Mission Logo Redesigns
- Posted by Steve K. on August 10th, 2009 filed in General
- 5 Comments »
I noticed recently that several mission organizations have quietly begun rebranding themselves, starting with new organizational logos. HCJB rebranded themselves back in January 2007, and this is something we’ve discussed doing at SIM off an on over the past few years. So the topic is of interest to me.
I just wanted to share some of these logo redesigns as examples of what other mission orgs are doing right now and to invite your feedback—what do you like? what do you dislike? is now a good time for organizations to pursue re-branding? or would it be a mistake of Tropicana proportions?
Here are the logos:
August 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I like all the changes except for The Pioneers (which I’m not familiar with). While I like the new logo – I like the former logo better. Otherwise all the logos were an improvement.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:04 am
I definitely like the first Pioneers design. Funny that they changed it. After graduating from the 1980’s to the 1990’s style SEND and TEAM have a long way to go to catch up. It’s like Adobe Photoshop 3.0 vs. CS3…
, I feel, anyways.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 am
I’ll definitely throw my hat in the ring to explore SIM getting a new logo. At the very least, it’s worth a look. A very historical brand is wrapped up in our current logo, but I worry that at least without considering a more modern logo, it could hurt our brand over the coming years and irreparable harm for the coming decades.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
SK–logos are very important to me, like most folks! As I read your post, I was thinking–hey, I like SIM’s logo, hope it doesn’t change–but then as I went down the list I liked most of the changes.
Frontiers: much better font, GREAT tag line. Meaningless graphic.
Pioneers: Yes, better, integrating the symbol into the name. What I’m to understand from it I don’t know though. But the aggregate effect is much better.
Send: much better, but still not good. The bridge is clear, however. I like that tie-in to the sense of the group’s name.
Team: Charity constrains me from commenting on either the old or the new logo.
You also have the BGC mission going to Converge Worldwide (Connect/Ignite/Transform). http://www.scene3.org
So what does all this tell us about SIM’s logo? I think the number one problem that we have is that our name is largely meaningless. To some folks, SIM means something (when you say it used to be Sudan Interior). But for large swaths of the population I interact with there is absolutely no previous contact with the initials SIM (admittedly that’s the Pagan Northeast).
Our problem is our name used to mean something: “we go where no-one else is going, into the hardest areas, into the heart of unreached peoples”. That’s what the Interior thing is getting at. “Frontiers” and “Pioneers” (as names) are obviously doing a much better job of conveying that now. [I think that SIM also is no longer that kind of organization. That's another discussion.]
I would *almost* say that if SIM is going to change anything, it should be not just the logo, but the name as well (Converge Worldwide notwithstanding). I’m not necessarily saying this is what we should do. I love saying “…since 1893″ myself. So you hate to change it and lose that history ((Expos => Nationals) + (Oilers => Titans) = no history). Especially for those that really know and love SIM.
But you have SO MANY people for whom SIM isn’t even on the map. I guess what I’m saying is that if we change the logo we need to make it more clear what kind of organization we are with a great tag line like Frontiers’ for these folks that have never heard of us. “By Prayer” doesn’t need to go anywhere, but come up with s’thing more about *what we do* rather than where we think the power is going to come from to get it done.
Our problem here is that SIM does so many things that encapsulating it in a dynamic meaningful phrase is going to be tough. Bible translation, aviation, unreached people groups, encouraging emerging mission sending countries, hospitals; SIM is hard to categorize.
I remember Pleudemann’s axis of belief that he always encouraged us to push people along, no matter where we found them initially (whether or not they’re over the point of belief in Christ or not). That encompasses evangelism and discipleship and that whole encouraging the church thing.
So our problem in marketing is that we can’t market well enough because we’re marketing *so much*. What we should do is something like we do already with the SIM:Ministry thing (SIM Latino, SIM Kids, SIMAir, etc. Subdivide in marketing to get into different markets.
Another possibility; keep the basic SIM red logo but put different tag lines with it? Make it a series: SIM: Reaching the unreached/SIM: Giving hope to the hopeless/SIM: Healing the sick (sorry, last one is lame). But you get the idea. Subdivide and conquer. Proctor and Gamble markets all its products under different names: Oil of Olay, Pantene, Tide, Puffs, are all P&G products but not sold as “P&G skin moisturizer” and “P&G tissues”.
So some ramblings there. Whatever happens with name/logo/tag lines, may it be Christ-honoring and God-glorifying, not SIM-glorifying and ME-honoring.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Interesting comments. Sorry I’m just now catching up with them!
Taylor – I know somebody who could help us updated SIM’s logo as well … if/when we decide to go that route …
Corey – I think what you’re suggesting is another way of looking at the “niche-ification” of media/communication. For more on that, definitely check out my notes from Idea Camp D.C. and what we learned about “cause marketing” from Charity: Water (and others). I think you’re on to something with that …