Forum:My criticisms on the rebrand: nearly 2 months on.

From Audiovisual Identity Database

Revision as of 13:44, 24 November 2022 by CharlieFiddlesticks (talk | contribs)


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
11 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Hey you all. I've lurked AVID for a while now, and I've seen the rebrand. I've now decided to create an account, and despite the fact that, for a while now, the rebrand RfC has been archived, and the fact that I'm aware of why CLG Wiki was an outdated name, I've decided to discuss the AVID name here. My intention is not to ignite spite, simply to discuss my thoughts on the AVID name, then I'll let you all say something.

First, I'd say that AVID is "too professional" for a place like this wiki. I am aware that this place's direction has been to be more professional over time, such as the replacement of the factors with editor's notes, alongside other things, however I'd say that AVID just doesn't feel right in my eyes: it feels too professional for this wiki, in a sense.

Even then, there are other issues: AVID is ripe with soundless/still logos, thus, the "Audio" part of the "Audiovisual" part doesn't fit, and "Database", again, the "too professional" thing. My viewpoint on the rebrand could generally be summed up as the one of those who opposed the AVID name on the rebrand RfC.

While I am aware that AVID is most likely here to stay, in the offchance that, somehow, some chain of events occurs; either staff or the community at large want to stop referring to their wiki as AVID, and a 2nd rebrand RfC starts to reverse the AVID rebrand, I'd suggest one of 2 new names for AVID:

- Bring back CLG Wiki, but redefine it (such as: Company Logos Group Wiki), or simply delete the meaning of CLG in CLG Wiki. It compromises between the fact that CLG Wiki has stopped reflecting the current form of the wiki, while not making as radical of a modification to the wiki's branding as renaming it to "AVID".

- Or, CLW (Company Logos Wiki). It addresses the 2 main complaints the staff/community had about the CLG Wiki name: the CL (Closing Logos; since the wiki's focus has long diverted from that theme) and G (Group; a vestigial reminder that the wiki's origins can be traced back to a Yahoo! group) parts, while, like the last proposal, not modifying the name too much. Plus, it should be officially referred to as just "CLW" in the case it's rebranded to that, as "CLW Wiki" would be redundant ("Company Logos Wiki Wiki"). It could be useful for clarification, though.

As I said before, the chance of AVID getting a second rebrand is low, however I simply wanted to share my viewpoint, hear yours, and bounce some ideas around to use in the offchance they'll be needed. I've been getting slowly used to AVID, however, in the offchance that it's possible, changing it back to CLG, or at least CLW, would be a change in the right direction in my opinion.

I also have something for the look of the new logo: while it does look good, the rainbow gradient doesn't fit. A design with just 2 colo(u)rs would be better, like the server's icon. Otherwise, AVID's logo is good.


avatar
PM pinter
User
11 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Such a shame that you removed the message. You had really good points about the rebrand being too big of a shift to professionalism, while also recognizing other opposers. If they were to ask me, I'd still agree on the meaning of "CLG" in "CLG Wiki" being removed if given the opportunity. The only reason that didn't happen was the possibility of a trademark infringement lawsuit being issued by the original Board of Directors. At least I'm happy you're getting used to the "AVID" name.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
12 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Thank you. I'll consider re-adding that post, as it still kinda reflects my thoughts on the rebrand. Even if I still consider seeing the AVID name here rather bizarre, as I've gotten used to the CLG branding, I'm kinda fine with AVID, however I would appreciate a rebrand back to CLG wiki, or, considering what the BoD did, CLW.

EDIT: The post is back!


avatar
KrisValdespino
User
13 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



No way the chaotic rebrand event is going to waste.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
13 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



I'm sure that it's not going to waste. I mean, AVID has only been out there for 2 months, so it can't go away that soon. We will see, though. Maybe we'll get used to AVID, or something will change AVID's identity. Only time will tell.


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
14 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



I don't like the "Audiovisual" part. That just reeks of "word made up on the spot". It would be more logical to call them logos rather than replacing the word logos with a jumbled-up flim-flam word to describe them. LID (Logo Identity Database) would have been much perfect! And yes, I know Audiovisual is not a made-up word, but using it to describe something easy to describe on its own is just.....


If LID isn't working, we should make our name back to KRS Logos to introduce a modern generation to a classic form of media


avatar
Poocian
User
14 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Simple answerː N O . We are keeping this name. Okay?


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
14 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Simple answerː N O . We are keeping this name. Okay?
Inside voices, ok? We weren't demanding a name change , we where just talking about it. No need to turn on caps lock.

avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
16 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Inside voices, ok? We weren't demanding a name change , we where just talking about it. No need to turn on caps lock.

Agreed, Fiddlesticks!


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
16 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



I don't like the "Audiovisual" part. That just reeks of "word made up on the spot". It would be more logical to call them logos rather than replacing the word logos with a jumbled-up flim-flam word to describe them. LID (Logo Identity Database) would have been much perfect! And yes, I know Audiovisual is not a made-up word, but using it to describe something easy to describe on its own is just.....

I do agree that the AV part doesn't fit, but I'd say that the ID part is off to me, too.

If LID isn't working, we should make our name back to KRS Logos to introduce a modern generation to a classic form of media

Why KRS Logos? I'd like some more context for that name.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
16 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Simple answerː N O . We are keeping this name. Okay?

Chill, Poocian! This is just a discussion, I am not demanding a removal of the AVID name from this wiki!


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
16 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Why KRS Logos? I'd like some more context for that name.

Like I said, to introduce a more modern generation to a piece of classic media.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
17 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Like I said, to introduce a more modern generation to a piece of classic media.
What does KRS mean, though? That's what I meant.

avatar
VPJHuk
User
17 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



What does KRS mean, though? That's what I meant.

KRS Logos' name, from what I can tell, probably stands for "Kris Stalling Logos". Kris Stalling is likely the creator of the original KRS site. They were also a member of the Yahoo Closing Logos Group.

Now that that option has a little more context, I think it would be a bad idea to rename CLG/AVID back to KRS, as said KRS is pretty much gone from the logo community.


avatar
LMgamer36
User
17 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Wonder is Kris's still around nowadays, looking at the recent events at AVID.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
17 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



KRS Logos' name, from what I can tell, probably stands for "Kris Stalling Logos". Kris Stalling is likely the creator of the original KRS site. They were also a member of the Yahoo Closing Logos Group.

Thank you!

Now that that option has a little more context, I think it would be a bad idea to rename CLG/AVID back to KRS, as said KRS is pretty much gone from the logo community.

I agree. I'd say that a rebrand to KRS Logos would result in quite a lot of questions from new people. Even if the new KRS Logos logo and so and so would at least bother to say "Kris Starring Logos", there would be quite a lot of new users asking "Who's Kris Starring? Why's the wiki named after them?".


avatar
DmitriLeon2000
User
18 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



That's "Kris Starring" with two R's.


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
21 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



We should have rebranded to something similar to CLG Wiki like Company Logo Wiki (above) or Closing Bumpers Wiki (CBW since we merged Company Bumpers) or just CLG Wiki without a meaning (above)


avatar
Trevor807
User
21 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Closing Bumpers Wiki would've been a bad choice considering we're more than just closing bumpers now, and the name CLG Wiki has been tainted ever since the events of 9/9. I do believe the AVID name was for the best.


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
22 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



We should have rebranded to something similar to CLG Wiki like Company Logo Wiki (above) or Closing Bumpers Wiki (CBW since we merged Company Bumpers) or just CLG Wiki without a meaning (above)

Yea!


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
22 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



That's "Kris Starring" with two R's.

Okay!


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
22 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



How about TLW (The Logos Wiki) if we moved on from just closing logos?


avatar
Someonedisappointed
User
23 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



How about TLW (The Logos Wiki) if we moved on from just closing logos?

I like CLW more, but TLW is nice!


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
23 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



How a tlw logo could work.png

Here's how a TLW logo could work! I didn't wanna erase the bottom parts of the W because I thought it would make it look unprofessional.


avatar
NancerAVID
User
24 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



How a tlw logo could work.png Here's how a TLW logo could work! I didn't wanna erase the bottom parts of the W because I thought it would make it look unprofessional

I'm sorry but that logo looks awful.


avatar
CalvinWilkerson
User
24 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



"I didn't wanna erase the bottom parts of the W because I thought it would make it look unprofessional" charlie this logo's unprofessional no matter what


avatar
CharlieFiddlesticks
User
24 November 2022

Edit/Reply | Report



Well I'm sorry that I have no creativinicity in my entire soul left

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.