March 21, 2006
Fishbowl Has Our Back
We'll refrain from comment on this for the moment, but we'd like to thank Fishbowl for shining a light on the page of a blogger whose design work hit a little close to home. Patrick Gavin goes to DCist Editor Emeritus Mike Grass for comment. Read his thoughts and tell us what you think. Should we be peeved?
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Should we be peeved?
No. Who doesn't use the usual Capitol building, Washington Monument images when talking about DC?
Perhaps, if this blog is truly interested in focusing on the people who live in DC, this could serve as an impetus for DCist to choose non-federal DC landmarks vs. the usual suspects.
i agree..keep a couple old standards and throw in something more local.
I find it disappointing that this item made the publishing cut. While the (real or perceived) copying of one's logo is cause for further investigation on your part, I'm not sure it merits mentioning alongside your other, more substantive entries. Seems a little petty, DCist.
Or maybe Gothamist stole the whole thing from the "Frasier" logo.
Yeah. Using silhouettes of national landmarks was just the hallmark of creative, original thought on your part.
Nobody cares about this except the people on your staff. Keep working on your little "college paper" and move on.
"i agree..keep a couple old standards and throw in something more local."
Like perhaps that Heurich building DCist is so ga-ga about.
The Frasier sitcom's logo is a simple skyline that includes the Space needle -- not a string of separate landmarks (landmarks that are instantly recognizable to people not familiar with DC -- say, readers of other -ists). Perhaps it can seem unoriginal because the -ist style logos have grown familiar and intuitive to the readers.
Seems to me the other blog drew some, uh, "inspiration." Remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
I agree with the other commenters. I don't think it's anything to get in a tizz about. The design on the other blog works well and does differ from this banner. As stated, unfortunately many people in D.C. only look to the federal buildings for images of D.C. Hell, I'm working on a photo project for my friend's home, and upon presenting her with images of "D.C., but untraditionally," she quickly said she wanted the Capitol, White House, Wash Monument, and Jefferson, instead.
DCist seems full of itself today.
The Mortman logo is much more similar to the -ist logos than the -ist logos are to the "Frasier" thing, which is a skyline, not a lineup of individual buildings, and an outline, not a silhouette.
You should add an outline of Ben's to your logo.
yes, since you cover and write about local issues, the monuments should be local as well. Or at least a few of them should be. If DCist is serious about adding DC Voting rights to their portfolio, it makes all the more sense.
Can anyone identify any local (non-federal) landmarks that are iconic and geometrically strong enough to be recognizable (to residents and non-residents) as solid shapes in the DCist logo? There may be some, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Certainly not Ben's; it's a storefront.
I think sqdc hit it right on the head. An outline of Ben's would be a box. -ist logos have a unified look, and in this city the buildings with the most distinct outlines are predominantly federal.
So you can go to any of the other -ist sites and recognize all or most of the buildings in their logo images?
If the site is designed to be used, first and foremost, by those who live in the area, then that should take priority over whether or not someone from San Francisco will recognize the building.
mmmmm... chili covered law suit...
then what would be some good suggestions? i agree that ben's would be unrecognizable...the 9:30 club? same problem. can anyone suggest viable local establishments that would look good in silhouette?
The argument is not whether the images DCist currently uses are the "best" images to represent DC...the argument is it's such a general, template-y, plug-and-chug formula of a logo that it's odd DCist staffers are getting worked up over it.
I realize the Frasier logo is a different story, but the previous poster made a point by calling out the similarities...
The Dupont fountain?
Our (newly) beloved Brewmaster Castle?
The Uptown? (not sure about that one)
RFK?
As for non-federal images that could be used:
An outline of a Metro car
Union Station (incorporating the flags at Columbus Circle)
Chinatown
Just because an image is a Federal one doesn't mean that it shouldn't represent DC. Its one thing if the federal government just moved here and built all these things, but instead most of the images on DCist are as much a part of the "local" DC as the "federal" DC. You can't distinguish between the two because DC is both a federal and local city. Taking away the Capitol or White House removes a significant historical element to DC's history. Why not identify with these images? What is wrong with DC=LOC, White House, etc.?
sisw90, i think you misread the post. i didn't see anyone as getting worked up about it - just pointing it out.
anyway, i like the dupont fountain suggestion...
You guys are silly!
Originally when we were developing the site, I was hoping to have the Key Bridge, Old Post Office or Union Station as one of the featured landmarks. The bridge was too difficult to fit in. A silhouette of Union Station didn't work out all that well. The Old Post Office could have worked, but wasn't as recognizable for branding purposes. So we ended up with what we have now, which works.
The Old Post Office could have worked, but wasn't as recognizable for branding purposes.
But that goes back to a question I asked upthread, can people recognize all or most of the images used on other -ist sites?
Yes, the Washington Monument et al are part of DC, but there are other non-fed items that are part of the city. One of the big complaints/points of concern that have been aired, both by DCist writers and commenters, has been that people visiting the city only think of the federal image of "DC" vs. the "people really live here and here are some of the neighborhoods" version of the city. Can both co-exist? Absolutely.
But if you're going to claim branding issues for not choosing a particular image, shouldn't you and the other DCist contributers worked a bit more to help build that brand so that it would have become recognizable over time?
Uhm. We do work at building the brand, obvs.
Uhm. We do work at building the brand, obvs.
I believe you misunderstood my question.
Without diving into the specific details of starting DCist (honestly, because I don't remember every thing that went on two summers back), there were many discussions between me, Rob and the crew at Gothamist, which has its own designer and its own vision. You win some battles, you lose some. It's a collaborative process, not one that's individually driven. If I ruled the world with an iron fist, I would have the 30s on Wisconsin Avenue running on time and have the Key Bridge in the DCist logo. Parisist, from what I remember, faced similar issues selecting its landmarks. I think they wanted to use some small monument that would have looked like an oversized concrete bollard as a silhouette. To proud Parisians, it is supposedly recognizable, but to outsiders, they would have been baffled. I can honestly say I recognize every landmark of every -ist site (besides the generic towers of Gothamist), even Shanghai's spires and Seattle's Smith Tower. For an international brand, you need to consider greater accessibility since the -ists are about not only specific intra-city audiences, but inter-city audiences as well.
The Old Post Office could have worked but it's not totally ideal either (but it's mansard roof wouldn't have translated exactly). The tower is indeed recognizable, but the body would have been essentially been a big black box.
DCist "branding."
Hee
Perhaps I miscommunicate. It is better that DCist builds its OWN brand, rather than, out of charity, build the brand of random architecture so that the architecture becomes more recognizable.
I've given a lot of thought to what might also be appropriate in the logo. The only thing I could come up with is, maybe, National Cathedral, which unfortch, looks like a lot of cathedrals. There was a time when RFK has an iconic shape, but it would be a little behind the times to use it as a logo now.
Most of the logo angst seems to stem from the whole "I'm tired of federal architecture" syndrome. Believe me, I can understand that.
Put fuckin' Butterstick up there and be done with it. ;)
I do remember having a discussion with Rob of throwing in a random federal office building for kicks. Perhaps the Energy Department, or the General Services Administration headquarters. The Labor Department would have looked great too, don't you think?
No no no Mike. Two words: FBI Building. Nothing's as lovely as that.