Near the start of this very long thread I suggested that, 'before it gets too acrimonious', there might be a chance to choose from a larger selection of logos than the two originally presented. My view was that a good place to come up with such a set of new designs could have been the previous (2018) AGM, where a 'logo workshop' might have considered a wider range of alternatives and produced a larger shortlist.

This, broadly, is what has happened. A members' workshop at the 2019 AGM has come up with a set of ten, chosen from a total of 31 submitted designs. The 31 included the previously considered selection, out of which came the unwise binary choice. (Amongst the new designs was an amended version of the old logo: neither it nor the previous pair made the final cut.) The new set of ten is the result of an open competition to which the whole membership was invited to contribute.

This new set is not perfect. There are ambiguities in way the specifications were both presented and interpreted, and the results remain open to criticism. But it's a huge improvement on the previous ones, and a couple are, in my view, pretty good. If you don't like them, you had a chance to come up with a better one, and, as in many large and diverse associations, it's sometimes - sometimes - the loudest voices which have contributed the least.

I too agree entirely with Strider editor Graham Smith that those who have allowed themselves to descend into comments which were "nasty, personal and vindictive, using language which was sometimes abusive and which, in a couple of cases, was foul [...] should be ashamed of themselves". If the sources are identifiable, the perpetrators of the worst examples should, again in my view, face disciplinary action.

As for what kind of action: looking in this website for "a clause in the constitution", I was surprised to find only those of local groups. But Section 7 (Retirement and Discipline of Members) of the LDWA's Bylaws (LDWA Publications -> Official (Legal) Stuff -> Bylaw 1: Membership of the Association), includes the following:

"The Association shall be entitled to suspend or expel any Member whose conduct in the opinion of the Committee (or any of its sub-committees convened to decide the matter) has proved, or is likely to prove, prejudicial to the good standing of the Association or to the attainment of its objects, or who has broken any rule/s of the Association (whether set out in the Articles, the Bylaws or otherwise), or whose conduct has brought the Association into disrepute". (paragraph 7.3)

What, if anything, the "Committee [the NEC] or any of its sub-committees" choose to do about content of the above kind which has appeared in this (public) Forum, the LDWA's Facebook pages, in emails or in telephone comments to NEC members, is, ultimately, for them to decide. It's what we voted them in to do, and the boring stuff at AGMs includes the content of Bylaws such as the above. (And if some NEC members weren't voted for, it was because we didn't propose more than one candidate for that role).

We've heard a lot lately about how once-respectful debate has become 'fouled' by personalised sideswiping, invective, and worse. It's unfortunate that it's the nature of social media and the internet, but it doesn't mean that we have to put up with it. The logo selection process was badly handled from the start and is still not ideal, but, as Graham said, neither it nor the NEC officers who set it up deserve the sort of abuse which has been described.

Iain.

I cant believe some people have been abusive to committee members
and if so if they are proven surely should be expelled from the group .
There should be zero tolerance on this sort of behavior.

Regards Jeff

It is my understanding that those making abusive comments did not use pseudonyms, and that hard working members of our committee received personally abusive comments via email an messaging. I wish that everyone would be mindful of the emotional impact this can have on real people trying their best to represent many thousands of members, not just a very vocal few.

Just adding to what i have said I joined to walk with other like minded walkers . We are in a club which is second to none the walks are brilliant and very cheap if I may say. The volunteers do a remarkable job at the check points which they do not get enough credit for.

We have elected people in place to make all the decisions which have been democratically elected .This allows me to walk and enjoy myself on the numerous walks that members put a lot of effort in to make possible.

For what i pay i get an awful lot .

Many thanks LDWA

Hi All
When this all gets sorted out and we are all friends again can we have our local group area under the new logo to
show which area we are from.

Hoping we can be friends again soon
Jeff
ps I totally agree with what Edward has said

That is why I'm against pseudonyms being used. I would never say anything on the forum that I wouldn't say to someones face.

My understanding of why our NEC will not allow us a vote to keep our logo was because of a human figure on the logo. Is the NEC still of that opinion when we can vote for logo C that as a male figure on it. If the NEC are so sure that member want change why are they afraid to give the membership a vote to keep our logo?

I personally think the Editorial missed an opportunity to start building bridges between the two sides in or recently self inflicted "debate" over the new logo.
If there is evidence of "abusive" or "foul" comments (as alleged in the editorial) then surely we must have a mechanism for taking disciplinary action against the originators of these comments?

I fully agree with the comments made by the editor in his column on page 2 of the latest Strider.

Hi Iain
Space was at a premium in the next Strider magazine and there will be 10 shown. It would have been impossible to have shown all tem in the way that you've described unfortunately. Madeleine has worked hard with Graham Smith to ensure that the logos are shown on a two page spread in the edition that comes out imminently.

At risk of encouraging yet more objections to this already interminable process, I would point out that in the original binary pairing there were three versions of each of logo, namely 'plain b/w', 'plain b/w with label', and 'green with green label' (Strider 142/Dec18 p9). A wider selection, therefore, than just 'mono'.

Since (a) all of the original and new logos include labels, and (b) many of them would lose clarity and immediacy without their colours when 'shrunk' to (smartphone-compatible) 1cm x 1cm, would it not be possible to include both mono and full-colour versions ?

It's as if the world's galleries decided to present their online collections in monochrome only, because "the colours can always be amended in the future". Please allow people the chance to see the logos as their designers intended.

Iain

Hi Iain and Don.

Iain - the logos were presented in mono and will be in the magazine so that people can focus on the logo itself as opposed to being drawn by a colour. The colours can always be amended in the future.

Don - all logos will have the opportunity to have the full name used if and when they are chosen. In the future there will be the image and then there will be the image and words either to the side or below.

I'm personally hoping whatever logo we end up with is one of those that has our name in full, with or without the initials LDWA. It will let anyone unfamiliar with the logo know what it represents, rather than leaving them to guess.

Madeleine, thanks for the confirmation that the new logo vote will be from a shortlist of ten which were selected at the AGM workshop. I had expected that the deadline for April Strider (end of January) would mean that the vote wouldn't be until after the August edition.

Can you please explain the absence of colour in the 31 logos as presented in the two ('compliant' and 'more possible') files ? Were the versions offered to the AGM workshop the colour originals ? If so, will the shortlist of ten also be in full colour ?

Iain

Iain

10 logos will be presented to the membership for a vote. Details in April Strider. The 10 were selected from the 31 by people at the workshop on the Saturday of the AGM weekend and then displayed at the AGM on the Sunday. There were some really good ones submitted. Thanks to everyone who sent them in.

Madeleine

The logos considered at the March 2019 AGM workshop included a new batch, numbered 12 to 31, which had been sent in for consideration. These were in addition to the previous 11 'compliant' set. So a total of 31. Not yet clear whether all 31, or a shortlist selected by the workshop, will be offered to the full membership for future vote. Or whether they will be in black/white, as so far presented, or colour, or perhaps both.

Some of the new ones are pretty good, I think, though we haven't yet seen a new shortlist (if there is to be one).

Links to both old ('compliant') and new ('more possible') sets in members-only page:
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/membership/logodebate.php

Iain

That article about weight watchers involved them completely changing their name, as what's in scope for us is only the logo it's irrelevant.

Add to that the fact that very very few people outside the LDWA have ever heard of us, have any idea who we are or would recognise our current logo if it smacked them in the face and it becomes doubly irrelevant. If we manage to raise the profile of the LDWA (and I'm all for that) then for the vast majority whatever new logo is chosen will be the first contact they will have had with any LDWA logo.

Yes Bill, I have been part of the discussion for many months too. This just seemed to be another weapon in our armoury.

Yes John.. That's just what several of the Memebers having been trying to point out for some months now.

Here's what can happen when you start fiddling with a brand (Weight Watchers in this instance)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47392730

It seems to me that the purpose of a Logo is primarily to be instantly recognised and associated with the organisation who owns the Logo. Examples of this are the Coca Cola and Manchester United logos which are both recognised worldwide. If memory serves Coca Cola did slightly change the font they use but the change was almost imperceptible. Similarly Black Sheep brewery spent a lot of money changing their logo and ultimately all that happened was they changed the outline from oblong to square and the sheep's head sticks out of the top now instead of the right hand side. The message is: If you've got a good recognisable logo. Stick with it. The current LDWA logo is instantly recognisable, just the outline is almost unique and the design is simple, a walking figure, the initials, 2 colours and 2 lines.
The second, not essential, but definitely desirable function of a logo is to indicate what the organisation is about and in this case our current badge is outstanding. The figure could only be seen as walking. The background is countryside, not mountains, as some of the suggested new badges indicate. We may well climb mountains but that is not our prime aim. We are the Long Distance walkers Association.
Regarding sexism, to my mind the figure is fairly androgynous. Certainly the forward arm hides any clue to the shape of the chest. Clearly the hair is short which is more likely to be male although many active women have short hair. The original designer missed a trick there, as long haired men were more common in 1972. Quite a number of walkers wear peaked caps these days and women often tuck long hair under their caps. I would suggest that if we must tinker with the logo we add a peaked cap to the outline of the walker.
Essentially I believe that we currently have an outstanding Logo and the maxim "If it ain't broke don't mend it" applies.
A vote by the members as to whether we should change the logo should be held but recent history shows that results of referendums are not always implemented!

Following on from my letters to Strider in the 1990s regarding entry numbers for the 100, I'm now looking at the Logo debate. I've been back to the wall and looked again at definitions, again they are not as I remember them. Under democracy it says Governing of the membership by the Committee for the Committee.

Yours sincerely

Benjamin the donkey
Animal Farm
Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Geoff

It looks very good and dare I say better then our original logo. Just looking at it says "walker", but I doubt it will get past the NEC

Ah yes, I'd forgotten the precise specs but what the heck, I can easily move the LDWA letters to the bottom but they contrast much better with cyan than mid green. Anyway I've spent enough time on this for now, I'll pick it up if there is any interest.

The spec asks for two versions: version 1 without text, and version 2 with text. The text should say 'LDWA' or 'Long Distance Walkers Association' and should be "either at the side or below".

I replaced the original walking figure with a clipart-style walker with a pack.

Here is a new image with two versions, one with a thin black border and one without.

Tough choice but seeing as we the powers that be dictate that we must have a new logo then the new Square one would get my vote, if indeed we were given the option to vote on it.

On no Geoff. They'll hit you with Rule 72, section A, subsection 29. Just not acceptable....

Rejoining the fray, I can only echo the arguments of Iain, John and Bill.

Here is a quick attempt at a square readable version of the current logo.

Ian Sykes is absolutely right.

The only possible reason left for not allowing a vote to retain our logo is a fear, or even expectation, that the vote would go against the change. Everyone has said that if change was voted for in a fair ballot it would be accepted. What a way to treat the membership.

What happened to principles such as every members view is equally important, to the freedom to vote as conscience/feelings dictate, to the right to hold different views and express these in a vote?

If the NEC is so convinced theirs is the right course to follow they should argue their case and win the argument. Not ban anyone from voting differently.

Give us a vote..... please.

"No amount of special pleading is going to get past what has been clear all along: the old logo is not going to be in the larger replacement set from which the membership will be invited to vote later in 2019. This is not going to change no matter how much 'interpretation' the current design spec permits."


This nanny knows best attitude is whats upsetting some of the membership. Just because a few members of the NEC whats a new logo, it doesn't mean the rank and file should not be allowed a voice on keeping the original one.

Well I had a go at making a new logo based on the old one. After all, how hard can it be to drag & drop a few pieces of clipart?
Well, the dragging & dropping is no problem, but the artistic side, for a non-artist like myself, is off the scale.
After a few miserable attempts I realised that the simplicity of the current design is in fact very, very sophisticated.
I felt like somebody trying to replace a Picasso. The power and dynamism of our walking figure is unbelievable. I couldn't even approach it.
So unless I suddenly get gifted with a super-artistic power, then I'm out of the running for creating a new logo.

John

No amount of special pleading is going to get past what has been clear all along: the old logo is not going to be in the larger replacement set from which the membership will be invited to vote later in 2019. This is not going to change no matter how much 'interpretation' the current design spec permits.

Since you already have a digital copy of the old logo, I suggest that you allow the old logo to be included by making it compliant with the current spec. This would involve creatively altering it and submitting the re-designed version. It might go as follows.

1. Replace the figure with one less likely to be perceived as male or female. Such a figure might come from one of the many free-to-use graphics libraries available on the internet. (A while ago I put together a selection, which if you email me - try East Lancs future events July 17th - I can send to you.)

2. Move the 'LDWA' label (text) from the top to the bottom. This might involve changing the 'horseshoe' shape of the logo to either square or circular, and/or moving the replacement figure higher, and/or raising the height of the 'hillside' to accommodate the text (which would still need to be readable at 1cm sq.).

You can do this, even if you don't have graphics design training. (I won't be as I've already submitted a version not deriving directly from the old logo. No, I don't have design training.) Which figure you choose to use is up to you - plenty of non-gender-specific ones on the internet.

Iain.

"1. The logo is to be ?clean, simple & modern?. "
In my opionion the current logo is actually timeless and modern. The 1x1 cm app version reminds me of a Picasso as it's so bold and simple.

"2. It should be square or round. "
The current logo is square or rather, fits into a square.

"3. Ideally it should not have a recognisable human image. "
I note the use of the word 'Ideally' here. That means that it's optional, not mandatory. By this criterion, the current logo cannot be rejected.
Also it mentions the use of "a recognisable human image". Nowhere in these rules does it state anything about the perceived sex of the figure. Therefore it can't be rejected because " it is more likely to be perceived as a male figure than a female one". So unless you want to add another rule, you can't reject the current logo, because to do so would be arbitrary.

"4. The logo must be app compliant (I.E. recognisable when sized at 1cm x 1cm) "
It has been demonstrated that the current logo is fully compliant.

"Version 1 PLUS ?Long Distance Walkers Association? or ?LDWA? either to the side or below." "
This is an arbitrary rule whose sole purpose is to exclude the current logo (which has the LDWA at the top). There's no reason why LDWA can't appear at the top.

So it would appear that if these rules are complied with, then the current logo cannot be excluded. Unless a specific rule is added which states "The current logo cannot be included in the list of candidate logos" and that would be so obviously arbitrary.

The stated submission criteria for the logo design are in
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/website/downloads/Logo_Submission_Criteria_docx.pdf.
which states that:

"It is requested that two versions of a logo are produced.
Version 1:
1. The logo is to be ?clean, simple & modern?.
2. It should be square or round.
3. Ideally it should not have a recognisable human image.
4. The logo must be app compliant (I.E. recognisable when sized at 1cm x 1cm)
Version 2:
Version 1 PLUS ?Long Distance Walkers Association? or ?LDWA? either to the side or below."

The reason why the old logo is not to be included on the new set which is to be re-presented to the membership for vote at a later date is it that it clearly is a "recognisable human image", and, in the opinion of the organisers of the AGM 2019 workshop which is intended to come up with that new set, it is more likely to be perceived as a male figure than a female one. The "app compliant" requirement was not and is not the main issue, even though, as John has demonstrated, the old logo is recognisable when reduced to 1cm x 1cm.

If you want the opportunity to vote for a logo which includes a figure that does what the old one did but isn't perceptibly male or female (and still reduces to one square centimetre while remaining both recognisable and legible), you have until February 28th to come up with one.

Iain

Now that's it's been demonstrated that the current logo can successfully be shrunk to 1x1 cm, will it be added to the list of possible logos on which we will soon vote?
I understand that the only reason it was excluded was that it was believed that it couldn't successfully be shrunk to 1x1 cm.

Wow look how the LDWA logo stands out amoungst a crowd, well done John

Blimey, the LDWA app is up & running
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pp/46201099765/

And the 'Logos Considered Not Suitable' at 1x1 cm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pp/40150073733

Meanwhile, here's the page of 'Possible Logos - App Compliant' shrunk down so that each logo is about 1x1 cm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pp/32172649787

So, that is that. After well over 100 posts, numerous emails and countless conversations the membership is not to be allowed to vote for our existing logo.

The Committee is to be congratulated for its single-mindedness and relentless pursuit of its chosen target. Nothing must stand in its way. Not democracy, not fairness, Nothing. No other opinion must be allowed to prevail and no votes given to those who think differently.

In excluding those who feel otherwise. the Committee have ensured that theirs is the only path that can be followed. Do not allow the opposition a vote. Simple and 100% effective. But utterly wrong. Morally wrong. Democratically wrong.

Amongst the laudable aims that the Committee is seeking to pursue is one of greater inclusivity, They are off to a bad start. Will they include those who think differently to themselves? Will they include those who believe one members view and one members vote is as important as any other? Will they include those who believe that each member should be allowed to vote as his or her conscience or feelings dictate?

With apologies to Orwell, it would seem that some are more included than others.

Elton Ellis was was kind enough to enquire whether members who were threatening to resign had changed their minds. Why should they? Has the Committee listened? If people resign it will not be because the logo has changed it will be because of the way the change has been engineered and the way the membership (a minority, a majority? - we'll never know) have been treated.

I think that the original designer firmly had mobile phone apps in mind when he/she designed it. I think that it reduces really well.

Well done John. It is refreshing to see a case that has been made repeatedly without any real foundation, finally firmly rebutted by hard evidence.

Just in case the 1x1 cm logo was too readable, try this one at 0.5x0.5 cm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pp/47057770002/

Nice one John now that is a logo that describes perfectly what the LDWA is all about i.e. a person striding out happily in our green and pleasant land, simple, descriptive and gender negative

Here's the current logo reduced to 1x1 cm.
Looks completely recognisable to me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pp/46358276074/

This discussion has been informed as well as heated, but the logo criteria bring clarity., and hopefully peace and harmony.

The existing logo is omitted from the options because, like many others, it cannot be reduced in size (and still be recognisable) to 1cm x 1cm, the requirement for a smart phone app. That we need this size reduction criterion is, I think, self evident.

This should allay the concerns of many and also, I sincerely hope, cause those who have threatened to leave the LDWA, to rethink that.

Thank you David. Because of the app size requirement, it is a bit of a challenge. Annie

Hi Annie

You can have as many colours as you like. Just be aware that it will need to reduce to 1cm x 1cm as per the criteria.

Looking forward to seeing it.

Hi Madeline. I am working on a design for a new logo...... how many colours are we allowed? Annie Dyson

There is now a page with a link to the files containing all the logos which have been considered. It will be updated on a regular basis up until the AGM weekend. See news item (updated today with the link)

Ian - if you read the case for change and the criteria, current one doesn't fit, so no.

Christopher - it's in the case for change

Madeline, looking at the criteria for any new logo what is the NEC's thinking behind item 3:

Madeleine, thankyou for the update. Am I right in thinking that NEC will not be allowing the membership a vote to keep the existing logo?

So, you should start to receive David Morgan's January newsletter which reports back from the NEC meeting on 19th January. Below is the gist of the position on the logo

At the NEC meeting on 19th January 2019 a decision was taken to suspend the logo ballot process. Whilst the NEC had sought to engage with the membership with the article in the August Strider magazine, members didn?t make their feelings known until after the December edition and it is only right that a new process is pursued. The NEC is firmly of the view that the logo change is necessary, that it is part of a bigger picture and forms part of the plan that will seek to secure the long term sustainability of the association. The logo change alone cannot achieve what the Business Plan sets out to deliver. It is part of a wider plan that seeks to present the LDWA to the wider walking community as a modern and inclusive organisation. The one positive aspect of the process has been that members are now more aware of the Business Plan and the aims and objectives that it seeks to deliver. Members are invited to submit their designs to me by 28th February 2019.

The list of criteria which you should work to is at
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/website/downloads/Logo_Submission_Criteria_docx.pdf.

At 1pm on Saturday 9th March 2019 a workshop led by me will be held at the Hallmark Hotel, Gloucester. There the group will review the logos produced by members as well as the other logos that have already been produced and are IT compliant. A selection of logos will then be presented to the membership for a further ballot and details on how to vote will be described in the April Strider magazine. If you wish to be a part of this group then please contact me by 28th February.

The full set of logos are available:
Ones which are possible :
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/website/downloads/Possible_Logos_-_App_Compliant_docx.pdf

And ones we've considered but are not suitable
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/website/downloads/Logos_Considered_Not_Suitable.pdf

Hello everybody,

My first post in the forum. I have just sent my tuppence worth to the Chair, as follows :-

Re. the ballot for the new logo - I am not massively drawn to vote for either, and I am concerned that if I do cast a vote either way this may then be used as justification to adopt one of the logos ?because that?s what the membership voted for?.

I?d like to see other voting options : keep the current logo / another logo.

My main concern is that we haven?t canvassed the membership about what we want to see in a new logo - I apologise if this was done and the design agency in question has taken this into account. If not, then I would like to see the members consulted with a list of key factors they?d like to see represented in the new logo being fed into the designers. There should then be a vote on a larger list containing at least 5 options.

I know this isn?t the most important thing in the world but it should be dealt with thoroughly and with an aim to have as much contribution, and buy-in, from the membership.

I think conversations around any logo for any organisation not having an immediate in your face pictoral link to the activity or organisation it represents misses the point of branding.

Neither a 'tick' or 3 adjacent short stripes would have made most people think of trainers yet I doubt many people within their target audience wouldn't recognise the Nike or Adidas logo.

After a preiod of exposure people associate a logo with a brand, that's pretty much irrespective of the logo itself. Just the way it works.

Besides, as for a logo for the LDWA in particular (tongue in cheek comment incoming)

It must be hard to design one that screams 'white, retired, Daily Mail reader'

Some Thoughts on Logos
I was underwhelmed by both of the new suggested logos for the LDWA, and I haven?t got a great affection for the current one, but it seems that every organisation needs one and that a great deal of time (and often money) can be spent on their design.
Years ago my old employer (Thames Water) wanted a logo. This was in the days of public ownership. They opened up the competition to employees with a reasonable prize of £1000 for the winner. Thus the original rondel; blue and white wavy lines with the company name across the middle, was born. It was striking and recognisable. Several years later, now a private company, it was decided that ?re-branding? was needed, including a new up to date logo. A specialist company was engaged, many thousands of pounds were spent; the new logo was a lighter blue, with the wavy lines squashed up a bit. All that money spent for a bit of fiddling about. With each new owner of the company re-branding occurs and the logo is fiddled about with again.
The Trail Running Association had to change its logo because the ?Acorn? is the logo of National Trails. They gave us plenty of notice to stop using it which allowed us to have a competition amongst our members ? with a more modest prize of £100. A lot of the simpler logos submitted (e.g. a running shoe sole, a sign-post) couldn?t be used because they were too similar to those used by other organisations.
There seems to be a trend in corporate branding for abstract logos that don?t really mean much. For example Plas y Brenin (the national mountain centre) has changed their logo from three figures engaging in activities related to the centre, to two incomplete triangles (a mountain reflected in a lake perhaps?).
So we have a choice between a collection of letters or a delta wing (is this a direction arrow on a GPS?)
None of the logos arouse strong feelings in me, but if we want something eye-catching and meaningful, surely we have artistic members of our organisation who can design something for a modest prize and the kudos of having ?their? design on our stuff.

Just watched our President Elect's interview on BBC Breakfast about walking 100 miles while dressed as wonder woman. Good interview but sadly no mention of the LDWA that I heard.

Was the reference earlier today to making one's views known to the "1922 Committee" (very droll) referring to this procedure in the Bylaws?
Section 8 and 8.3 especially.
Bylaws

I can't see how the vote can go ahead fairly given the uncorrected background information posted on this thread about the earlier consultation over the walking figure type logos. BTW that also took volunteers' time and presumably the Association paid for the designs.

The newsletter only adds to this impression in the way it frames the debate. Across the whole spectrum of opinion about the proposed logos are people wanting a vote on the existing one or similar to be included in the vote, not just the people in the first of the three groups literally wanting "absolutely no change".

It was also not spelt out whether those postings and the newsletter represent the NEC as a whole or are personal views.

Re gender issue, A couple of weeks ago we caught a train to go walking and opposite was two ladies bemoaning the fact that their had to work until they were 65. I said it's all about equality, if men have to work until they are 65 then it's only fair that women had too. Their reply was that they only wanted equality that suits them.

I'm another one to vote for the existing logo, but I'm well over 50 so maybe I'm not allowed a vote.

Yes Bryan the gender issue was exactly my thoughts on seeing Davids newsletter, so I wonder what the issue with the existing logo is now, that the gender issue appears to be no longer relevant.

Not that I have ever seen anything in the existing logo other than a gender neutral striding walker doing what we all love i.e striding out and enjoying life in our green and pleasant land and in that sense the existing logo says exactly what the LDWA is all about.

In my opinion the EXISTING LOGO is TIMELESS.


Which is something neither of the two new proposed logo`s can do or be.

Another vote from me to keep the Existing logo.

Gender neutral doesn't appear to be an issue any longer, David's newsletter showed an image of our new president in a costume which even the actor who wore it admitted was sexist.
As for those of us who feel we are not getting a vote, you can always send a letter to the 1922 committee, that's what I did.
Anyway this isn't the worst idea I have ever heard of from within the LDWA, I remember someone from one of the principalities championing double hundreds, wonder ( but not Wonder woman picturesplease) what became of him?

Some thoughtful comments here. I'll keep mine short, although I have spent time thinking about this.
I have never liked the old (current) logo - it seemed 'old fashioned' when I joined in 1987 - and I have never seen the 'strider' as gender neutral, which is, for me, the priority reason for updating.
As an organisation, we should be looking forward, and I hope the Committee have done their research as to the relative effectiveness of the proposed logos, rather than what they thought looked good.
However, this does seem rushed, as we have gone from an indication about changing to an immediate vote over two issues of Strider.
It would have been good
# to have invited comments and suggestions earlier in the process
# to have seen more of the options on a 'long list' before moving to a shortlist
# given the option 'none of the above' in the final vote
I have voted, but half-heartedly, as neither logo inspires; I won't be resigning as this is not a key issue of membership; but given the strength of feeling expressed here, I do wonder if the process should be paused, re-assessed and re-started.

The answer is obvious.

Just get the committee to pick a new logo, and announce it at the next AGM as a done deal.

The precedent was set for this with the selection of the new President.

What could go wrong?

According to NEC Chair David Morgan's December 2018 newsletter:

"1. Some members want
absolutely no change at all
and wanted the option of
the current logo in the
ballot.
2. Some members love the
designs.
3. Some members want to
see a new logo but were
uninspired by the two
chosen."

The overwhelming trend in this Forum thread has been for (1) or (3), of the above, that is, 'no change' or 'neither of the above'. So please let's hear from those who favour (2), and "love the designs". They may be a significant minority, a so far unrepresented sample of the membership who are happy with the choices of logo put to them. If so, where are they ?

Iain

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, it is certainly not a knee-jerk response; I have ruminated long and hard, read this Forum?s posts and considered other bodies? moves and retreats, as well as the various Group badges.
Good grief, what a lot of interest the proposed change of logo has generated; in a way, this is good, as it has brought some ?old timers? out of the proverbial woodwork. And we even have former National Committee members, including former Chairs, commenting; and not always positively. Just looking at the comments, it appears that most of the negative comments come from the ?old timers? (a word of caution here as I don?t do Facebook or any other social mejia (at least, not yet), although I understand that there is similar scorn elsewhere). Whilst many of the reactions are knee-jerk ones, there are also some very well thought through postings.
Demographically speaking, and being absolutely blunt, we old timers (yep, I joined in 1980 and am now well into my seventh decade) are going to be ?passing on? (a euphemism) before the younger generation and therefore, surely, it ?must? be the younger generation who should be driving this matter ? I include our esteemed Chairman in the cohort of the ?younger? generation. Quite frankly, in 40 years? time (if I am still around), I expect that I will have trouble seeing any logo, let alone understanding it and remembering what walking was all about! A radical thought ? perhaps only those under age 60, say, should even be permitted to vote, on the basis that this is a ?forever? change and not just for the next 5 years or so? We 'old timers' must NOT be selfish.
At the latest Kent Group Committee Meeting, after a brief comment from the Strider Editor and on an informal show of hands, the longer established members were generally not in favour of change ? even though this was well BEFORE the proposed logos had even been seen! Unusually, there were some quite heated comments. In contrast, two newer (and younger) Committee members were in favour of a newer / refreshed logo.
I hope that many will now have watched (or, rather, listened as there?s very little to actually watch) the Chairman?s video ? I have done so twice; in my view, a very reasoned explanation, and invoking the BIGGER PICTURE. However, I suspect that a number of the ?old timers? will not have access to ? or do not access ? either the Forum or t?internet generally ??..., and so his pearls of wisdom will not have hit their mark with all.
It is noted that the matter was mentioned in a previous Strider and that there was an almost eerie silence, and it has been suggested that we (the general membership) had our chance - and blew it! Well, I believe that there is a simple explanation for this, as alluded to by the late Steve Jobs, who said ?It?s really hard to design products ??. a lot of times, people don?t know what they want until you show it to them?, and I think that this is most apposite here (as indeed with Brexitl!!). It may be that the National Committee has become slightly ?tunnel visioned? and attempted to leap the chasm in one go, rather than using stepping stones, as other organisations may do in this situation.
Well, what do I think? I am (or, at least, thought that I was) happy with the existing logo (the walker / strider). It has stood us in good stead ? and in my humble opinion is not sexist (or anything else); it?s a logo depicting a walker, end of. I have ?lived? with the logo for almost 40 years and felt that it is part of my identity; whilst there is certainly a good part of me which thinks ?if it ain?t broke, don?t fix it?, I feel that it would be wrong not to at least consider change.
So YES, an upgrade to a more stylish logo should be beneficial and I would be in favour of such a change IF, but only IF, the new logo is an improvement. We live in a world which is much changed from the 1960s, and we shouldn?t stand still ? indeed, it would be ironic and not a little perverse if we insisted on the status quo, given that we as walkers are always looking at exploring new realms. How will we attract new members if we insist on the old all the time? ? ?Oh, No, we?re not changing the logo, it?s not the sort of thing we long distance walkers do?.
And here, as I and others have alluded to, there are many parallels (some of them uncanny) with the current Brexit imbroglio (where, as I write, the No Change option is not currently available ? though I suspect that may change!); however, there are also significant differences with Brexit, not least I hope when it comes to listening.
Logo 1 ? stylish, I do have to admit, but I have also heard it referred to as ?graffiti?. The simple wording ?LDWA? by itself is a BIG WORRY for me ? what exactly does it stand for (to the outside world)? Well, I can never forget that when my children were of primary school age (so some 15 or so years ago), they were always saying, usually after I had finished a telephone call ?Dad, was that someone from the LARGE DIAPER WETTNG Association, hee, hee, hee?. So be careful what we wish for (I?m sure there?s a proverb there somewhere). Accordingly, it?s a definite No No from me for Logo 1 in its current state; however, add a footprint or stile or hill or rambler?s gate or ?? and, yes, I could see myself as being in favour.
Logo 2 ? hmmm. What exactly is this? Shape of an arrow? Shooting for the stars? Sorry, but it bears little if any relationship to walking as far as I can see ?. Perhaps someone could explain it to me? So, again, a No No from me.
Conclusion ? I cannot bring myself to back either of the proposed logos and would humbly suggest that the National Committee should give serious consideration to retaining the existing logo pro tem. I shall therefore be sending in a ?spoilt? ballot paper, referencing this post. It will be no use probing me for any new suggestions, though ? I have a profound lack of imagination and am useless at thinking of eg Xmas presents; and am even worse at art ? I am much ?happier? amending and pointing out issues / difficulties (and some enhancements!).
I sincerely trust that my comments will be seen as pragmatic and be viewed as constructive criticism ? I definitely do not wish to sound negative (honest!) ? and I am full of admiration for the valuable and sterling work that our National Committee does; indeed, I believe that the National Committee will come out of this debacle STRONGER if they reflect wisely (and have a rethink!). The sheer volume of opprobrium on this website (and elsewhere, including perhaps in snatched conversations) should not be ignored, else a lot ? an awful lot ? of goodwill is likely to flow out of the proverbial window, which would be a great pity.
One last point (promise!): why the rush? Maybe reconsider the whole matter and bring in any change to coincide with the LDWA?s 50th anniversary, which isn?t that far away now?
Here?s to the future of the LDWA!
(And now I shall crawl back into my hole ???????)

I'd like to see an option on the poll to keep the old logo.

The proposed logos are interesting and thank you to the c'tee for working on this.

However, I shan't be voting because my preference is for the current logo and the voting link does not allow for this option.

I see the current logo as both "contemporary" and "neutral". It shows a "strider" as opposed to a "rambler" reflecting the "long distance" nature of our association.

I suppose the matter will be decided by a simple majority of voters. Pity because I'm sure other members feel the way I do and our view will not appear in the result, other than by inference in the event of a low turnout.

Interesting discussion. I cannot support either option.

I don't understand an earlier poster's reference to 'experts' who know better that ordinary members. This is very strange!

Why not get someone like Grayson Perry to design something for us?

It is not good that the management assume those who do not vote want change - probably the opposite it true!

Hi all,

The logo debate. Neither option appeals to me, Logo 1 just reminds me of a captcha type graphic to prevent scams, not an image for us I hope and logo 2 , notwithstanding its cartographic reference doesn?t appeal either; my first thought was it could be on the side of an invading tank.
It hadn?t occurred to me to question the existing logo but now I look at it with a more questioning eye I suppose it could be in line for an update and I hold my hand up, I hadn?t been paying that much attention to the workings of the committee so the either or option was something of a surprise.
Irrespective of the merits of either proposal, the apparent suddenness of an imperative to change our public image and the perceived coercion is cause for concern
As a temporary solution can I suggest that we start a new thread solely for the purpose of registering the opinion that the neither of the two proposed designs are acceptable, nocomments here, keep them for this thread
Thoughts on the logo. Nobody ever whispered in my ear in a sultry tone on the quality of my logo and I can?t see new members flocking to us on the basis of a change in logo. However it?s an intangible thing and I can see a more abstract design having more appeal.
Thank you for asking, my suggestion would be a trapezoid, mid to light blue top, bisected with light green middle ground and dark green foreground representational of a valley. Not dissimilar to the current iteration. Something simple with the outdoors implicit in the colours.

Sean

Just had a look on the National Trust home age and came across this... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/national-trust-exhibition-margaret-armstrong-cragside-northumberland-covering-up-artworks-men

Maybe the National Trust and the LDWA are using the same advisers.

Have to say that after reading Gillians post I looked up the Ramblers Assoc. logo, that totally passes me by and I don't get it at all, what is that squiggle and blob meant to represent? I wouldn't put that as an example, my personal view.
It also may have been designed by experts who understand the modern world far better than me, but memorable it is not - to me anyway. The National Trust one has some meaning and is fine.

The point is that many members (I believe) are happy to embrace change, but the logos put forward do not hit the spot and there is no alternative way of voting NO for them - other than abstaining and not being counted. I think that is where the NEC have slipped up.

Bill Hancock is spot on with his post.

Gillian Mostyn is fortunate. She believes the time is right for change and can vote accordingly. Those who do not share her views cannot.

She is wrong to say people are threatening to resign because of a change of logo. Of course they are not. People are angry, frustrated and threatening to resign because they have been given no say in the matter.

If there was a fair vote and the majority favoured change I'm sure it would be accepted with sadness and disappointment by those who favour keeping the existing logo, but it would be accepted nonetheless.

What is totally unacceptable is to be allowed no vote, no say whatsoever. It seems we are not to be trusted.

This seems so obvious to me that I cannot understand why the wrong has not been put right. The longer this situation is allowed to continue the stronger people will feel and the worse the impression given,
.

My first forum post...I think other opinions probably need to be heard.

The old logo, traditional and familiar though it is to many longstanding members, is no longer appropriate. In this age of social media and branding, it is easy to see it is no longer fit for purpose. This has also been the decision of experts who know more about the matter than most normal members.

For anyone who doubts this, look at logos for the Ramblers, the National Trust, English Heritage, Parkrun etc. etc. They are all simple but bold. And very effective at being instantly recognisable. They work. Their organisations are very successful. A logo, however, does not define a society. It simply allows the 'management' (who, I'm sure, are simply trying to keep our organisation viable) to market it more effectively.

I actually really like the first logo...it is bold and will hopefully become quickly familiar to both its members and the wider public.

I have done very little walking in the last couple of years but I am very grateful that other people continue to work hard to keep the LDWA in existence so that when my circumstances allow I can return. I am stunned at the number of people who are threatening to give up their membership on the basis of a logo change. Surely the society is more important to its members than just its outside image? Those members surely didn't join the club on the basis of liking the logo!

But that's just my opinion. :-)

I've looked at the voting page https://www.ldwa.org.uk/membership/vote/vote.php?vote_id=3

How do I vote 'none of these' or better still 'keep the existing logo'?

The proposal to change the logo has been around for a very long time. It was brought up at the 2011 AGM where there was even an informal poll, which resulted in a 2 to 1 vote in favour of retaining the present logo.

What puzzles me in the flood of emotional posts on Facebook and the Forum bemoaning the lack of an option to retain the ?Walking Man? and allegations of a democratic deficit (some people have been watching too much Brexit coverage) is that no one has mentioned the Chairman's full page article on page 6 of August Strider. Did no one read it? He explains in detail why the NEC feel that we cannot continue with the present logo, and sets out a timetable for selecting a replacement. I believe that the response to this from members was minimal, a single favourable post on the Forum and a few letters to Strider.

Having made the case that change was necessary and received little protest, it would have been illogical for the NEC to include a no change option in a ballot. However I do think it was a mistake to go straight to a ballot when the proposed new designs were aired in December Strider. My view is that it would have been better to explain in detail the process which led to selecting these designs, to initiate a consultation process with wiggle room for modification and if necessary a ballot following April Strider. I think the NEC should be allowed a bit of breathing space to consider the ballet results and feedback (!) and let us know how they intend to proceed after their January meeting.

The sad thing is that this furore is taking attention away from the very serious problems that face the LDWA, and which the NEC is trying to address with the Business Plan. On the face of it the organisation is thriving, but the problem of persuading new people to serve on committees and organise events, the huge proportion of non-members taking part in Challenge walks, difficulty in finding organising teams for the ever more complex Hundreds, finding resources to maintain the LDP database and the need to spend big bucks on improving and maintaining the website are just a few of the big issues.

I believe we have fallen into a complacency trap in the past, and I include myself in that criticism. I have attended over twenty AGMs (do I get a badge?) and they have been enjoyable weekends, a good walk, plenty of chat with old friends over a pint or two, interrupted by 90 minutes or so of the AGM on Sunday morning. Look at the minutes in the Library section of the website, the triviality of many of the issues discussed is embarrassing. I suspect this year may be a little different.

Lastly, if anyone thinks the LDWa has been a haven of sweetness and light for all its life, they should have been at the first AGM I attended in 1994. The debate on how to deal with oversubscribed Hundreds, and specifically whether a ballot should give preference to particular classes of member, almost resulted in fisticuffs. The Strider description of a ?long and intense discussion? was something of an understatement!

The first I was aware of the logo change was in August this year and now, just four months later, we are asked to vote for a totally new logo. The current logo, after 40+ years is to be binned. I believe the NEC do a lot of good work and give a lot of valuable time to the Association, but on this occasion I feel they have made a mistake in not giving enough time for consultation with the membership.
Inclusiveness and appealing to a wider audience are given as reasons for the change. The walking person, I recall, was modified some years ago to appear androgynous and I have never seen it as a He. Compare it with the logo on the LDWA newsletter from 1977, (p. 110, August 2018) which definitely is a He. OK it might not appeal to different ages or ethnic groups or disabilities and so on, but we know it's about walking!
If the NEC insist on an inanimate logo, strip out the walker and keep the rolling hills, like the BMC, walkhighlands and the Fellrunners Association. Add a trail disappearing into the distance, (Calderdale group) and maybe a signpost (Central and Lowlands group) and at least we'll all know what the logo stands for.
Finally, the NEC only offer two options, in order to ensure the winning logo is what the majority wants. But a third option of abstaining, if large enough, would indicate that neither of the two logos on offer is what the membership wants. And we could all think again.

The NEC are to be congratulated! In the space of only a matter of weeks they have managed to turn their members, who were always a reasonably happy bunch of like-minded souls enjoying their common interest, into a justifiably vitriolic and angry group. Well done!

By imposing their dogmatic will to change our logo, and by not offering their members the choice of choosing the current logo as one of the options in the vote, the NEC have treated their members with disrespect bordering on contempt.

Come on, NEC, this lack of professionalism is not your usual standard.
You can do better than this.

Here's my ten penn'oth : I've no objection to a new logo but those offered are so uninspiring and very amateurish. In view of so many comments the committee need to reconsider.I could just about live with Option 2 in green if it had a boot/trainer print on it. A third option [ie No Change ] would be more democratic.

The logo problem reminds me of a similar issue a couple of years ago.

From the BMC?s website:
?After more than 70 years trading as the British Mountaineering Council, we?ve decided to move with the times and change name to Climb Britain and unite all our members under one 'Climb' banner.
Hill walking, climbing and mountaineering have evolved since the BMC was first established in 1944, and the name ?Mountaineering Council? doesn?t quite cut it these days.
We asked for help from Sport England to solve our dilemma. Could we keep our existing name, yet still reach out to the new generations discovering climbing and hill walking? Was there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs? After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer.
?BMC members all climb stuff,? they reported back. ?Climb is the one word that binds all BMC members together, whether it?s hills, mountains, rocks, ice or indoor walls.?
So, today, we're letting all our members know that the BMC will soon become Climb Britain.?

From the forum on the UKC website:
?Just received an email from the Organisation Formerly Known as the BMC announcing they are rebranding to Climb Britain. Obviously my first thought was 'urgh!' ??

After a great deal of discontent over the change, the BMC listened to the membership.

To: Chris Butterfield

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for your reply, it's much appreciated.


Best wishes, Julian

To: Julian Pursey, Cornwall and Devon Group

Hello Julian.
In answer to your posting on Monday 3 December 2108 at 14.14, here is my reply.

Having enjoyed walking for many years, but knowing virtually nothing about long-distance/endurance walking, I joined the LDWA in 1979. I joined my local group, learned the ropes of long-distance walking and worked my way up through the ever-increasing mileages on challenge walks until I completed my first Hundred on Dartmoor in 1984. Since then I have multiple Hundred completions to my credit but have also put a lot back into the association by helping behind the scenes with various LDWA things including being a group secretary. With a declining interest, I stopped supporting my local group in 1996 and reverted to being an independent LDWA member - I continued with challenge walks into the 2000's but on favourite classics which were mostly not organised by the LDWA - the Longmynd Hike, Black Mountains Roundabout, Across Wales Walk and Chris Barber's excellent South Wales Mountain Marathon, etc.
If you're a long-time member of any association, things will inevitably change over time and not always for the better. So personally for me, as I did most of my LDWA walking between 1979-1996, that is the time I think of as the best - a time when there was far less stress and hassle.
There was certainly none of the sourness and ill-feeling that is pervading through the association at present . . . (re: the subject of this thread).
I can't really speak for what the LDWA is like these days because, by choice, I don't take part in any events they organise. I only see it through the eyes of Strider.
So perhaps the best days of the LDWA are yet to come. Who knows? But I for one, won't be there.
For many years now I've enjoyed the peace and quiet of self-organised independent walking, mostly amongst the hills and mountains of the UK and abroad - the more remote the better.
There is a place in the world of long-distance walking for all, somewhere. We're not all the same.

(I will not be posting any further comments on this forum).

As one of the "originals", I agree we should update our logo.
The 2 comments in the current Strider were so out of touch (in 2018 one still goes on about "chair"!), they convinced me we need to change.

But, I don't like the choice. As others say, a different logo with people, or a boot sole, but Not a meaningless (literally) symbol.

And, above all, give a choice to members to retain the existing logo

Keith, a past LDWA Chair.

Why no third option of a logo. NO CHANGE. As I am no longer able to walk long distances, whats the point in us shelling out 22 pounds for membership? when you can not even give us a voice on change.

I was going to vote on the logo change but I can't because they are both awful, where is my option to reject them both?

In reply to Julian the heyday was obviously 28th June 1998 at around 12:58pm

I also want the option to vote for the existing logo. In my opinion neither of the proposed logos is an improvement on the current logo - very much the opposite in fact. This is not a democratic process.

In reply to the last post: I would be interested to know what they consider the LDWA's heyday was?
Also when the best days of our Association came and went?

Having posted a thread on this forum on Saturday, I too will be not be voting for either of the proposed new logos but will, instead, like David Rosen and David Kearns, be filling in my own comments on the paper copy of the official voting form and posting it back to Madeleine Watson, General Secretary. Of course, by doing that our papers will be considered as 'spoilt ballot papers' but that's not the point - if it's the only way our voice can be heard (apart from emailing, phoning, speaking or writing to the LDWA NEC), then so be it.

As paid-up members we are entitled to make our own minds up, as to whether we support a logo change or not (or indeed, any other LDWA projects). We don't need to be dictated to by a group of people who should know better. A logo change will not do anything to attract new members especially if the design is totally unrecognisable as bearing any relationship at all to a walking association. Members are usually voted on to the NEC to serve in the best interests of the LDWA and not to make bad decisions which can turn out to be detrimental.

If there is a logo change in the future, how will it affect many of the LDWA local groups who currently use the 'walking man' graphic as part of their own badge design? e.g. Cumbria, Dorset, Isle of Wight and Lincolnshire to name but a few. Will the NEC ban the use of the 'walking man' and insist all groups produce new logos/badges too? The local groups pay for their own merchandise, challenge walk certificates, woven badges, signage, etc. out of their own funds - the list is never-ending. I very much doubt they would be very happy with having to fork out for all the extra (unnecessary?) expenses themselves.

The December 2018 Strider states that as at the end of September 2018, the total membership was 9317. I'm sure that of that total, only a small percentage are actually interested in the politics behind the association, with an even smaller percentage who are happy to make their views known. We are neither being rebels nor being disrespectful, but just ordinary people who want the NEC to listen - something they are at present reluctant to do. The general membership are seemingly just considered to be an inconvenience and an afterthought.

In reality, I firmly believe that the LDWA has had its' heyday and the best days of the association have come and gone.

As well as posting here I have also emailed the Chair at chair@ldwa.org.uk to express my concern at the process - ie not being able to abstain, vote for neither, no change, or spoil my vote.

Those with similar concerns may consider this route to the NEC.

Tony

Damn, I thought we might be onto some bargains there!

Matt,
There is no stock to sell off cheap. I believe everything is made to order.

So if one of those new logo's is chosen, does that mean all the old ldwa logo branded kit in the association shop will be sold off cheap at vast discounts :)?

In the last 12 months 1841 new members joined the LDWA while 1483 did not renew their membership. Maybe it would be better asking why around one in six left the LDWA in the in the last 12 months?

Another point I would like to say having done two LDWA 100s ( 2012 and 2013 ) I find these unique like the Olympics or World Cup . Changing venues and logos every year is and I cannot find anything so unique in today's events wordwide . I have entered events all over the world for years and I find the LDWA 100s most unique. If the new logo brings in more members then fantastic for the the future of the club that it truly deserves

Not particularly averse to a logo change, though it seems somewhat pointless. Royal Mail thought "consignia" was good rebranding too before retracking at considerable cost and embarrasment. Think both options are awful, and would strongly support a vote offering a no change option. I'm also a member of the Western Front Association, where the executive cttee are resigning on mass due to their well meaning attempt to sell a WFA asset, the Butte de Warlencourt, without asking the membership what they thought of the proposal. Members, who might well have supported the proposal were outraged that they hadn't had their views taken into account, and the matter ended up in the national press!

I have just seen the new logos and I am appalled. They are both horrible. NEC, please, please think again. I am sorry I have other engagements and can not attend the AGM so I can't make my views known in person.

I think logo 2 brings the LDWA up to days modern standards of quality of the challenge events it offers . Without SI entires the challenge events that have always been superb would be no more like other ones that don't use the Internet for advertising. Everything needs to be updated to grab new members. The ldwa is and always will be a great organisation and if a new logo is needed to bring in the next generation of future board members then great . We cannot live in the past

I have received the opportunity to vote on the new logo proposals, but will not be able to do so as the voting options exclude the one I would have chosen i.e. to retain the existing version.
As an exercise in democratic consultation, by failing to include this option the validity of the exercise is severely compromised, and the results will be skewed against the possibly winning alternative of no change.
Hopefully the Committee will consider re-issuing the format to include the existing logo.

I think the second logo is a reasonable effort however....
I didnt see the need for a change. Its just a person walking it never occured to see if it was male or female. I dont think a badge change will help a great deal. I joined in my 20s and I am only 33 so at the younger end of spectrum membership wise. I would also hazard that im not a typical LDWA member. The badge change won't make joining any more appealing. Lots of younger people do trail running events (myself included)but as they age they will look towards the LDWA as our backs and knees go. I think the LDWA needs to attend these events and use social media to promote its events and values.

I will not be voting for either of the new logos. I have been a member for 41 years and have proudly worn clothing bearing the LDWA logo. Fortunately, I will be able to carry on doing so as I still have several such items of clothing. I may even purchase some more before the old stock runs out. What I will not be doing is buying anything with either of the new logos on it. It also remains to be seen whether or not I will renew my membership next year.

The LDWA is recruiting new membership, page 2 of Strider states 4% growth 358 up from last year. Taken in the members who did not rejoin in 2018 the number of new members for 2018 in much higher at 1841 new members joined in 2018. What does surprise me and if my maths are right 1483 did not rejoin in 2018.

Of course i can understand that the NEC want to recruit new members and they want to modernise the website etc and that is great. But what I seem to feel in this particular decision, and in pushing ahead with change, is that existing members like myself are being sidelined with no choice. I'm worried that the LDWA that I have grown to love over the years will change but not for the better and I won't have much of a say. It seems this 'Logo gate' is just the start of things being pushed through without members really getting much of a say. I know this has been discussed since 2017, but I only heard about it this week. I didn't attend the AGM, so for that I'm sorry. But what a crying shame. It seems the existing NEC line up are very forward thinking and are motoring through with their change. And where can I vote for 'Not for either Logo'?

We can always express our opinion via the voting form on Page 8 of Strider. I think both the proposed alternatives are horrible, and it's worth a second-class stamp to say so.

"I would at least like some say in what happens. I do wonder why I am still a member."

I'm the same. I joined paying family membership, now my family have grown up and flown the nest. My wife stopped walking 13 years due to illness but I'm still paid my family membership. All this upevil with the badge as got me thinking and this week I'm changing to single membership I will be rejoining for 2019 so I have a voice on the forum. If we don't get a vote to keep our badge I will not be rejoining in 2020. If we do get a vote and if the vote goes the a new logo them I will except it and stay a member.

I do not like either logos and there is no way to say so. As usual it will be dicided by the minority. I would at least like some say in what happens. I do wonder why I am still a member.

I should like to respond to the point made by Richard Haynes since I fear there may have been a misunderstanding.

He is right. of course, to say that the logo is not in itself a reason for joining or leaving a society or association. I am sure that if a new logo were chosen by a majority of the membership in preference to the existing one the result would be accepted by nearly all those who favour no change no matter how disappointed we may feel. Some you win, some you lose - that's life. We move on.

What is wrong, indefensibly wrong, is not to allow the choice. It is this that causes such ill-feeling and makes folk talk of leaving.

I should like to appeal to those who favour change who feel uncomfortable with not allowing a vote in the membership to voice their concerns. If a new logo is chosen with no option to vote for what exists now, it would be a hollow victory - and a wholly engineered result.

Hello Everyone.I thought I was the only thinking that there is nothing wrong with the existing logo and with perhaps some updating would be perfect. The other two logo options offered really don't give us any choice at all and I don't think either are suitable. I didn't know anything about these changes to the LDWA until I received the email yesterday and one last week. I have been guided to this part of the forum, and I'm pleased that i'm not alone in thinking that the changes offered don't really give us choice. So I'm not sure how to express my disappointment at both options in the voting system.

I have just voted for the new logo that I prefer.
I thought it was time to post a view from someone who is pleased to see the LDWA NEC trying to drag the organisation into the 2021 century. In my view the NEC are all volunteers and spend considerable personal time running this organisation of disparate people.
Their job's are not job's that I would want. Would you? They have, I'm sure, spent many hours discussing and listing to advice on this subject and I for one am happy to let them lead us.
The present logo looks old-fashioned to me on social media. Like it or not, that is where communication and information is now based. If we want to attract new and younger members we must communicate via these platforms. Unless we do the organisation will slowly die.
I have not posted anything before on "The Bothy" as I prefer to be out walking. I also won't be responding to any comment that my post will undoubtedly attract.

I feel strongly that neither of the two new logos are acceptable. I can't that say that via the electronic vote, but I'll be sending in a paper ballot expressing my views. If enough "spoilt ballots" are received, then I'm sure the NEC will get the message. That is much better than not voting at all.

I've just received the e-mail about online voting for the logo.
I don't particularly favour or want either of the options, so I shall be one of the non-voting members.
So if there's a low-ish response rate and the NEC wonder why, perhaps they should take heed.
I would definitely have wanted to see an option for "None of the above" and/or "No opinion". Is that such a radical idea? I feel disenfranchised (which saddens/irritates me).

For the purposes of this posting, I'm treating as a separate issue as to whether the old logo should be included (others will have strong feelings on that). The membership should be able to tell the NEC that they don't like either of the proposed designs, or don't have a strong opinion either way. How else do the NEC know that they may need to go back to the drawing board (as applicable). At least if the poll results show a substantial proportion of the membership have voted, the NEC may have an indication on what the membership want on this issue.

My personal view on this:
1. The existing logo could have been updated without too much trouble.
I think that we are past that point now.

2. The logo had no influence on my decision to join the LDWA and changing it will will not cause me to leave.
It is not compulsary to wear it.

3. I am happy for the NEC to make this kind of decision on the behalf of the organisation and am confident that the reasoning is valid.

The same as Ian Sykes. I would vote to keep the old logo.

It looks like the NEC are pushing the two new logos without giving us a chance to vote for the original one. Just had an e-mail from Madeleie Watson (NEC) inviting me to take part in the electronic logo voting, I can only vote for one of the two new logos so I will not be voting.

Edward you are missing the point, the anger is due to the voting system which does not give members the chance to show what they want. We will never know what the silent majority/minority think because the only choice being offered is Logo 1 or Logo 2. So how will the NEC know whether someone didn't vote because they weren't bothered, want a different logo or want the old logo? Your sarcastic point about complaining over the price of the 100 is not worthy a reply. I want change in order to attract new members to sustain the LDWA and the NEC have some great ideas and support them, but I am still allowed to say no if I don't likec something and then if I am voted down I will shrug and get on with it but please give me the chance to vote the way I want.

Hi Edward, I'm all for supporting the NEC but not blindly supporting them come what may. The NEC are wrong in not allowing us the membership a vote to retain our logo. If we are allowed a vote and then the vote is for a new logo I will be happy with the result as long as the vote is not done secret. . If we don't get the chance to vote for our existing logo I will be thinking whether I'll be rejoining in 2020. Can't understand why you mentioned the price of the 100 for.

I totally agree with the majority of comments posted on this forum with regard to the possible new LDWA logo designs shown in the December 2018 issue of Strider. The whole scenario has been a complete shambles, a situation entirely of the NEC's own making - an undemocratic choice of two very poorly designed logos that have no relevance at all to the LDWA, together with a disgraceful lack of all-inclusive communication with LDWA members at all levels. Do we even need a new logo at all? The current logo should have been retained as one of the choices on the voting form. As a female LDWA member I have never taken exception to what has become known as the 'walking man' part of the current logo. It's just a name. The actual graphic just shows a generic form of a human outline that is neither male nor female.

I have been a specialist illustrator for most of my working life and know good design when I see it.
For an exceptionally good example of a really excellent logo, please take a look at the website of Pentagram, the design studio who produced the newly re-designed logos for the much-loved Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Pentagram's website can be found at www.pentagram.com At the top of the Pentagram web page, click on WORK; ALL PROJECTS; Alphabetical, and then go down to the bottom of the page and click on B. All the various projects beginning with B will be shown, so scroll down until you reach BATTERSEA.
The Battersea Dogs and Cats Home logo was already iconic in it's design but was superseded earlier this year, in 2018, by an updated one. The new logo is simple, clear to read at any size, is memorable and above all, is easily recognisable with regard to the organisation it represents. I'm not saying the LDWA should use one of the world's largest design studios for a possible logo re-vamp, far from it. For one thing, they wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm just drawing your attention to how Pentagram interpreted the design brief for Battersea, in order to produce a modern logo with variations on it, for use on a variety of both traditional and digital platforms. So please read it, you will be surprised.

The LDWA, and Battersea Dogs and Cats as they are now known, do not have any connection with each other. Except for the fact that we, as LDWA members, enjoy going out for a walk - as do cats and dogs!

I was privileged to have known Chris Steer and Alan Blatchford, the founders of the LDWA, and worked with them on a numbers of LDWA projects. I'm sure they both would have not approved of the current stance the NEC have taken with regard to the matter being discussed.
The ongoing logo design saga will resolve itself eventually - but at what cost, and in what form.

Perhaps the NEC needs to take a long, hard look at how they think they are being perceived by the general LDWA membership now. I think they may well be rather shocked.

The LDWA reaches it's 50th anniversary in 2022 and I hope our organisation will still be in existence then.

Hello Matthew, perhaps the shy ones find it's not the case of liking or disliking the choices, but more a case of supporting the views of the volunteers who form the National Executive Committee, who feel a new logo is important for the future. Time will tell at the end of the voting if the shy ones are the silent majority or minority.
I have just entered next years 100, cost, £75. If by some miracle the NEC got entrance fee down to £5 for the 2020 event, someone will come on this forum and say I think they could have got it for £4

I have just had a lok at the on-line voting page and it doe not appear to be valid. There is no way to vote to keep the existing logo or even submit a vote with no box selected.

I am sure the NEC were expecting a little flak on this subject of the logo and it will always tend to be the critics (us) that are most vocal in public.

But in the interests of balance are there some members who like the new logos and think of them as an improvement? It would be good to hear from them and post their reasons why the new logos are better and the system for choice is fair - don't be shy, we need to hear the other point of view.

While I can accept the reasons for a new logo or preferably an amendment of the original, I am appalled at the options we have received. There is no humanity in either. They are cold and uninspiring and obtuse. They convey little or nothing of what the LDWA is about and if I wasn't a member, neither would encourage me to explore the organisation further. It saddens and greatly disappoints that this is the best that the organisation, or at least the Committee, can come up with.

For this reason I am NOT voting.

I agree that the figure on the current logo is definitely masculine inspite of comments to the contrary. However, I feel that many aspects of the current logo are appealing and with some amendment would more than satisfy the diversity being sort to encourage a wider membership. However, I also agree that more than a badge is required to broaden the awareness and appeal.

In Strider December 142 edition, Jerry Gould suggests two figures. Others have suggested a boot print. I would suggest a pair of walking boots and/or back pack on the current background of rolling hills with an explanation of LDWA beneath.

However, in spite of the protest of so many, it appears that the vote is proceeding with the current offerings. I hope abstentions win the day.

Unfortunately the latest version of events posted on Wednesday still does not match my records.

The decision to use a professional graphics designer was taken before the November 2017 consultation over the two walker-type logos, and the work was undertaken by the LDWA?s new professional IT provider with 25 years? branding experience.

In fairness to their designers? reputation, the consultation report did not state that the logos were unfit for purpose or that they had failed to take into account the needs of multiple media types. Instead it proposed next steps to take them forward. The report also made it clear that the logos were only desktop versions and a further stage of work would be planned for the more favoured logo to make it mobile friendly, and clearance had been sought from the NEC for this. The logo would then be trialled with a working group which had already been set up.

Separately Walking for Health appear to have shown that it is not literally impossible to create a hopefully inoffensive and media-friendly logo (which even fits on a biro) with walkers on it. That is, unless anyone feels the little green men show extraterrestrial bias?

I have read the posted comments here and the more extensive ones on Facebook. I fully understand the need to attract new members and make the association more 'appealing'. I applaud the committee in its efforts but it is important to carry the existing members along in the process.

3 years ago New Zealand proposed a new flag. There was a vote across the country and importantly one option was to retain the existing flag. Aside from the various views on the new designs it seemed to me (and I suspect to NZ government at the time) eminently sensible to be inclusive in the process by offering the old alongside the new.

Not to include the retention of the old logo in the voting is to my mind to disregard the views of a proportion of our membership; an unknown proportion since their views will have never been included.

As it stands, members can only vote view for the new. There is no way to register any other view. As many have said this is undemocratic. Its all bit late now but I hope in the fullness of time the committee will be minded to revisit and recconsider what is a very unsatisfactory situation. In 40 years of the LDWA I have seen nothing that has generated so much ill-feeling and outpouring. We might all do well to reflect on this.

Tony

Not good enough, voting starts before your meeting. Answer the question will spoilt papers be counted.

Iain

I am the Chair of the NEC and it would be highly disrespectful to give an answer until all views of the NEC representatives have been heard.

The NEC meets on 19.01. Discussions have taken place by email and advice has been sought from my colleagues this week. We will provide an answer then.

David,

Below are selected extracts from your answer to my previous question, and your reply to the membership regarding the ballot.


"The logos that were provided and that were then viewed by NEC were seen not to be application compliant in the future [...] The prospective logos produced in 2017 [in a process described previously by Helen Abbott] were not considered fit for purpose at that time."

"The reason that only two logos were selected [from a shortlist of six which did not include either the existing logo or a redesigned version of the existing logo] was because if a large selection of logos were available, the winning logo might only attract a small percentage of the total available votes. A binary choice was seen as the best process."

"The ballot for [binary] choice of logo will continue as planned and the NEC will review the number of votes cast. A discussion in the open forum section of the [March 2019] AGM will take place."


A direct question: if the proportion of the membership who vote for either of the two logos is low or very low, which of the folowing options 1, 2 or 3 will be the most likely course of action taken by the NEC:

1. Abandon the idea of a new logo
or
2. Re-consult the membership on the need for a redesigned version of the existing logo
and/or
3. Re-consult the membership on the need for a new logo.

A commitment to one or more of these NOW would, I believe, reduce the amount of criticism you are receiving, at least until next March.

Iain.

I wonder if the next step will be to ask (or tell) Local Groups to review their logos for professionalism and appropriateness for the image thst the LDWA is seeking.

Having just written that I just thought about something that made me smile to myself

Those members who favour a change of logo are entirely entitled to their view and to express it forcefully if need be. The NEC is entitled to make a recommendation to the membership - that is right and proper. What is totally wrong is not to allow the membership a say, a simple vote. I cannot think of any explanation for this course of action other than a fear of the result. The whole exercise seems like manipulation resulting in an engineered result.

I attended an event celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the progress made in universal suffrage, and for women's rights in general. I could not help reflecting that we can now vote for the future we want - unless you are a LDWA member.

I hope they are listening because if this vote is forced through with no option to retain the current logo in present or updated form I guess there will be significant consequences within the LDWA.

I wonder if the NEC is listening or care what the membership think on this issue. My understanding, rightfully or wrongfully was that we could vote to keep our walking man / woman / person logo.

I will not be voting in the logo vote as neither of the choices presented (all two of them) are fit for purpose , do not reflect what we do & look awful . Many will NOT vote for the same reason . So three professional graphic designers were involved in knocking up this rubbish , good grief ! The first logo looks like it was knocked together in minutes by a not very talented child on an etch-a-sketch & it's anyone's guess what the other is supposed to represent .

There's no doubt the current logo needs a refresh or modernising ; but the groundswell of opinion points to this at least reflecting very well what we do to an outsider. For the vote to be truly democratic of the wider membership a third option to retain / refresh the existing logo has to be offered (or at the very least to reject the two options presented)? preferably by electronic means .

Can anyone confirm if spoilt papers will be counted, so that I can participate in the vote and register my desire to keep the old logo.

I do not like either of the suggested logos. The first one is a jumble of letters, the second looks like a road sign. Without "Long Distance Walkers Assocation" alongside either Logo there is no clue that it is a walkers association.

I agree that describing the old Logo you would describe a walking man. However I think most people would just see a walking person, not judging if it was male or female. If you don't know, you just say man. Looking at this logo you naturally assume it is something to do with walking.

I do not see there is any need to change the logo, and would like a third choice to change it.

I do appreciate what the NEC are doing, but in this case I think they should reconsider their decision about the new logo.

Hi Iain and all,

I can answer that question directly. The logos that were provided and that were then viewed by NEC were seen not to be application compliant in the future. The purpose of a new logo would be for it to be useable in a number of ways. As well as being used on a website, letter heading etc, it would need to downsize to what can be seen on smart phones as apps. The prospective logos produced in 2017 were not considered fit for purpose at that time.

Following the March AGM and having listened to advice that was provided, and having viewed other designs, the decision was taken to seek professional graphic designer advice. In the end three designers were used, one with a company who already closes associates with the LDWA and two others who were given criteria to work to.

Any future logo ought to be flexible to be used in a variety of ways.

Whilst I cannot satisfy all questions at this time, I do hope that this places some context into the work that has been undertaken and the rationale behind it.

Helen's account (extract below) doesn't appear to tally with the story as described previously in this thread.

Clarification, please, regarding how the shortlist of six logos (from which came the two reproduced in Strider 142 p9) were selected. What consideration, if any, was given to the outcome of the November 2017 consultation ? In particular, at what point was it decided to drop the 'walker', and whose decision was it ?

Iain.

"Two logos were evaluated. Both featured a walker. One even had a walker very similar to the current one but integrated into lettering. None of the 22 responses rejected the idea of keeping a walker ... Many of the comments were more focused on the type of walker ..."

Something I have not seen in this narrative is that there was a consultation in November 2017 involving a selection of mostly LDWA NEC, other members (including me), and a few non-LDWA people.

Two logos were evaluated. Both featured a walker. One even had a walker very similar to the current one but integrated into lettering.

None of the 22 responses rejected the idea of keeping a walker though one suggested that using lettering would be less dated. Many of the comments were more focused on the type of walker: gait, equipment, colour, size etc and yes, gender (but only in 2 cases with a further response saying that level of detail would detract).

There were several positive comments about including the walker along the lines that it featured an iconic symbol from LDWA history, it was evolution without revolution, and it was important to show an energetic walker enjoying themselves.

Yes if a truly democratic vote was offered with the choice to KEEP THE EXISTING LOGO then my vote would be yes keep what is a vastly superior logo to the two abysmal offerings that we have been asked to vote on.

I would keep the old logo if I could vote on it, I don't see any point in changing it, were walkers not politicians Aren't we ?

I have no problems with changes to the organisation, a modernisation to cement the future of the ldwa. But all changes should all be improvements, small pieces of a jigsaw which fit together to improve the whole.

My personal view of the new proposed logo is exactly that of Geoff Crowder, we clearly looked at it and came to the same conclusion immediately:

" Incidentally if those were the best two, I'm trying to imagine the rest that were rejected. In one case give your 5-year old a crayon and say LDWA, the other, design a new roadworks sign."

There are many local group logos that show imagination and I cannot believe that these two options are the best we can come up with for the national organisation. I would say back to the drawing board.

Not wanting to throw another spanner in the works, but I wonder if the future will bring enforced changes to group logos (by our national committee) on the grounds of gender/race/ageism?

Well, at the risk of sticking my head above the parapet...I am beginning to wonder if the anxiety, distress and possibly fear that many of us feel about the curent national situation, and our future, are being projected onto our concern for our walking organisation. National politics is largely too distant for us to feel we have any influence. Troubles sometimes have a habit of connecting in another place. And no, I do not want this to turn into a discussion about Brexit.

A problem generated by management!

This situation shouldn't have been allowed to progress to this stage, it's clearly not been thought through properly.

If the 'management' (NEC & Co) *ARE* listening to the concerns and opinions the membership, then they should act accordingly and not go off and follow what appears to be their 'change for the sake of change' agenda regardless.

My choice?
On the basis of a truly democratic vote taking place (ie, one that includes the old logo), I'd choose the old logo every time.

Just an afterthought:: how much has this divisive exercise cost?

It's all a bit like the current Brexit situation!

My first post! I object to not being given the option to vote for the future Logo. The recent email states "The reason that only two logos were selected was because if a large selection of logos were available, the winning logo might only attract a small percentage of the total available votes. A binary choice was seen as the best process" We should follow the example of New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_flag_referendums,_2015?16) where the population were also offered a binary choice for a new flag, but were then asked to choose between the winner of that referendum and the existing flag (they chose to keep their existing flag).

By all means have a vote on the choice of a new Logo, but thereafter provide the membership with a choice between the winner and the existing logo. This will avoid the problem of the winning logo not having a majority.

I rarely feel moved to write on such matters but I consider the matter of the proposed new logo has been very badly and most undemocratically handled. The committee gives the impression of feeling only it knows best and will not trust the membership just in case it were to vote for the existing logo - a very likely outcome, I feel. Views are presented as facts and alternative opinions not allowed expression in any ballot. I do not accept the argument for a binary choice either - the issue of split votes could easily be tackled through a transferable vote system. Even at this late stage I hope the committee will reconsider and allow the membership to vote for the existing logo.

Let's have a proper choice, give us the option of no change, a good leader should know when to be flexible. A new logo is not essential to the change that is required (and that the committee are driving successfully) to attract new members.

In September 2017 in an email from Gail Elrick, LDWA Chair, members were advised of the plans to alter the LDWA logo and were invited to submit designs.

At the AGM in March 2018 a discussion took place in relation to the Business Plan of the LDWA. The Business Plan can be viewed at:

https://www.ldwa.org.uk/website/downloads/BP_Summary.pdf

In August 2018 the 'case for change' was presented to the membership via the Strider magazine. The reasons as to why the logo ought to change were outlined. Seven people made contact with either the Chair or Editor.

In the December 2018 edition of Strider magazine members were presented with two new logos and asked to vote on which one would become the new LDWA logo.

A key thread has emerged via social media, emails to NEC members, telephone calls and conversations with NEC members during social walks. That thread is that the NEC is failing to engage with the membership on this particular issue. The NEC will not shy away from an opinion that some members clearly have.

Questions have been asked as to why the old logo is not being included and why there is only a choice of two new logos.

The decision not to include the old logo was because the NEC is working to the Business Plan and is seeking to alter how the LDWA presents itself to the wider walking community. This forms part of a long term plan.

The reason that only two logos were selected was because if a large selection of logos were available, the winning logo might only attract a small percentage of the total available votes. A binary choice was seen as the best process.

The ballot for choice of logo will continue as planned and the NEC will review the number of votes cast. A discussion in the open forum section of the AGM will take place.

In addition, the NEC recognises that further engagement with the members is key for other projects. The NEC therefore plans to have workshops on Saturday 10th March at the Hallmark Hotel in Gloucester from 10am. The walks that are traditionally offered to attendees will still be available, but in order to engage with you, the members, we will offer workshops that will help shape how the LDWA serves its members in the future. There will be no obligation on members to have to stay for the whole weekend and people can just attend for the workshops on the Saturday if this is more convenient.

The details of the workshops will be advertised as soon as the subjects to be worked through are decided. It is likely that the topics will be identified following the next NEC meeting in January 2019.

Yours sincerely,

David Morgan
Chair
Long Distance Walkers Association

Possible solution to the mess: is there a clause in the constitution which renders null and void votes (for NEC officers, logos or anything else) which attract fewer in total than a threshold percentage of the membership ?

Because there are neither 'no change, keep the old one' nor 'none of the above, try again' options, it's likely that many more people will decline to vote than will cut out* and post off the voting slip (in a separate envelope to membership renewal, btw). If the outcome is that less than 33% of the membership have taken the trouble (and this is NOT the same as 'not interested' or 'don't care') - my guess it'll be much lower than that - is this adequate to cancel the result ?

Probably not, but worth a look before it gets any worse.

Iain

*And on the reverse side of the voting slip: not e.g. advertising, but a wedding photo!

To echo others: there is no option to vote for 'No change'. The whole exercise is a waste of time and effort, the current one is perfectly adequate and it's not a 'walking man', it's a 'Strider', as per the name of our own magazine. The 'walking man' survey response in the video is just a historical language bias hangover, much like the 'reasonable man' formally referenced in British law.

Is there any evidence that a new logo will 'serve us' better than the old one anyway?. Bear in mind that formal membership of organizations like ours is itself a declining scenario because young people see little benefit from it. In terms of justification, the entire video essentially boils down to 'we need to change it to pander to hypersensitive clowns whose purpose in life is to pick everything apart looking for things to be outraged by'.

Incidentally if those were the best two, I'm trying to imagine the rest that were rejected. In one case give your 5-year old a crayon and say LDWA, the other, design a new roadworks sign.

We have a prominent LDWA link on our website with the logo that has hopefully attracted a few new members over the years. I'm not changing it, if there is any objection I'd rather remove the link entirely.

I?ve just received my Ramblers renewal. Their logo, an ?r?, doesn?t convey anything about walking. Underneath the logo, the ?r?, the text says ?ramblers at the heart of walking?. On their website the logo, the ?r?, looks like a tree, still not walking though. Again, the logo, the "r", is accompanied by the text. I can?t find anywhere that they just use the logo, the ?r?, without the text. I guess we?ll do the same, where the logo is used, it will always be accompanied by some text.

If the current walking figure is declared to be non-gender inclusive we should alert the Department for Transport that those no pedestrian signs at motorway entrances which feature a similar silhouette figure now mean men aren't allowed to walk that way but its fine for women. The same figure was used on the road warning signs on this year's CP100 when they would have meant mind the mind men but feel free to run over the women. Perhaps a retired police officer would like to start a campaign to get them changed.

Surely when in walking gear there is little difference in the profile of men & women. Perhaps there is an objection on the "does my bum look big in this" grounds. Its not representative of me as the figure is missing a large paunch.

I have no problems with the rationale for change of logo well expressed in David's video, but I do have issues with the NEC's decision to restrict our choice to just two. (At least let us see the shortlist of six from which these two were taken.)

An ideal time and place to whittle down a larger set of possibilities to a representative sample might have been at this year's AGM. A 'logo workshop' could have come up with a larger and more varied set, from which a sample (I'm suggesting a minimum of ten) might have emerged.

Please forget this unimaginative binary choice whose outcome is likely to be an unrepresentative low response. Next year's AGM would be good place for a second attempt to garner some real interest and a more genuine selection.

iain.

Hi Tony

I've emailed you screenshots of the online Strider magazine.

David

Well, that has certainly woken a few people up. The forum seems to have been dead for the last couple of weeks.
One request. I am visiting family in the USA (in sunny New Mexico!) and will not be able to open my Strider until I get back home. Can a link to the images be provided?
Then I can see what all the fuss is about.
Thanks

A good and helpful video that David. Although I probably spent most of the time trying to work out where that picture was from behind you!
You said that you knew the decision was going to be controversial. Well I for one have never liked the current logo. I think it looks dated and he's got a funny gait.
I don't like option one. It looks like a kid has just learnt how to use word art. I was trying to work out if the letters being joined up had some relevance like the White arrow in FedEx. I don't think there is though.
Logo two is getting my vote. I do quite like that. I think it looks modern and representative.
If there had been a logo with a boot I'd have gone for that but there's not so so be it.
We elect the executive to take executive decisions and I'm pleased to see you doing that's bravo to you and the rest of the executive that give up your time.

A good and helpful video that David. Although I probably spent most of the time trying to work out where that picture was from behind you!
You said that you knew the decision was going to be controversial. Well I for one have never liked the current logo. I think it looks dated and he's got a funny gait.
I don't like option one. It looks like a kid has just learnt how to use word art. I was trying to work out if the letters being joined up had some relevance like the White arrow in FedEx. I don't think there is though.
Logo two is getting my vote. I do quite like that. I think it looks modern and representative.
If there had been a logo with a boot I'd have gone for that but there's not so so be it.
We elect the executive to take executive decisions and I like that you do

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AioTqui0w-dLgTqhJW-34b7i6RT4

This was due to be posted on 01.12.18 but as Strider magazines have arrived early, I have decided to upload today.

I totally agree we need an option to keep the walker logo in some form.
Has there been any consideration of the impact on group and event logos, merchandise, certificates etc which incorporate it? A more abstract logo might not even work at all.

We need a third option - NO CHANGE

Before this gets to a vote, please consider extending the selection to include as wide a variety as possible in a range of both style and content. I personally dislike both of the current offerings (Strider 142 p9), and in the absence of a 'neither off the above' option would have to abstain. At the moment my guess is that as it currently stands, the number of votes received will be a very low percentage of the membership.

I'm not a graphics designer, but I think it would be possible to come up with at least ten and perhaps twenty alternatives which would be more acceptable than the current ones. A minimum requirement would be that they convey something about not just walking but long distance walking (and the degree to which they do that might dictate whether or not they need to include the full wording). As some people have suggested, the selection might also contain a reworked version of the 'walking person' logo.

On p9 of Strider 142 there are three versions of each selection, but the Voting Form offers only Logo 1 or Logo 2. Another reason to abandon this before it gets too acrimonious. Try again with a selection of at least ten, and put them on the redesigned LDWA website. It can wait till later in the year.

Iain.

I think it is a great idea to reconsider the LDWA Logo but as mentioned in an earlier comment there should be an option to retain the present logo to at least gauge the support for change. My view is that such a fundamental change is a decision for the Membership and not just an elected Committee

I personally think both logo designs are not great and don't convey the organisation apart from the wording (Remove the wording and logo one is just four letters and don't even know what number 2 is supposed to signify!). A logo is just that, a logo. Still believe the walking person image was ok as it symbolised what we do which is walking - though it may have benefited from an upgrade, I also never thought of it as a walking man mainly because it always reminded me of the iconic Ann Sayer photo!
An option missed was opening the re-design up to the membership with maybe the committee choosing 2/3 finalists and then voting on those. It could then have been professionally stylised to smooth it out better.
Currently it may be that people pick the worst one and vote for the other ....

I dislike logo 1, with its graffito tag. Logo 2 leaves me cold and its minimal form will not be meaningful to the general public. I would have preferred a logo featuring what makes the LDWA, the people. The current logo with the male walker more stylized, a female added, a more modern typeface and the overall shape altered would have done nicely!

I can understand that being decisive is often viewed as a positive characteristic in committees and officers.

But to offer members the choice between two new logos without including a third option to retain the existing logo or a variant thereof is, in my opinion, merely a veneer of consultation.

Thanks, David. I look forward to seeing the proposals.
Cheers
Elton

Hi Elton,

Not sure about the 'Get Up And Go' bit. We just want to ensure that our association thrives as we move forward in the 21st century!
In relation to the logo I can reassure you that the NEC employed the services of two professional graphic designers and will be reviewing what has been produced at the quarterly NEC meeting tomorrow (28.07.18). Your sentiment about the importance of this decision is absolutely spot on. This is a potentially big move, but please be assured that no decision by the NEC will be taken lightly.

Regards,

David Morgan

Excellent article in Strider about our logo by our get-up-and-go chairman.

May I suggest we get professional input on this? It?s too important to be left to well-meaning amateurs, as it will reflect our identity for the next half century or so. Ideally someone of the calibre of the genius who designed the Uffington White Horse ...

My (amateur) suggestion: a Vibram bootprint or a track of three bootprints, placed diagonally on a plain background. As David Morgan says, no logo will say comprehensively what the LDWA is about, but bootprints take us a good part of the way.