Some Facts on the NMRA Logo Kerfuffle

[mlehman]

This is to continue an off-tangent thread that started over MR Forum posting policy and somehow ended up in a rather factually deficient series of claims about the process by which the NMRA adopted its new logo a few years back. I didn't have time to do the research myself, but some of the claims made were rather dubious and I objected that they didn't make a whole lot of sense. Here's the rest of the story.

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a division superintendent (Illinois Terminal Division, Midwest Region). I didn't comment on that as part of my "official duties" but as someone who just thinks we're entitled to one set of facts and not whatever version someone wants to bring to the table. I don't know whether or not the person who advised me of the background on this is NMRA, but my guess is they are, because they seem well-informed on this. I'm going to summarize and rephrase things a bit, but this is what it is. My memory was a bit shaky on things, as it often is these days, so I very much appreciate someone with knowledge of the process refreshing it.

Some Facts on the NMRA's New Logo

1. Nobody snuck anything past anybody. Every member and officer of the NMRA knew about it and the vote on the logo comported with NMRA process, regs, rules, etc.

2. It took years for it to come about. It was looked at and voted on a number of times. No one who was reading their mail can claim it was "snuck" by everyone.

3. No one person was contracted to do anything. One NMRA board member asked a number of designers to submit ideas. The trouble was that all of them were too narrow in focus and featured semaphores, crossing gates, steam engines, etc. They wanted something that was more abstract and didn't scream "train nut!"

4. Nobody tried to sneak anything sexual into the logo. It was simply supposed to be a wheel on a rail. Nothing more. No more than the Target logo is a big red boob or McDonalds arches are two big pointy boobs.

5. The idea that it is hurting the NMRA membership is absurd. The old logo was perceived by young people as a bicycle wheel and a pair of pliers. How was that helping? In this world, you either stay stagnant or you try to change with the times. That is what the NMRA is trying to do.

6. Some members thought it should have been a competition where they got to enter ideas. Apparently they've never heard the saying "Too many cooks spoil the soup." And why would you let all the members vote? Isn't that why you elect officers?


Lastly, has there ever been a logo that everybody everywhere liked? Of course not. Some people want a logo to feature olive branches, stars, pennants, dates and way too much info. A logo is just a logo. Nothing more. A simple design object that people associate with a product or name.

5 minutes on what makes a good logo:

[peoriaman]

Link to kerfuffle on MR forum? I love a good internet catfight.

[Paul Cutler III]

"3. ...They wanted something that was more abstract and didn't scream 'train nut!'"

That was a mistake. It is supposed to scream "train nut". The NMRA is a "train nut" organization. It is supposed to be about model trains, not abstract objet d'art. The NMRA is not Nike, Pepsi, Apple or even Amtrak where the logo is incidental to the product. Apple could put a skull and crossbones logo on their next iPhone and it would still sell like hotcakes. The NMRA is not nearly that well known, and needs to appeal to "train nuts" or even borderline "train nuts" that would see a logo and say, "Oh, it's about model trains." And not, "What the heck is that?"

"4. Nobody tried to sneak anything sexual into the logo. It was simply supposed to be a wheel on a rail. Nothing more..."

While I believe you that it wasn't on purpose, they still made it look like human anatomy. Even MR thinks it looks like human anatomy. Why else would they have nuked that thread in question where the logo was simply doubled?

"5. The idea that it is hurting the NMRA membership is absurd. The old logo was perceived by young people as a bicycle wheel and a pair of pliers. How was that helping? In this world, you either stay stagnant or you try to change with the times. That is what the NMRA is trying to do."

It's certainly not helping NMRA membership. I agree that the old logo was old fashioned. I certainly have no objection to changing it. Making it modern, etc. It's what they changed it to that's the problem. Here's a hint: make it model railroading related. Enough that any Joe off the street will look at it and think, "train" or "model train". Seriously, did the NMRA ever take the logo out on the streets of any city in the USA and ask people what they thought it was? If even 1% thinks "train" or "model train", I'd be surprised. That'd be a poor logo design by any standard for an organization that's trying to build interest in it.

[mlehman]

Jan 6, 2016 11:19:04 GMT -8 peoriaman said:

Link to kerfuffle on MR forum? I love a good internet catfight.

Sorry, I phrased that not very well and forgot to include the link on my re-edit. The discussion was right here in the Crew Lounge about the MR forum where this side issue came up, starting down the page here: atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/4327/banned-trains-com-2167?page=3

Not really a catfight, more like some facts vs some belated opinion.

[mlehman]

Jan 6, 2016 11:24:23 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

SNIP
"4. Nobody tried to sneak anything sexual into the logo. It was simply supposed to be a wheel on a rail. Nothing more..."

While I believe you that it wasn't on purpose, they still made it look like human anatomy. Even MR thinks it looks like human anatomy. Why else would they have nuked that thread in question where the logo was simply doubled?
SNIP

Paul,
I think I'm being charitable in saying I think you've mischaracterized what MR thinks about the logo. MR taking down the Weasel's sexualized caricature had to do with his obvious attempt to appeal to prurient humor through sexual innuendo.

As for the logo's targetted audience, I think it's the model rail community they had in mind, not every person on the street. Most in the hobby know what the NMRA is, so I doubt they find the logo as much of a mystery as some here do -- and likely wonder about the obsession of some about finding breast imagery in mundane graphics. If that's really so troubling, there is counseling available to help with such things before it becomes a, err, troubling personal problem.

[atsfan]

You have now admitted you are an NMRA Director, AKA a shill for the NMRA leadership.

Your statement below is quite revealing. It shows an out of touch, condescending, and patronizing attitude of NMRA leadership. You are the smart geniuses, the "Master Model Railroaders" and the rest of the members and non members are serfs:

"Apparently they've never heard the saying "Too many cooks spoil the soup." And why would you let all the members vote? Isn't that why you elect officers?"

Your posts defending the NMRA remind me of why I am not a member of it, along with 90% of the rest of modelers.

[atsfan]

Jan 6, 2016 11:24:23 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

It's certainly not helping NMRA membership. I agree that the old logo was old fashioned. I certainly have no objection to changing it. Making it modern, etc. It's what they changed it to that's the problem. Here's a hint: make it model railroading related. Enough that any Joe off the street will look at it and think, "train" or "model train". Seriously, did the NMRA ever take the logo out on the streets of any city in the USA and ask people what they thought it was? If even 1% thinks "train" or "model train", I'd be surprised. That'd be a poor logo design by any standard for an organization that's trying to build interest in it.

Youtube has two interviews with Tony Koester in 2010 by MRH where he explains how the small group at the top got one designer to produce the logo. It was not tested, not even to the NMRA membership which is not included in any decisions made by the few at the top of the National NMRA.

[atsfan]

[Paul Cutler III]

Mike,
We seem to have a disconnect here.

Please explain to me how is it that the nmra.org logo is not a singular piece of human anatomy, but simply taking the very same logo, reversing the copied image, and making essentially a truck out of it, is human anatomy? Either it is, or it isn't. Because what you're saying so far is that a single nmra.org logo is a flanged wheel, but that two nmra.org logos = "prurient humor through sexual innuendo". That doesn't make any sense. You've said it's just a flanged wheel. If that's true, how can two of them be anything other than two flanged wheels?

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2016 8:15:48 GMT -8 mlehman said:

...<snip>

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a division superintendent (Illinois Terminal Division, Midwest Region). I didn't comment on that as part of my "official duties" but as someone who just thinks we're entitled to one set of facts and not whatever version someone wants to bring to the table. I don't know whether or not the person who advised me of the background on this is NMRA, but my guess is they are, because they seem well-informed on this. I'm going to summarize and rephrase things a bit, but this is what it is. My memory was a bit shaky on things, as it often is these days, so I very much appreciate someone with knowledge of the process refreshing it.

Some Facts on the NMRA's New Logo

1. Nobody snuck anything past anybody. Every member and officer of the NMRA knew about it and the vote on the logo comported with NMRA process, regs, rules, etc.

2. It took years for it to come about. It was looked at and voted on a number of times. No one who was reading their mail can claim it was "snuck" by everyone.

3. No one person was contracted to do anything. One NMRA board member asked a number of designers to submit ideas. The trouble was that all of them were too narrow in focus and featured semaphores, crossing gates, steam engines, etc. They wanted something that was more abstract and didn't scream "train nut!"

4. Nobody tried to sneak anything sexual into the logo. It was simply supposed to be a wheel on a rail. Nothing more. No more than the Target logo is a big red boob or McDonalds arches are two big pointy boobs.

5. The idea that it is hurting the NMRA membership is absurd. The old logo was perceived by young people as a bicycle wheel and a pair of pliers. How was that helping? In this world, you either stay stagnant or you try to change with the times. That is what the NMRA is trying to do.

6. Some members thought it should have been a competition where they got to enter ideas. Apparently they've never heard the saying "Too many cooks spoil the soup." And why would you let all the members vote? Isn't that why you elect officers?

None of that guarantees a good logo, as the survey so far seems to bear out:
atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/4361/poll-nmra-logo-best-bust

But this one clearly it didn't come out of McCann Erickson:

Although the font says "It's 1971".

Many companies and non-profits have had bad logos. Some change, some improve, some don't.

The current (now how old?) NMRA logo is just bad. It never added value to the brand. It's controversial, but not in a good way. Most people are going to see something other than a wheel, even if they do see what it was intended to show (no comment). Like a joke, if you have to explain a logo to someone, it has failed.

It's decades old and it needs to be changed. "Just do it"

[mlehman]

Jan 6, 2016 16:42:52 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

Mike,
We seem to have a disconnect here.

Please explain to me how is it that the nmra.org logo is not a singular piece of human anatomy, but simply taking the very same logo, reversing the copied image, and making essentially a truck out of it, is human anatomy? Either it is, or it isn't. Because what you're saying so far is that a single nmra.org logo is a flanged wheel, but that two nmra.org logos = "prurient humor through sexual innuendo". That doesn't make any sense. You've said it's just a flanged wheel. If that's true, how can two of them be anything other than two flanged wheels?

That, my friend, is called art. What did the artist intend?

I'm pretty sure what I've written and forwarded is factually correct regarding the NMRA logo. There was no intent to make you see what you're seeing, artistic or otherwise. Same with everyone else who claims they see that, mermaids, etc.

And I'm pretty certain that the Weasel intended to comment on what HE thought about that in a rude and attention-getting manner, probably intending to stir some sort of reaction, other than, "Nah, looks like a logo to me."

And I'm pretty certain they don't equate to most folks, but some do. Then you get into the intent of the observer...

And I'd suggest this is a family forum unless you can keep it clean about why you can't think of anything but your mom and....whatever. But if you want to tell it like it is, that's your perogative explaining about your motivations in seeing what you do.

To me, it's a logo. I missed the old one at first, but the new one got familiar and I'm OK with it. Guess I was easy to wean...

[Deleted]

SC&P's Pete Campbell weighs in on the NMRA logo:



If you don't want to give the poll results any weight, just ask a few "strangers" their opinion of the logo. For instance, that lovely coed sitting next to you on the streetcar (subject to local and state regulations).

[atsfan]

NMRA Officials Recorded their planning and deciding on the logo.
Only later were the proceedings made available to the rank and file members.

[Paul Cutler III]

Mike,
It's not supposed to be "art", it's supposed to be a logo representing the NMRA. It may be good art, but it's a bad logo.

Again, I agree that it was not intended. You'll get no argument about that from me. Intent is not the question here. Results are.

If you're concerned about this being a "family forum", then may I suggest you take your own advice? Hint: I'm saying "human anatomy" (not a questionable phrase), and you're saying "Bob" but with two oh's. And furthermore, who started this thread? If you're so concerned about tender minds, why even bring this up in the first place?

And lastly, sir, I would appreciate it if you leave my mother out of this. In my 20 years on the Internet, you are the first one to ever bring my mom into a discussion. And considering what the topic is, this is offensive and disgusting. As you are here representing and defending the NMRA as a Division Superintendent, is it the official position of the NMRA Illinois Terminal Div., Midwest Region that anyone who thinks the nmra.org logo looks like human anatomy has a Oedipus Complex? Is that what you're saying? I'm just wondering if this is how the NMRA does business; to try and deeply insult anyone who criticizes them. Wow, you're really rallying people to the NMRA with that kind of nonsense. Gosh, where's my membership application? I can't wait to be personally insulted by even higher ranked NMRA representatives. What's next, Mike? Gonna go after my sister? My grandmothers?

[atsfan]

The facts are the NMRA is and has been run by a small group of older men who are buddies and insiders.
Anyone who does not salute the flag is shunned, insulted, and criticized as a know nothing.

Then the NMRA says they are the reason couplers work when they had nothing to do with Kadee and the clones. And they adopted Lenz as a DCC standard back in the 90s.

It took them 5 years alone to come up with this new logo.

RPM has supplanted NMRA for the most part. Without a logo or insults to non participants.

[mlehman]

Get serious, Paul. No one insulted your mom.

If you're concerned about what people think about roughly half your kin, you've shown no concern about trivializing the female anatomy yet.

I've got 3 married couples and two preachers among the divisional membership. I've been involved in non-profit management. I've taught college students. I've worked blue and white collar jobs. It's been several decades since the sort of demeaning discussion underway here would be tolerated in any of those situations. You'd be gossiped about, counseled, or worse for this sort of silly schoolboy discussion in any of those contexts.

I realize this is the internet and, well, all sorts of people show up to talk about all sorts of things. In terms of the NMRA, if this is the biggest problem people have with it nowadays, we're doing pretty good. But it's going to hurt your posture to keep stooping to be so trite. Not being a prude, I find having to explain why this sort of thing is objectionable to many people is just common sense. There are times and places where it's appropriate, but in the context of this hobby, it seems more designed to exclude women, kids, and people who don't want to join in the barroom atmosphere. There are places on the internet that give you FREE membership and you can see all the cleavage you want -- and more -- just be careful about giving them your CC numbers. No need to pay NMRA dues to feed your imagination.

You know, in the early history of the hobby, it had to overcome certain assumptions, like the fact that people might be interested in hanging around RRs and railroaders. Not everyone thought this way, but many of those who could afford the hobby looked down their noses at it because of this imagined association with people who were thought to be of a rather coarse sort. They gambled, drank, smoked, chewed and spat, chased skirts -- some of which was probably true just like it is on any walk of life. We mostly have gotten over that, with working for the RR being a fairly respectable occupation nowadays. I guess we've come full circle once we get to people thinking the hobby is questionable because some of us hang out with model railroaders, some of whom are known to go on at length about their off-track obsessions...just because that's what's on their mind.

[ambluco]

I don't not belong to the NMRA. I took the real logo (single wheel) and showed my relatives at Christmas (about 40 total). I said what NMRA meant. 10 guessed a train wheel, 1 guessed an owl's eye and the rest had no clue. Does the logo convey what's it's supposed to, no. But no one saw a breast.

Now, later I sowed 5 the double one and from then on, the single was always a breast. The power of persuasion. Once told it looks like a breast, you'l never not see it again.

[atsfan]

Dagnabbit! The NMRA is modern I tell you, modern! Why we just even acknowledged that steam engines are not around any more. But let's not start any of that slander on cabooses youngsters!

[roadkill]

A wise man once said (can't remember which wise man) "I know art when I see it" and the NMRA's logo ain't art. Not in the slightest. Yea, maybe it's female anatomy, maybe it ain't. But art? No. No more so than the Nike swoosh or the Chevy bowtie. But not one person in a billion will mistake the swoosh or the bowtie for anything, er, "prurient". And if a majority says something "sucks", well, then, there's a pretty damn good probability that it sucks... and the NMRA's logo sucks.

[riogrande]

Face palm

[Paul Cutler III]

Mike,
You weren't insulting my mother, you were insulting me. And if you weren't being insulting, then please explain these quotes of yours:

"And I'd suggest this is a family forum unless you can keep it clean about why you can't think of anything but your mom and....whatever."

and

"Guess I was easy to wean..."

Exactly what does this mean? The way I read it is that you think I am obsessed with my mother ("you can't think of anything but your mom") and her anatomy ("Guess I was easy to wean..."). The "and...whatever" is an implication of further interest in my own mother in an unnatural way. Last I checked, implying that someone would like to have relations with one's own mother is not exactly a compliment.

I'm dumbfounded that you think this is okay behavior. I'm astounded that you're claiming the moral high ground after doing so.

ambloco,
Only 10 of the 40 people guessed train wheel, and that's after you told them what "nmra.org" stood for? Logo fail. Imagine if you hadn't told them that "nmra.org" meant. I'm guessing it would be even worse.  

BTW, you better watch out for those 5 relatives you showed the double logo to who now see human anatomy. According to Mike, they can't think of anything but their own moms. 

In 15 years I've been here, this has got to be the strangest Atlas Forum/Rescue Forum thread I've ever seen.

[Gary P]

I'm not an NMRA member now (was many years ago) so I really don't have a dog in this hunt, but, as far as the logo goes, in my opinion it is "just OK". I think it could be better and should be made an easy to recognize reference to model railroading. When I first looked at it, I was not sure what it was. When someone suggested a boob, I saw it as a boob. When someone described it as a wheel, I saw the wheel. Maybe I'm just easily led astray, but to me, especially with all of the confusion/discussion, I don't think it's the best logo out there.

Like I said, not being a current NMRA member, I really have no vote, but I think they could have done better. Your opinion may vary..... :-)

[cf7]

Jan 8, 2016 10:50:44 GMT -8 Gary P said:

Like I said, not being a current NMRA member, I really have no vote, but I think they could have done better. Your opinion may vary..... :-)

From the sounds of it, even if you were an NMRA member, you still wouldn't have a vote!

[atsfan]

Jan 8, 2016 10:50:44 GMT -8 Gary P said:

Like I said, not being a current NMRA member, I really have no vote, but I think they could have done better. Your opinion may vary..... :-)

Even if you were an NMRA member, you would have not vote, on anything. As was posted here, the officers are in charge, make the decisions, and the members have no say nor is their input welcome.

[cf7]

Jan 8, 2016 9:09:22 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

In 15 years I've been here, this has got to be the strangest Atlas Forum/Rescue Forum thread I've ever seen.

In my 10 or 12 years on both forums, this IS strange. I thought that I had seen it all, but discussing a female body part on a model railroad forum is just weird.

[riogrande]

Jan 8, 2016 11:04:46 GMT -8 cf7 said:

Jan 8, 2016 9:09:22 GMT -8 Paul Cutler III said:

In 15 years I've been here, this has got to be the strangest Atlas Forum/Rescue Forum thread I've ever seen.

In my 10 or 12 years on both forums, this IS strange. I thought that I had seen it all, but discussing a female body part on a model railroad forum is just weird.

I'll have to third that. And apparently this whole business goes back around 5 years too. Lets end this and get back to trains.