. You want to talk about childish. come'on.
BSD: its a devil
Apple: umm,.. the rainbow apple was really, really lame. Was it changed? nope still there.
So tweak it a bit put Drupalicon in a tie if you want but come'on lets not destroy years and years of work just because we're not willing to put the time and effort into actually marketing the brand.
In summary my position is
Drupal as a brand is fine. We need new slogans, a new d.o redesign and maybe a tweaked (but not radically altered) logo.
I don't agree with your position.
Drupal marketing is poor. All OSS marketing strategies are horrible. Its OSS, we don't have marketing budgets, we don't have commercials on T.V, we don't have a marketing department. The marketing strategy for OSS is to leave it up to the commercial entities (ex. Redhat, Debian, Suse, etc. all do an awesome job of marketing Linux but Linux doesn't market itself). This is to say that you are the marketing entity behind Drupal. Speak to your clients about it, use (properly) the logo on your business cards, letterhead, your RFP responses, etc. Make it clear what Drupal is and how you are using it.
My first thought when I read that your client was shocked when they saw the Drupal "dunce cap" icon was
"Why hadn't your clients seen it before?"
-Jacob Redding
-Jacob Redding
100% agreed
Well said, Jacob.
Especially regarding Druplicon - the minority of our clients who actually care like it a lot and are rather happy to use and support a CMS with such a cool logo (besides other awesome features, of course).
Daniel F. Kudwien
unleashed mind
Daniel F. Kudwien
netzstrategen
Said exactly what I was
Said exactly what I was thinking but a lot more clearly, thanks!
Agreed -
Very well said Jacob. I'm surprised that the topic lasted this long to begin with.
Changing the name would be Marketing & Brand suicide.
Jeff Badger
Director of Sales & Marketing
Achieve Internet
800-618-8777
Jeff Badger
Approaching some sort of consensus?
Some valuable comments and issues are raised in this thread.
Yes, everything should be open to scrutiny and up for grabs if the goal is to develop today's Drupal into a real market leader.
Yes, name and logo are but elements of the overall brand, and speaking from the perspective of a non-developer who wants to reliably deploy and recommend Drupal for client sites as well as my own. for my money there are currently far more important issues to deal with than name and logo, and these are about stuff like product documentation, upgrading, quality and continuity of contributed modules, etc.
For my money, get the product right first of all, then worry about the customer experience and about how the logo fails (which I believe it does).
From what I can see of this Drupal community, there are lots and lots and lots of people here who are focused on the product, so it should be a real snip to get a product shipping that has outstanding documentation (I've just signed up for that gig) , is really easy to upgrade, and has an elegant and robust solution to recommending which contributed modules meet the same high standards as the core code and have good teams behind them to ensure that they will still be around in two years time.
A suggestion: that product development might be best led, at least in part, by a person or group who are not developers, but who are people like me: knowledgeable, enthusiastic, market aware, customer focussed. In that way Drupal can become more like what its target audience might want and expect, and less like a successful and somewhat geeky open source project.
Personally I like the name (as someone else said earlier, it is "unoffensive", and while I would probably argue that inoffensive is potentially a negative trait, it could be much worse. I do hate the logo - to me it looks somewhat sinister and unfriendly, and always has - and drupal.org is no place for strangers.
For a software product, user experience is key to success, and I think that the good people who make Drupal a reality are increasingly aware of this. To succeed sustainably Drupal has to be user-friendly, accessible (in all senses of the term), and geared to the needs of site builders and site visitors now and into the future. Do that, and have a great visual identity and a lovely welcoming new customer experience, and the future will belong to Drupal.
(pronounced 'droople' - some people I know call it droopall, which is horrible).
My 2 penn'orth
Graham
//A suggestion: that product
//A suggestion: that product development might be best led, at least in part, by a person or group who are not developers, but who are people like me: knowledgeable, enthusiastic, market aware, customer focussed. In that way Drupal can become more like what its target audience might want and expect, and less like a successful and somewhat geeky open source project.
It's easy to have input into the development process without knowing any code - just review patches and/or keep an eye on the usability group for stuff that's not in patch form yet or still in the early stages of development.
However development of drupal isn't led by anyone in particular. Core committers (of which there are usually two) have the final say, Dries sets particular directions he wants the community to focus on, working groups try to hash out strategic approaches to certain problems, but there isn't and is never likely to be a roadmap or anything like that. Things get done because people step up to do them - and that includes mockups, speccing out and reviews of feature requests and usability improvements as much as actual coding.
Name and Logo off the table for now
Name and Logo are best derived from the positioning of a product and service. So lets take those off the table until we have that.
Drupal community/installations/adoption growth is roughly 100% at the moment - I will bet you dollars to doughnuts it has a lot to do with word of mouth 'what do you use for your website and why' conversations and absof*&^inglutely nothing to do with drupalicon.
Besides - once again we have a bikeshed discussion - where everyone will chime in on their 2 cents about what they think makes a good logo or name - with or without consideration to the core issue at hand.
andre
Splitting hairs - in a useful way
People got bent out of shape because Evan suggested putting everything up for grabs - including the name Drupal. Putting the Drupal name at risk caused inflammatory reactions.
Which caused people, IMHO, to ignore the underlying question: Would Drupal benefit from a diligent examination of - and possible change in - its branding? I think the answer to that is a qualified yes.
Because branding means effectively communicating:
So I agree with Jacob that it wouldn't serve Drupal well to change the name. However, we shouldn't lose Evan's basic premise that the Drupal community should not be afraid of re-examining the branding in general. We don't, IMHO, communicate what Drupal is, and who should want it (for what) very well.
And while I like the Drop in general (especially because the history story is fun), it's useful to re-examine whether it's current rendering supports the branding. I personally think reworking the drop would be a "good thing." For instance, Pepsi has reworked its basic logo over the years; it's still the same red/blue circle, but it has been updated several times to fit the culture / style - the "branding" - of the day. But though I don't want to lose the Drop, the question is: Does it, in its current form, help or hinder Drupal's branding? Would a rework address this?
Bottom line: It makes less sense to change the name; but there is merit in the suggestion we look at branding overall (modulo name-change).
I'm happy to see a post that
I'm happy to see a post that allows me to chime in with a simple "yes, thank you for saying what I think is the general idea of evan's proposal, too." I also agree that a name change would be out of the question.
It's certainly interesting to read about the different perspectives… :-)
I'm just a bit surprised at the rigidness of all the no's though. Drupal code breaks backward compatibility with each version, stuff get's reworked, reworded and rearranged all the time, all with the highest possible standards for coding style etc. And another rule is to not fork core.
Why wouldn't that apply to the Drupal brand/identity? It seems that for that area "what we have is good enough, let's just keep it as is" and "if you don't like it, "fork" it and put your own sticker on it?
I know this analogy is probably flawed, but that's how I interpret it. I hope evan comes back and respond. The Pepsi logo is a good example, we should be able to do something like that with the Drupal brand as well. Drupal's code and functionality is always cutting edge but the brand is still in the 20th century it seems.
(And now I have to split one more hair with jredding :-)
The Apple rainbow logo has been gone for a couple of years, it's a solid white, black or grey now. Also, it wasn't the first logo for Apple. This is: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/04/13/blast-from-the-past-original-apple-logo/ To be honest, I think the current state of Druplicon is closer to that then the stylized apple we all know now.)
ya you're splitting hairs..
I, as well as the rest of the world, am fully aware that the rainbow logo is gone but my point was that
(a) The logo actually hasn't changed much its still umm.. an Apple.
(b) Apple is still umm.. Apple. They didn't change their name with the exception of dropping the Macintosh part.
Pepsi is still Pepsi and the logo is pretty much the same
Coca Cola is still Coca Cola and the logo is pretty much the same
Like I said I don't care about much the logo itself, change it slight dress it up. Just don't touch the name.
We are not Philip-Morris...
/me backs off from the branding discussion because I only really care about a name change and a drastic logo change (i.e against either)... Marketing is awesome I love the energy of the group hopefully it get directed into the right channels.
-Jacob Redding
-Jacob Redding
Actually
Actually to be honest I started using Joomla first because I thought their stuff seemed to be better, at first glance. Of course as the months went by and once I dug deep down into everything I discovered Drupal was IMO far far superior. It took me a great deal of investigation to discover what most Drupalers know to be true.
As much as I'm loving Drupal I have to say that the logo while having a great philosophy is not good, and at the end of the day it probably discourages a deeper look from a decent amount of people shopping systems. If you know anything about Marketing you can appreciate the importance of a first impression. How else to do think people can sell junk like Windows?... well aside from monopoly capitalism. The wrap it in clever Marketing and before people realize they've bought snake oil there money is already gone. People are for the most part, silly animals, and gravitate towards the pretty lights, its important to consider this even when your product/service is superior.
Drupal is the real thing, its an absolutely fantastic product, with a bright future; put a good wrapper on that and it's all the better. The theme for Drupal.Org and the logo are just ready for a refresh thats all ... nothing crazy or too serious. Its just a natural evolution. I love the name by the way, and would not suggest changing that... and like the water drop, im sure with all the designers hanging around here some really cool designs can be flying around before you can say Vista is killing me!
On the logo
I must say that I have to agree. The drupal logo is fairly ridiculous, and any traditional entity of the size and stature that drupal has become, would likely have redesigned it long ago. It's too bad that the divided nature of open-source prevent us from getting past the nostalgia. We need to see it for what it really is: A poor design that has long since served its purpose, and which is in desperate need of a revamp.
I say this with love, by the way. I love drupal. But laymen who've seen the logo for the first time scoff at it. It looks ridiculous for a legitimate product such as the one we've created here.
The logo has been redesigned
The logo has been redesigned. Have you seen it?
http://drupal.markboultondesign.com/iteration10/homepage_notloggedin.html
www.macpheedesign.com
Oh hey -- I love it! Its
Oh hey -- I love it! Its awesome looking through all the past iterations...
But by "logo", I actually meant the little drop guy :)
Looks like the little splash in the logo got veto-ed from iteration 10, which is a shame, cause it seemed like having a simpler logo beside the text was a step in the right direction in transitioning to something besides the little drop thing!
Community plumbing
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the slogan "Community plumbing" which is very descriptive and always reminds me of sewers. A few months ago I proposed "The Swiss Army Knife for Community Plumbing" to emphasize the handiness, flexibility and adaptability of Drupal - of course Victorinox owns the TM for "Swiss Army Knife." Actually, someone also commented that it might mislead some mohels.
Regarding the drup - I mean drop - I think that is the point - the Drupal drop is recognizable, malleable and simple. I collected a few hundred Drupal logos (by no means exhaustive nor up to date) and I would be sad to see it go: http://netsperience.org/category/image-galleries/drupal-icons
¿ are you netsperienced ?
♥ follow me @decibelplaces ∞