Lancaster City’s “Authentic” Logo Drama
Last Wednesday, Lancaster City Pennsylvania unveiled a new branding campaign with a square rose logo and the tagline “A City Authentic.” The work generated criticism on internet message boards for straying from more traditional marketing of the past (among other reasons.)
Then an anonymous YouTube video appeared showing the rose logo to be virtually identical to one used by artist Dard Hunter.
The YouTube video points the blame at Moxie House, a Lancaster, PA design firm that worked with the city on the new branding campaign. So far, Moxie House has remained quiet about the issue. Owner Deb Brandt told the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal that her company received the logo from the city, and did not check the design origin because she was told the city was seeking copyright for the image.
No mention of the controversy was made on the Moxie House”s Facebook page or Twitter account.
According to the same news article, the city first received the image from the company who designed city wayfinding signs, which prominently displayed the rose icon. City officials then sought copyright for the image, and received a certificate of registration from the U.S. Copyright office in April.
The Origins of the Rose Logo
Since Dard Hunter Studios had used the rose logo before the city of Lancaster, I emailed them to ask about the image’s origins. Hunter’s heir, Dard Hunter III, responded:
We have been using the logo since 1997 when we founded Dard Hunter Studios. [Dard Hunter designed the logo in 1906.] To the defense of Moxie or whomever used the design, the rose design is available as a graphic element in the P22 Typefoundry Arts and Crafts Font. It could have been lifted from our website, or, from the font package. However, commercial use of the square rose is prohibited no matter what the source.
… I am not a litigious person and will not be pursuing any legal action. However, I do wish to thank the many people who are looking out for my best interests.
Lancaster City Officials Remains Silent
I called the city of Lancaster for comment, but received no response. In the Lancaster Intelligencer article, Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray did say that he didn’t think the logo controversy undercut the meaning behind Lancaster’s new tagline, “a city authentic.”
I beg to differ. Whether Lancaster City’s rose icon comes from intellectual theft or just legal naivety, the situation reeks of irony … and has left many Lancaster residents scornful of the whole initiative. Even before the logo controversy started, many were asking questions such as:
• Who decided Lancaster needed to be “rebranded?”
• What is this costing taxpayers?
• Why didn’t the city of Lancaster get any public input on this?
• Why weren’t other Lancaster designers a part of the conversation?
Since the logo was revealed to be a copy, even more questions have surfaced: who’s really responsible? What does the city plan to do now?
So far, none of these questions are being addressed.
My Two Cents: It’s Not About the Rose
The controversy surrounding Lancaster City’s rebranding goes much deeper than a copied logo. City officials chose the concept of authenticity without considering all its nuances. True authenticity, in today’s Web 2.0 world, means honesty. It means transparency. It means two-sided conversations.
And let’s get real. City officials aren’t ready to embrace any of these concepts. They’re still hiding behind canned press statements and heavy-handed marketing that tells its audience what to think.
That breed of marketing went out of style long ago. Unfortunately, Lancaster is behind the curve. And paying lip service to a modern marketing concept — “authenticity” — won’t bring it back to speed.
In the meantime, local marketer Daniel Klotz has offered one alternative to Lancaster City’s new logo:
What do you think?
13 Responses to Lancaster City’s “Authentic” Logo Drama
Leave a Reply
Yeah, I like Daniel’s proposed logo. If Lancaster is considering using it, I think they should Just Do It.
Good write up, but you fail to notice or mention that credit for the revelations belongs not to Lancaster Newspapers in any way, but rather to reporter Shelley Castetter and LancTalk.com.
Shelley’s two-week investigation resulted in the August 28 article posted at http://lanctalk.com/Forums/index.php?/topic/17166-city-authentic-logo-not-so-much/
LNP “reporter” Bernie Harris lifted nearly all of his article from the one published days earlier, and this should be acknowledged.
What revelations? I want to give credit where it’s due, but breaking the story first doesn’t mean Shelley Castetter “owns” the facts of a story. If Lancaster Newspapers plagiarized the article, it’s a different matter.
Pingback: Moxie House Owner Speaks About Lancaster's Rose Logo | One Woman Marketing
As the writer of the original article which started this entire controversy I am disappointed by the misrepresentation of what I wrote by some.
First, Tracy Cutler from Moxie House told me that the city provided the rose and they were asked to incorporate that into the logo. I wrote that.
Second, Wendy Nagle also confirmed what Tracy has said. I wrote that.
At the same time I am a professional journalist. I have been for many years. The fact is if Reuters had broken the story, LNP would have credited them. If the Harrisburg Patriot broke the story, LNP would have given them credit.
As the person who broke the story LNP had a professional & ethical responsibility to credit me. I own the copyright to my article and the information contained within.
I would say that if you read my story you will understand why I am making an issue of this.
Shelley Castetter recently posted…City Authentic- Logo Not So Much
Are you saying that you broke the story before the video? If so, then I can kind of see your point. But I was under the assumption that the video created the original controversy. It’s hard to tell because they were both posted on the same day, as far as I can tell.
Shelly started working on her story, including speaking to the parties involved, gathering data and checking the facts, at the same time I first posted the news about the logo on LancTalk on August 11th.
While I have no idea who made the cool “marketing 101″ video, I do know that it was made long after my original LancTalk thread began, and likely was created within hours of Shelley posting her investigative article.
After all, it IS a cool and funny video, but it represents about 1/2 hour of work and a sharp sense of humor & irony. The article series Shelley started represents nearly two weeks of phone calls & fact-checking.
To even imply that the video came first is disingenuous at best.
That said, I would love to meet the make of the vid and buy them a beer!
Citydweller recently posted…City Authentic- Logo Not So Much
Look, this constant drum beating and shilling from NewsLanc gets old. I despise LNP but all the reporting in that story was theirs. So LancTalk or whatever “broke” it first. Then LNP went, contacted sources, some of the same that LancTalk quoted and some not but show me where LancTalk was quoted in the LNP story?
The beef here is obvious if you’re familiar with CityDweller, NewsLanc and that whole operation. They hate the Mayor. They hate LNP. Anything outside of that, there’s not much “there” there. It’s an agitprop fully supported by private parties who, I suppose, find some benefit in the enterprise. So please, spare me the Reuters comparison. Fox News is a much closer comparison and even Fox is a pretty straightforward compared to NewsLanc. Anyone who has heard those laughable radio commercials for NewsLanc knows this.
russell frost recently posted…See more of my work
Pingback: An overview of Lancaster city’s branding debacle : Daniel Klotz Lancaster Blog
whoa russell, you gotta spend a little more time fact checking.
newslanc.com is one website.
lanctalk.com is another website.
neither are connected to each other.
lanctalk broke the story about the rose issue.
if you are gonna be mad, at least be mad at the correct folks.
Russell, if you’re going to criticize critics, at least get a clue which critics you’re criticizing, and for what.
LancTalk.com is run by myself and a group of former LNP Talkback members. We have no “backers” or “private parties” supporting us. We don’t advertise, anywhere. We don’t even have meetings, unless you count the occasional barbeque. We’re just a community talk forum.
Further, we have no affiliation with Robert Field’s NewsLanc, or any of his other endeavors for that matter.
Shelley is just another member of our community, who happens to be a reporter and columnist. She is the first to have her own space at LancTalk, but others will follow, and none get paid.
So I’m not really sure just what “whole operation” you’re speaking of, exactly.
Folks? WHY are we bitching at EACHOTHER when we’re virtually all agreed:
The City and inner circle of Chamber-anointed “Big Fish” in this itty-bitty mud puddle of a city committed a series of REALLY STUPID MISTAKES — which seems to be a perpetual state of affairs with that gang (regardless of which party is in City Hall, folks).
Let’s take as accepted fact that Peggy’s media empire is part and parcel if this thing, and only repeated what they’d learned elsewhere. I say they played their required roll in bringing the story to the non-tech-savvy majority of the city.
Let’s look at the event as a whole:
Would we even be having this conversation if people like Shelley and the lilmissmoxieful person hadn’t done what they did?
No.
Yes, Shelley is the first link in the chain reaction, and it would be nice if her efforts were better acknowledged. She *can*, however, be happy in the knowledge that she started this. Not the same as a Pulitzer, admittedly…
Well spoken, Bi….er, Robert. Good sentiments to ruminate on.
Citydweller recently posted…City Authentic- Logo Not So Much