sproughton wrote:

tempus fugit wrote:On the logo, I admit I am a broken record - because they totally refused to comment on the UPPER CASE logo. If they have a nice font in UPPER CASE on the rotor (and so many of us said we like it!) why not be prepared to at least discuss it in the chat as an option on the dial, instead of blanking repeated posts by forumites in the chat?

Chris did address the question at the end of the chat, he said that they tried it and preferred the one they went with. What more were you looking for? I'd suggest that the reason he didn't discuss having upper case as an option was because it wasn't an option - it was a discussion about the brand not a design meeting.

Chris "addressed" the question right at the end after being asked, by more than a few forumites, over 10 times. What was I looking for? The courtesy of more than a one-line answer that looked like ducking a major part of addressing the forum's concerns (which was the previously declared aim of the chat) on the logo.

You are quite right this was not a design meeting, and I don't think anyone perceived it as such. If I thought they would change their mind on LL Brown font on the strength of a few vocal malcontents in a chat forum over months of expensive design workshops, then I'd be a bloody fool wouldn't I? What I WAS looking for was for CWL team to tell me (hopefully) a) actually we are prepared to use a centrally-justified logo where balance would otherwise be significantly impacted, b) actually we are prepared to use the same upper case logo used on the rotor on our dials where it best suits the watch design. OR (less hopefully) c) no, sorry, this is the definitive dial solution and this is WHY we rejected centrally-justified upper case. What we got were poor pickings indeed for option c).

So are you seriously implying that discussion of the logo and their reasoning for choosing one style over another was not up for discussion as part of the brand discussion?

welshlad wrote:

tempus fugit wrote:On the logo, I admit I am a broken record - because they totally refused to comment on the UPPER CASE logo. If they have a nice font in UPPER CASE on the rotor (and so many of us said we like it!) why not be prepared to at least discuss it in the chat as an option on the dial, instead of blanking repeated posts by forumites in the chat?

...

Unless the forum is dead wrong and their EXTENSIVE market research tells them, for example, that people just love the lower case on the dial and upper case on the rotor, but hate that same upper case on the dial. Logic tells me that that doesn't make sense, though.

They didn't "totally refuse" to comment on the UC logo. They said it wasn't for them. And then someone (sorry, can't remember who it was) posted a mock-up with the UC logo on the dial and, sure enough, it didn't look as good as the mixed UC/LC logo, IMHO. So, to me, they were proved right.

People seem to be thinking that the branding and logo are still up for debate. They aren't. CWL have already committed to it, invested in it, and made their decisions. Switching to UC on dials and marketing materials would be hugely expensive now. So it's time to either like it or lump it and move on. It won't be changed, at least not until the next formal branding review a few years down the line.

As for the rest of your post, I honestly think you've blown this massively out of proportion.

Welshlad, I won't bore by repeating myself, so please see my answers to sproughton but just to add in light of your comments, I'm not sure that the mock up used LL Brown font (need the transcript with photos): I may well be wrong but I don't *think* it looked the same as on the rotor. If not, I think we'd need to see the true font to judge fairly.

And what do you think I have blown out of proportion?

Align left, right, center...

Problem solved

Hmm, I prefer the logo centered, but what were they thinking of with the hollow hands. This works for the GMT hand on a Sinn, but theirs can be parked behind the hour hand when not in use.

And why the 3 day date window, I can work out yesterday's & tomorrow's date without assistance thanks!


Rob

Missed this because of a business trip. Is there a summary / transcript?

Ian Blyth does one but he is very busy at the moment. Might take a few days, he said.

tempus fugit wrote:

sproughton wrote:

tempus fugit wrote:On the logo, I admit I am a broken record - because they totally refused to comment on the UPPER CASE logo. If they have a nice font in UPPER CASE on the rotor (and so many of us said we like it!) why not be prepared to at least discuss it in the chat as an option on the dial, instead of blanking repeated posts by forumites in the chat?

Chris did address the question at the end of the chat, he said that they tried it and preferred the one they went with. What more were you looking for? I'd suggest that the reason he didn't discuss having upper case as an option was because it wasn't an option - it was a discussion about the brand not a design meeting.

So are you seriously implying that discussion of the logo and their reasoning for choosing one style over another was not up for discussion as part of the brand discussion?

Apologies for cutting down your reply to avoid quoting too much text. I do think it was up for discussion but also think they answered it - essentially after reviewing the options and focus testing they settled on the one they went with. I can't think of what additional detail they could add to expand on that, it's clearly very subjective

tempus fugit wrote:Welshlad, I won't bore by repeating myself, so please see my answers to sproughton but just to add in light of your comments, I'm not sure that the mock up used LL Brown font (need the transcript with photos): I may well be wrong but I don't *think* it looked the same as on the rotor. If not, I think we'd need to see the true font to judge fairly.

Fair point, it wasn't the absolutely correct font, so I agree we will have to wait and see. But it was close and, to be frank, I expected the UC version to look good on the dial as it looks great on the rotor/bridge, but I was surprised that it didn't look good on the dial - and I suspect it will be the same if the official font was used.

tempus fugit wrote:And what do you think I have blown out of proportion?

I think if you were looking for a) and b) in your reply to sproughton, then that is asking too much. The branding has already been decided by CWL. They were never going to change it in light of the forum chat. Asking for some rationale under c) is reasonable, and I agree that they weren't overly forthcoming, but that's their prerogative. They are happy with it and as shareholders they will have to live with the success or otherwise of it.

More generally, I see CWL as an honest, approachable company that on a semi-regular basis makes honest, well-intentioned blunders. For example, website cock-ups, quality control failures, silly design errors, daft marketing copy, dispatch errors, stupid product ideas (e.g. scrap metal in the back of watches), even odd branding decisions from time to time. But they are all honest errors made as it tries to grow and take itself forward and it is part of the reason I like them. They are fallible and occasionally infuriating, but you know that they are trying to do the right thing. Contrast that to a company like Bremont, who were caught out openly lying to its customers about having developed a new in-house movement, when in fact it was an old existing Swiss movement design. That's the sort of behaviour that really does cause customers to abandon them, as I did.

So, although we may not always agree with what CWL does, accept that they will make these mistakes from time to time and they won't consult the forum, even though we might wish that they did. It's taken time for me to learn this, but now that I have it's helped my blood pressure no end!

And, by the way, I'm not saying that the current re-brand is a mistake. I actually quite like it, even the left-justified bits. I'm clearly in the minority on the forum, but that's my view so far.

Did they address the nose picking picture choice??

gatehealing wrote:Did they address the nose picking picture choice??

No, I asked a question about that picture but it either got missed or avoided in amongst everything else that was happening.

gatehealing wrote:Did they address the nose picking picture choice??

Hehehe... I hear nose-picking will be big in 2016. Beards will be out, uni-brows in.

Sorry to move discussion back to the photoshopped logo but central logo only looks better due to the hand position. A 10.09 hand alignment naturally fills the void in the first quadrant and thus the central logo looks ok. If anyone's so inclined would be interesting to see the hands in a different position and than compare the different logo positions...

Edit: in any case I rather like the quirky logo set up. It's unique and stands out amongst the crowd...

Ok with my recent flurry of activity after literally years of silence anyone would thing I'm a stooge placed here by Chris lol

The Naf

The Naf wrote:Some eye candy from chat...

O.M.G. that is one ugly logo. Sorry Chris, but it sucks. Looks totally amateurish.

Thanks welshlad for your reply - there's lots to agree with there and it's a good point that as a young company they have much to learn and therefore we should forgive them their occasional, well-intentioned, missteps.

welshlad wrote:

tempus fugit wrote:And what do you think I have blown out of proportion?

I think if you were looking for a) and b) in your reply to sproughton, then that is asking too much. The branding has already been decided by CWL. They were never going to change it in light of the forum chat. Asking for some rationale under c) is reasonable, and I agree that they weren't overly forthcoming, but that's their prerogative. They are happy with it and as shareholders they will have to live with the success or otherwise of it.

I think you still misunderstand my point here - it was absolutely NOT to get them to CHANGE their mind, more to explore if they were considering (or had decided upon) the use of centrally-justified logo or the upper case LL Brown font (as used on the rotor), on the dial, for certain watch models.By them not answering the question throughout the chat, until the very end (and with a terse one-liner!), it meant I had to keep asking until they gave an answer that was satisfactory. I don't believe their answer was - but here we will have to agree to disagree of course!

welshlad wrote: And, by the way, I'm not saying that the current re-brand is a mistake. I actually quite like it, even the left-justified bits. I'm clearly in the minority on the forum, but that's my view so far.

A rebrand per se is not a mistake,even a massive one to set the company on a new course. It may be necessary to address a weakness in the brand, or to drive sales and profit forward. I have no problem with that, and although I liked the CHR. WARD logo, I understand that a) many people on the forum did not, and b) I get how it can be confusing to someone not familiar with old-fashioned English ways of shortening a name - if they wish to reach Chinese clients, then the logo needed to change. No problem here either. But where we will have to differ is on THIS particular rebrand, and the chat did little to assuage my concerns that the new direction, as witnessed so far, has been a series of little missteps that may not be rectified to get back on the right track. I wish CWL well, but am not currently considering adding any more CWs to my collection, and may reduce it if I feel the brand value is slipping further.

There is much to ponder and to agree with In what you both say. For myself, I intend to keep the watches I have because I like them – I am not overly concerned with the concept of brand value. Values, perhaps.

If I do buy any more CW watches, the one I would buy would probably be a moonphase with the current logo. I cannot see myself ever buying anything with the new logo, particularly in its lower case, left justified form. Upper case and centre justified might have me more interested...on the right watch.