Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: New AMC Logo....a good or bad?

  1. #16
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Another project by committee with the result that it stands for everything and nothing at the same time.

    I don't see how anyone can be marginalized in the outdoors, though. Take away unnecessary technical gear, especially the electronics, and its one of the least expensive and most accessible recreational pursuits available.
    Exactly. Thank you.

    The most valuable thing for an INDIVIDUAL is being recognized for what they do, more than for what group they belong to. A walk around Central Park picking up litter is just as valuable as trail work in the mountains, and is available to anyone.

  2. #17
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,586
    FYI: Google Images AMC Logo Search

    I self-identify as a cyclist, hiker, skier, angler

    Tim
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Stamford, VT
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    What do others think the motivations were to make such a drastic change.
    I think that some people may think of AMC members as rugged, highly experienced outdoorsy folks and new hikers may feel intimidated to try and join the club. The new logo may be a symbol that anybody is welcome. When I joined in 1974, I needed sponsorship from 2 existing members to join.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ipswich, MA
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by jfb View Post
    I think that some people may think of AMC members as rugged, highly experienced outdoorsy folks and new hikers may feel intimidated to try and join the club. The new logo may be a symbol that anybody is welcome. When I joined in 1974, I needed sponsorship from 2 existing members to join.
    I think more people see them as older privileged white folks with a superiority complex.

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    616
    In a total ripoff of a famous song, the AMC could make a Village People sort of video whereby three people act out the A-M-C letters.
    That would help people understand the logo as well as satisfy the AMC's diversity/inclusion jones. Two birds, one stone.

    Also, in the "Be Outdoors" part of the logo, the second "o" is smaller and raised, thus making it take the place of an apostrophe.
    So they're not-so-subtly encouraging their members to "be outdoers", meaning "hey, get out there and outdo other people".
    Who knows, maybe I'm reading too much into it; maybe I'm just confused after Sierra made me notice the dude in the mini skirt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trip pictures

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Lewiston, and Biddeford Maine
    Posts
    624
    The new logo says coma. It's horrible. Does nothing to represent the outdoors or being outdoors. It does look like a trans bathroom symbol. Coma.

  7. #22
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    While on another board this weekend someone was asking questions about camping rules in The White Mountains. In an effort to help out I posted a link to the AMCís web page. I had to do a double take to be sure I was on the right page. My initial thought was this is certainly a different looking logo. Not sure if this was a good or bad move on their part. None the less why mess with it? What do others think the motivations were to make such a drastic change. Was there AMC Membership input before hand?
    Some very interesting responses to this thread to say the least. I donít identify with this new logo at all. I think it is because itís such a departure from the old logo. Admittedly I have decades of preconceptions of what older logos look like but this new one is a major change not just a fine tuning. I do not immediately see AMC when I look at it. But I do not have an acute level of figure and ground. Personally I would then question whether their new message on inclusiveness is really being communicated through this new logo.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  8. #23
    Senior Member Brambor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Windham, ME
    Posts
    1,048
    and either broad shoulders or mountain sized knockers


    (hope we are still kidding here...otherwise...my apologies :-) )


    Quote Originally Posted by sierra View Post
    You usually have a bone to pick with my post, but I'll answer anyway. When I first saw the logo, it struck me as a man in a mini skirt.
    Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Brambor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Windham, ME
    Posts
    1,048
    I honestly don't even know what the current logo is / was ... I would recognize it when I came to it but it was not significant enough for me to remember.


    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    Some very interesting responses to this thread to say the least. I don’t identify with this new logo at all. I think it is because it’s such a departure from the old logo. Admittedly I have decades of preconceptions of what older logos look like but this new one is a major change not just a fine tuning. I do not immediately see AMC when I look at it. But I do not have an acute level of figure and ground. Personally I would then question whether their new message on inclusiveness is really being communicated through this new logo.
    Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

  10. #25
    Senior Member Puma concolor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    North of Albany, NY
    Posts
    876
    I really like it. The AMC jumped right out at me and the inverted Vs look like stacked mountains in the shape of a person with the bottom one looking like a snow-capped peak. Cool on multiple levels.

    Reminds me a little of the traditional Adirondack Mountain Club patch.

    ADK Patch

  11. #26
    Senior Member ChrisB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seacoast NH
    Posts
    705

    Why thhe Rebrand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barkingcat View Post

    ... I look at the new logo (and brand) as being versatile, flexible, and easy to incorporate into just about any communications piece necessary. I suspect that the AMC's communications and marketing folks are pretty happy with the results.
    In my experience, when a company decides to re-brand it is usually to solve a problem like sinking market share or corporate irrelevance. When things are going well, you don't fool with the a highly recognizable and well-established brand.

    So, what problem is the club attempting to solve by this rebranding?

    The last financials I saw were OK, with hut ROI pretty steady and membership numbers (as measured by the magazine circ figures) around 100k.

    What am I missing in this picture?
    Nobody told me there'd be days like these
    Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama
    .

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    5,835
    AMC like other outdoor organizations have been rebranding to try to get a younger generation into the club. The membership may be steady but expect the demographics say a different story that the club does not want to publicize. Young people tend not to join organizations in the traditional sense, the younger hikers I run into feel that "membership" in a Facebook group is about all the commitment they are willing to make. AMC whether they like it not is considered to be "the man" by younger hikers telling them that they cant do the things they want to do. Things like the AMC Black Brook bushwhack ban may seem reasonable when the USFS intentions are taken into account but to a young college age person they regard it as sign that AMC is run by a bunch of old folks ruining their fun. Right or wrong its a game of perceptions and AMC is losing the game with folks who really do not know the organization.

    Both AMC and MOAC have "trolling" Meetup sites on occasion that are trying to suck meetup participants into their organizations. They post an event on meetup and then when someone tries to sign up, they have to go through the club's sites and sign up as a club guest. This is done under the legitimate guise of liability but it also means a mailing list of potential members. Nothing wrong with that if its stated up front but its definitely an attempt to pull younger blood into the organization.

    At one point early on VFFT before the crash there was "confidential AMC" study that somehow made its way to the site. I think it was around the late 90s. I did not commit it to memory but I do remember some general themes. AMC had a bunch of members who were long term graduates from Boston Area colleges that are getting old and potentially are sources of funding through bequests if AMC can stay connected with them. These people may have been hard core when young but as they aged the concept of tenting and backcountry leantos was not something they wanted to actually do. They did want the concept to stay alive as it allows for them to reconnect to their past but their current expectations are higher level accommodations. So AMC needed to keep a backcountry program alive even though the older demographic didn't actual use it and had to offer something of interest to the older membership. I have no doubt that the Highland Center was planned to support that approach.

    The 100MW properties have been under major renovation/reconstruction since the club bought the land and convinced the leaseholders of the camps to hand off to the AMC. The advertising and media image has been high end accommodations surrounded by wilderness under the clubs control, perfect for older members with money in their pocket. Of far less interest to younger folks who don't have multi days off to make the long trip up there. That's a fundamental division, young people look at the recent investments made and see that its for folks with money that they themselves do not have. AMC huts are a limited resource and therefore demand a premium and AMC takes advantage of that but the tradeoff is younger college age people resent that they cant afford the huts. Ask yourself when was the last time that AMC actually built low end hostel accommodations? The demand is there based on the Notch, the Rattle River and the North Conway hostel. The last one I am aware of in the whites was Shapleigh at the Highland center and if I remember correctly that was an afterthought forced on by membership. Overlooked is that the club has been rebuilding badly deteriorated backcountry huts whenever external funding is available but to a young person they don't realize that the backcountry huts aren't just forest service sites but that comes back to perception.

    AMC has also been ramping up youth programs and youth development training. The mess with the Cardigan Highlanders at Cardigan was fundamentally a way of AMC getting paid to train young trail crews. Unfortunately the young trail crew experience is not in hard core trail work as much as trimming and maybe waterbars so Cardigan lost the hard core Highlanders with the skills and ability to do the heavy trail hardening. The Camp Dodge expansion is reportedly also oriented to get more paid youth training in place.
    Last edited by peakbagger; 08-06-2019 at 02:59 PM.

  13. #28
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    AMC like other outdoor organizations have been rebranding to try to get a younger generation into the club. The membership may be steady but expect the demographics say a different story that the club does not want to publicize. Young people tend not to join organizations in the traditional sense, the younger hikers I run into feel that "membership" in a Facebook group is about all the commitment they are willing to make. AMC whether they like it not is considered to be "the man" by younger hikers telling them that they cant do the things they want to do. Things like the AMC Black Brook bushwhack ban may seem reasonable when the USFS intentions are taken into account but to a young college age person they regard it as sign that AMC is run by a bunch of old folks ruining their fun. Right or wrong its a game of perceptions and AMC is losing the game with folks who really do not know the organization.

    Both AMC and MOAC have "trolling" Meetup sites on occasion that are trying to suck meetup participants into their organizations. They post an event on meetup and then when someone tries to sign up, they have to go through the club's sites and sign up as a club guest. This is done under the legitimate guise of liability but it also means a mailing list of potential members. Nothing wrong with that if its stated up front but its definitely an attempt to pull younger blood into the organization.

    At one point early on VFFT before the crash there was "confidential AMC" study that somehow made its way to the site. I think it was around the late 90s. I did not commit it to memory but I do remember some general themes. AMC had a bunch of members who were long term graduates from Boston Area colleges that are getting old and potentially are sources of funding through bequests if AMC can stay connected with them. These people may have been hard core when young but as they aged the concept of tenting and backcountry leantos was not something they wanted to actually do. They did want the concept to stay alive as it allows for them to reconnect to their past but their current expectations are higher level accommodations. So AMC needed to keep a backcountry program alive even though the older demographic didn't actual use it and had to offer something of interest to the older membership. I have no doubt that the Highland Center was planned to support that approach.

    The 100MW properties have been under major renovation/reconstruction since the club bought the land and convinced the leaseholders of the camps to hand off to the AMC. The advertising and media image has been high end accommodations surrounded by wilderness under the clubs control, perfect for older members with money in their pocket. Of far less interest to younger folks who don't have multi days off to make the long trip up there. That's a fundamental division, young people look at the recent investments made and see that its for folks with money that they themselves do not have. AMC huts are a limited resource and therefore demand a premium and AMC takes advantage of that but the tradeoff is younger college age people resent that they cant afford the huts. Ask yourself when was the last time that AMC actually built low end hostel accommodations? The demand is there based on the Notch, the Rattle River and the North Conway hostel. The last one I am aware of in the whites was Shapleigh at the Highland center and if I remember correctly that was an afterthought forced on by membership. Overlooked is that the club has been rebuilding badly deteriorated backcountry huts whenever external funding is available but to a young person they don't realize that the backcountry huts aren't just forest service sites but that comes back to perception.

    AMC has also been ramping up youth programs and youth development training. The mess with the Cardigan Highlanders at Cardigan was fundamentally a way of AMC getting paid to train young trail crews. Unfortunately the young trail crew experience is not in hard core trail work as much as trimming and maybe waterbars so Cardigan lost the hard core Highlanders with the skills and ability to do the heavy trail hardening. The Camp Dodge expansion is reportedly also oriented to get more paid youth training in place.
    This is good info and I agree on the changing demographic. Part of that also seems to be the trend towards more day hiking which may correlate to the lack of money to obtain the gear from the younger crowd. There seems to be a lack of long term commitment to the hobby of hiking. Many younger folks seem to be a part of this and that rather to one centralized passion. A bit of thread drift. Can you elaborate on the "The AMC Black Brook bushwhack ban"? I am not personally acquainted with that. Thanks in advance.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  14. #29
    Senior Member hikerbrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    601
    I personally am not fond of the new logo. To me it appears sterilized and conveys nothing about the organization itself. I looked at the old logo and thought, instinctively, that's a place I want to be. The new logo gives me none of that feeling at all, and consequently, little feeling of connectedness to the organization itself.

    The larger question of AMC rebranding itself - I'm not sure what to think. There's a fine balance between 1) a group of people being exclusive and/or intimidating to others; and 2) a group being so inclusive as to have no personality or identity of its own. I joined the AMC many, many years ago because it was full of experts (all things relative) and I felt confident I could learn from them. And I did. Sure, sometimes the hard men and women were a little intimidating, but not usually. Actually, the AMC-ers who made the effort to lead workshops and trips were almost always approachable and loved to share their stories and to teach.

    I wonder if the end result of this inclusiveness drive will be a dilution of expertise and loss of identity. I don't know.
    Sure. Why not.

  15. #30
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,539
    I guess I'm out in left field on this one. My first impression when I saw the logo was a guy wearing one of those cliff jumping suits with the webbing in the arm pits and crotch to ride the updrafts and "fly". Probably not what the AMC was shooting for. :P

    I also do not like the logo and feel it is inspires no sense of anything. It's too busy and confusing to me. I can't imagine people who are not familiar with the AMC would have any idea what the logo signifies. A good logo should immediately convey a brand identity. Even knowing what the AMC is I get nothing from the logo. If I already know the company and have to actively think about what the logo is telling me it is a "fail" in my book.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 46/48; NY 46: 6/46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •