City Communications Manager Jason Wright was kind enough to respond to our inquiry about the logo change.
"It’s part of a larger branding initiative requested by City Council, as prescribed in the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan (specifically, portions of the Build Relationships, Structure Economic Growth and Provide Responsible and Responsive Government strategies)" shared Mr. Wright.
He went on to relay that council has been working on the change off and on over months of open discussion in work sessions.
In regards to costs, he states "It's a soft launch to minimize cost over time" and that the actual design was "no cost...all work was done in house. " Finally, it was confirmed that the font was meant to "invoke a fence (our signature architectural item) without being too overt. "
So what do you think? Was this change needed? If so, was it wise to spend these monies at this time? Is it important that the city still include a horse as part of it's brand? Have your say in the comments section below.
5 comments:
they should cange it to a firwork
its made to look like a fence even though it looks nothing like a fence and we figured we would have jason do it since he wasnt doing anything else
Looks OK. Not the end of the world, just the end of a lawsuit.
Personally, I don't like the no logo and especially don't like the new tag line. It sounds pretentious and snobby. I asked a group of middle schoolers their opinion. They said the same thing.
What valid points -- expertly told, as well! Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment