The RSPB has a new logo and has explained the thinking behind it – click here.
What do you think? Here is a one question poll with five answers – click here.
[registration_form]6 Replies to “The new RSPB logo – what do you think of it?”
Comments are closed.
You can see why they’ve changed it I suppose – adding the green emphasises they aren’t just about birds anymore. But it doesn’t have the classic simplicity of the last version.
A very poor design. Lazy typeface, a council notice board type. The twin colours with the bill on a white background make it look truncated. As someone who once had a design and marketing consultancy I would have rejected this on the drawing board and it would never have reached the client. Bet the designers have wrapped the justification up in hyperbole.
New logo – not impressed. Re-branding is a waste of resources and totally unnecessary, ‘Jobs for the boys’. I don’t like to see my donations used in this way and it reduces my desire to give. The RSPB is becoming too much concentrated on ‘Image’ rather than focussing on all the harmful things that ulimately impact on the natural world. Among other things they give the farming industry far too easy a ride.
I have to agree, initially I was a bit relieved as it wasn’t as bad as I was expecting (I remember when WWF ludicrously changed its name from World Wildlife Fund to World Wide Fund For Nature), but like you the thought kicked in it’s their Modus Operandi that needs to change not their bloody car stickers. I’m enormously fond of the RSPB for many good reasons, but also frustrated. Where is their interest in stakeholders when they somehow forget to mention to those affected by flooding that a big source of it is highly subsidised hill farming that’s killing off wildlife as well as turning front rooms into temporary swimming pools. People are actually paying to have the flood threat to their homes heightened as well as to suppress biodiversity.
I also know for a fact that they have a deliberate policy of only rarely featuring raptor persecution at their stalls as they consider it ‘too strong’ an issue for the general public, just about the most potent reason for their existence. Their policy with lower income communities is to wait for an invitation from them to get involved with educational/conservation work – as I can attest once they get it they’re brilliant – but this is really misplaced although well meant. The RSPB needs to be proactively waving the flag for how nature is if anything more important for the lower income (it’s free) and pushing to get especially children in touch with wildlife. As things stand the interest might well be there, but unless adults can be bothered to approach the RSPB the kids won’t get the support they need, so the vicious circle of apathy and ignorance doesn’t get broken, and I’m saying this as a council estate boy myself.
A tubby avocet on a bad hair day standing in a field – sorry, that’s a fail from me
I prefer it to the blue square version with the anodyne slogan alongside – ‘giving nature a home’ (and some of its predecessors). Whether it will have a measurable effect in terms of increasing the effectiveness of either the RSPB’s advocacy or its fund-raising is another matter.