Remember all the fuzz that the new CISV logo created, when it was introduced in 2006? I recall receiving something that came close to an e-mail petition form - some people were pretending as if CISV's heart and soul was embedded in the (old) logo.
The American clothing retailer GAP recently released a new, and truly hideous, new logo but quickly pulled back, when customers started complaining - mostly through online social media. The whole story is covered in the Financial Times and they come to the following conclusion:
My point is, that the whole thing wasn't even democratic: Fair and free voting asks everybody to participate, whereas here it's really an angry mob that may or may not represent te majority. Same goes for the CISV logo: The democratically elected board of trustees voted for a change, and a minority asks for withdrawal. Most of all, this minority never ever represented the people that were supposed to be attracted by the new look and feel of CISV: Those who are't even members yet.
Listening to customers is one thing, when they are voting with their wallets. But company logos should not be designed democratically on Twitter. If managers allow themselves to be frightened of the tweeting mob, they will become emasculated, change will be even harder than it ever was, and the status quo will always prevail.
My point is, that the whole thing wasn't even democratic: Fair and free voting asks everybody to participate, whereas here it's really an angry mob that may or may not represent te majority. Same goes for the CISV logo: The democratically elected board of trustees voted for a change, and a minority asks for withdrawal. Most of all, this minority never ever represented the people that were supposed to be attracted by the new look and feel of CISV: Those who are't even members yet.
Today, it seems as if people have calmed down, and the new logo, as much as I can tell, is quite well received and implemented. Good thing, that our leaders had the balls to push this through.
(Thanks, Lars/NOR for the link)
If CISV had listened to the complaining minority, we would have had the chance to adapt our visual identity after adapting our educational identity, and probably would have had much less complaints (and no need for Motion-04 at our last AIM). And at least in Austria, we were less concerned about a new logo (though the options were hideous as well), but about the process...
I disagree Flo, I think that whatever you do (especially with branding) there are always going to be a group of people who disagree with it. You can't make everyone happy, especially when you have an organisation such as ours where our members perception of what the organisation is/does is extremely diverse.
I think that the right thing to do is have conviction in a decision (the ones where a tooooonnnn of feedback had already been received) and go with it. Otherwise, you never get to an end product.
Our 'educational identity' as you put it, evolved after the rebranding and we also need to check out whether our current 'educational identity' is actually consistent throughout the organisation before taking for granted that it is (I think that on an International level we often generalise this).
To me, sometimes there's someone or a group who actually go for some changes for the changes and to demonstrate they are right, more than for the good of the community.
What I say is that the 20yoldies ruling pushes toward a 'let's change everything' thing which hardly takes into consideration memory or roots. I remember one of the most representatives of the rebranding revolution answering to one of the old ones against the new logo idea, any new logo idea, that he was "out of track", outdated, not in line...
I think that CISV has survived this narrow minded views in the years, and that's why it's (almost) 6' years old. If every one of us would take cisv a its own and apply its own view to it and go for the changes he or she believed in... we would waste so much energy in useless, persona issues, and after 20 years we would ask ourselves the neverending questions on recruitment, development, inclusion and bla bla bla
In short: we have a new logo that was the compromise of a team who lost on the rebrainding battle and forced a new logo on the (false) basis of doing a restyiling.
Cisv does not necessarily means democracy. But it often means subjectivity.
Luca
It seems as if the wounds of the rebranding conflict haven't all healed yet - at least from some of the comments here. I tend to see things Laura's way, but I do agree that in maany aress of CISV people love to rebrand for the sake of rebranding...
To cheer everybody up, check ou this pumkin design:
http://hello.bauldoff.com/post/1433042141/i-was-able-to-participate-in-this-years
You are right. To me the rebranding strategy was a waste of time. And a damage, because it set a precedent. Think of it. They made this effort comparing us to coca cola or other famous brands. But companies' brands can and have to change on a regular basis to avoid clients' boredom (in spite of the ones who protest)... So the change is intrinsic.
What we search is not to sell though, but to create affection and involvement, affiliation and familiarity. You can't get familiar with something which can change at any revision. As a matter of fact, as of today, we are changing again our tagline. Why? Only because there's been a revision of the educational content? I don't think so, the precedent has already caused a victim: it has killed itself.
This suicidal spirit is very dangerous. We can sometimes do something, thinking we are doing it for a reason while, because there has not been a real discussion and reflection on it, we are unaware of our effects.
All this is also because we are victims of our societies which loose memory and connection with their roots.
I would like to add that if cisv (as you say) has some problems in identity it is also (maybe) because the educational revision of cisv did not come from the same perspective from which it was created.
Cisv was born grace to a psychologist, expert in psychodrama and development psychology. What we do in camps still comes from there.
Now, the educational review was made from a totally different perspective. I don't know the studies of our revisor(s) but i guess is more psycho-social, or sociological, or socio-psychological.
Would you give a cow bred by a stock breeder to a farmer cultivating corn to find a new way to breed it?
CISV now is different, and it (mostly) lost it roots. It is true that we do not (only) start from the kids, but it is also true (and very desirable) that having kids starting from 11 and continuing the path along cisv programmes and becoming leaders and then board members is the best possibility ever. In this sense, an IPP (just to set an example) won't ever have the potentiality of a village. Families approaching cisv know this and like the idea of the educational path STARTING FROM THE KIDS, THEIR KIDS... why should we not mention it? Some chairs may feel offended?
Lat but not least:
The so called conflict between allenians and innovators is a false problem. To innovate does not mean change for changing. The true innovators know how to innovate thinking at the consequences of what they do, and foreesing the effects of their doings in a long run. So, these innovations can last for long and will make our association better. But to do so you need memory and not to forget (or betray) the reason why you are there.
CISV is not a place where people have to prove how they are cool. It's been here 60 years because till now (till some 5-10 years ago) cisvers respected it as something belongin to every cisver, not only to them.
But this is something you learn growing up....
I have the answer to all of CISV's branding problems!
http://twitpic.com/33k79b
Good one, Martin - maybe next year, you can carve it into a pumkin?
Why don't we name ourselves Global Active Peacemakers...? We could then simply inherit the withdrawn GAP logo... I am sure they have tons of spare marketing collateral we could get for free. :)
And it would fit with our great president's view of what the organisation should be. We might even get the nobel prize.
The problem is not the name, the problem is: do we do what we decide we do, or... do we know what we really do? Telling and writing we form active citizens does not make cisv an education which forms active citizens.
But, as I am italian, I am used to see that reality changes with the repetition of a message in a tv program or in a newspaper.
OK. Why don't we decide to change our name and our logo every five years?
Why don't we decide we are left wing and work in national election for leftist representatives?
And then, after 5 years we go for the opponent and work for the right wing...
Let's not have a clear idea, Why having a fix identity when you can change it every now and then and drive people into confusion?
The whole issue of branding, re-branding, taglines and names underscores a very simple fact: we (largely) can't agree on what CISV is. For me, it's Village. Then again, I've now staffed five and been involved in several others, even beyond the work I did as NJR and now as a trustee on CISV USA's national board.
I tend to see JB as thinking of CISV as something different...but even within JB, the difference between the opinions of what CISV is amongst IJB, regions, NJBs and local JBs is vastly different. This argument extends beyond JB--the needs and promotion of chapters and NAs are vastly different.
We have some of the best facilitators in the world, yet we can't come to a conclusion or consensus about this? I can only chuckle at the irony...
As for the actual rebranding (new logo, typeset, etc), I continue to stand by the fact that it makes us look more professional, more respectful, and presents us as a much "better" organization to potential members and potential funders. That alone is worth the effort.
It's sometimes surprising, which of my posts generate the most comments and discussions, and I had no clue that the logo/tagline discussion was so controverse. I personally tend to agree with Martin taking a more pragmatic approach by thinking more professional is good, better PR is good, it won't change what we do (and whatever people may say, it didn't really waste too many resources). And Luca, if you're moaning that CISV wasted its time with the rebranding, it's even more a waste of time to complain today. And I'm also sorry to say, that it's not true that CISV is completing 180° turns (like the examples you are giving), quite the opposite, CISV is actually developing quite slowly: IPP took more than 10 years from invention to becoming a full-blown programme (still with small hosting numbers), youth meeting many more. Mosaic, which now also has been around for a while is only slowly being integrated, while many people still see CISV as a mostly children's organization.
Looking at this year's motion for a new tagline (active global citizenship) takes a different approach, which is applying a new identity top-down, quite the opposite of what the rebranding team did in 2005 by conducting tons of interviews and questionaires. I think the trustees voted quite wisely this year not to accept the suggested new tagline straight away but to initiate a discussion to rediscuss it once again.
I think everybody should try and see the other side of the story, and if you are upset about the rebranding and new trends, imagine you were working on the Mosaic committee: You've been working hard, building CISV's most potential, most inclusive, most educational programme - yet people mostly see CISV as something for children and "building global friendship"...
No, Nick, I am not moaning. I am just expressing my thought. Reflecting on "historical facts".
CISV, as you say, is slowly developing. I agree. When I was NJR, back in the 80s, I used to say (and I was not alone in JB) that CISV had to get out of the bubble, be more involved, and "political". So, I can't be more happy of the new trend. What I wanted to say is that no wonder cisv has some identity problems, as many of the evolutions (like sorry to repeat rebranding) take place like a snap of the fingers... sort of out of the blue... like a real need, which i doubt it is a real need.
Professionality can have many meanings. To my experience, a logo has never meant that, in the first place. I see that what counts is people and what they say, how they say it, their charisma, their face, wording, the look in their eyes... logos, cards, taglines, are something that comes like a wrapping on a present. If you don't have a present there, people will forget the wrapping rightaway.
I wanted also to say that we have a shift in the trend that is caused by the change in driving the car here. We started as a development of group psychology and psychodrama and now we are going towards social education, peace education, active citizenship.
I am saying that if you have a Village or an Interchange that were created from a psychological/psychodrama point of view, they do not start forming active citizens because you wrote a BIG ED saying it. You should (in my humble opinion) change the activity to fullfill the new objectives you wish the association is reaching. Then, I am not sure we all agree on the term "active citizens". To me, and someone did it in the past (gotheborg chapter in the late 80s for example, Rome in the 90s), participate to active peace dimonstrations, sit-ins, assemblies, be active, be part of something working locally towards peace education (human rights and so on).
I can't see many cisvers very confortable with this image.
Still we needed a revision and we needed a reorganization. Agreeing on that doesn't mean we just have to say "hurrà". I tend to not take sides in a religious dogmatic way. There's always a flaw (or more flaws) in what we do and it is very important to be aware of that and try to be prepared to change or adjust. Don't you agree?
(and... I am very happy about the tagline motion, can't you reed it on my face? )
Luca, first of all, thank you for your extensive comments - they add great value to this website, especially, since only some people have been around for so long, and are still active, and concerned about CISVs development these days.
Then, I'm only slowly starting to understand where you're heading at, and I do tend to agree with many of your points:
- I think we both are concerned about the top-down approach been taking in the "identity discussion". Changing the tagline to include active citizenship, Big Ed and the Passport are all the opposite of grassroot developments. Moreover, Kiran at IO, who has been one of the driving forces in this - as much as I admire his work - has little experience in CISV's programmes.
But what's the consquence? If I look at Germany's chapters - I'm quite sure they are not the ones, who will adapt CISV to the 21st century. They're doing a great job hosting programmes, but any change it's naturally against their interest.
- The other question, that is valid, is whether changing the "wrapping" will change the content: And this is where I tend to differ a little bit from your views: I do think that by changing our educational material, our tagline can indeed be a first step to a new identity: If all this finds it's ways into TTTs and RTFs, and then further down to national board meetings, leadership training and the chapter level, I think in the end our programmes cold operate with adapted goals.
- Finally, the way I understand "active citizenship", is that we educate people to have a global, prejudice-free view of the world and then - as individuals, not in the name of CISV - be encouraged in changing the world for the better. This all works well without CISV itself being an "activist organization".
At any rate, what we're doing right here - discussing CISV core content - should be happening at all levels of the organization. But it will remain a challenge, like Martin says, with all the different views that exist...
Luca; a question is how much something like the Passport or Big-ED actually changes anything.
My gut feeling is that our "old" programmes are run, not based on a guide or a passport or any other document. It is based on the common CISV knowledge of the participants.
Nick; I would disagree with your view on change - the documents like Passport or Big-ED do not contain any detailed view of how to do anything - so until the guides get rewritten I would not expect to see any real-life change.
As for the chapters - I agree a lot. Most of our chapters are rigged towards running programmes, preferrably the instant-soup ones. The great danger if we change too rapidly is that we are going to alienate those that for the time being form the backbone of this organization.
Could it also be that we have some degree of disconnect between the international sphere and the local sphere? When did anybody talk about village or interchange in the AIM plenary for more than 5 minutes the last years?
Lars, I couldn't agree more with you. :-)