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

[skiguy]

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 AMC’s 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 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.

 

[Brambor]

and either broad shoulders or mountain sized knockers


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

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.

 

[Brambor]

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.

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.

 

[Puma concolor]

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

 

[ChrisB]

Why thhe Rebrand?

... 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?

 

[peakbagger]

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.

 

[skiguy]

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.

 

[hikerbrian]

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.

 

[DayTrip]

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.

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.

 

[skiguy]

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.

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.

Well we must be in left field together. You do a nice job of summing up my impressions also. Whole thing kind of left me scratching my head. When your as old as dirt as I am you can have a lot of visual preconceptions. Maybe the new logo is just that. The newer/younger perspective.

 

[sierra]

Well we must be in left field together. You do a nice job of summing up my impressions also. Whole thing kind of left me scratching my head. When your as old as dirt as I am you can have a lot of visual preconceptions. Maybe the new logo is just that. The newer/younger perspective.

Just go back to your rocking chair on the porch and wait for some kids to walk by to yell at.

 

[B the Hiker]

Personally I would then question whether their new message on inclusiveness is really being communicated through this new logo.

The AMC has many facets, and for a hiker's forum such as this, it may, admittedly, be hard to remember that. But when the organization is thinking about "inclusion," having a mountain on its logo fails to capture the fact that some of its chapters have quite active cycling committees populated by folks who literally never step foot on a hiking trail. The same for kayakers or rock climbers who only encounter trails while portaging or getting to a crag. Likewise, for many young people in Boston, the Young Member's Committee has all sorts of local activities that do not bring people to the mountains.

I would be interested to see what percentage of active members do something other than hike. I suspect the percentage could be extremely high!

Brian

 

[skiguy]

The AMC has many facets, and for a hiker's forum such as this, it may, admittedly, be hard to remember that. But when the organization is thinking about "inclusion," having a mountain on its logo fails to capture the fact that some of its chapters have quite active cycling committees populated by folks who literally never step foot on a hiking trail. The same for kayakers or rock climbers who only encounter trails while portaging or getting to a crag. Likewise, for many young people in Boston, the Young Member's Committee has all sorts of local activities that do not bring people to the mountains.

I would be interested to see what percentage of active members do something other than hike. I suspect the percentage could be extremely high!

Brian

Still having a hard time how a man in a mini skirt will accomplish that. But I guess we will find out.

 

[JoshandBaron]

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 think he meant Black Pond. I remember hearing something about them not being allowed to lead trips on that route anymore. Not sure how that reconciles with the "whack" to the summit.

 

[hikerbrian]

...having a mountain on its logo fails to capture the fact that some of its chapters have quite active cycling committees populated by folks who literally never step foot on a hiking trail. The same for kayakers or rock climbers who only encounter trails while portaging or getting to a crag. Likewise, for many young people in Boston, the Young Member's Committee has all sorts of local activities that do not bring people to the mountains.

All good points. But perhaps one could be forgiven for thinking the Appalachian Mountain Club had something to do with mountains? I don't know the complete history of the AMC, but from what I can tell the organization was traditionally focused on pursuits within the Appalachian mountains, and those mountains have been an integral component of the organization's mission. I perceive a gradual shift in this focus towards expansion of the AMC footprint into other 'outdoor' pursuits, 'conservation,' urban youth engagement, and a whole host of other items that don't necessarily involve the Appalachian mountains. I'm not making a value judgement there, just stating my perception. Time will tell if something is lost in the transition.

 

[ChrisB]

Along those lines, I would suspect that the AMC's brand identity guide stipulates use of the logo in conjunction with other text or graphic elements that make it easy to figure out what the organization's purpose, goals, and message are.

The logo probably never has to do any heavy lifting on its own in conveying these, so that it ends up signifying whatever it needs to, to anyone, depending on context.

Good points Barkingcat. I'm sure the logo is part of a larger context in the rebranding campaign.

But what comes to mind for me WRT the new logo is the saying: "You got to stand for something or you stand really for nothing."

The new logo with tag line "Come cycle (hike, climb, ski, paddle, yoga, watercolor) with us" just might attract a new audience. I hope so.

 

[skiguy]

The logo probably never has to do any heavy lifting on its own in conveying these, so that it ends up signifying whatever it needs to, to anyone, depending on context.

It's interesting to read a lot of the comments on this thread about "liking" or "not liking" the logo.

I disagree. Liking or not liking is a matter of getting the hook in the mouth. The Logo is at the doorstep of initial appeal. If the door is unappealing why go any further into to the depths of their marketing campaign? The Logo if done well should do a lot of the heavy lifting. It should make one want to explore into their web page to begin with let alone ante up for membership or services. I do not think the Logo supports it's communication goals. The "AMC" part of the logo isn't even clear. Of course this is coming from someone whom dislikes the Logo.

 

[Brambor]

I know one thing for certain: I won't be buying a patch

 

[Salty]

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

And if we turn your screen name over to a fancy marketing firm, it would get changed to wheelfootiesboardpole. Clear, right?

 

[Salty]

When I first saw the logo, it struck me as a man in a mini skirt.

Orrrr, perhaps they're marketing to Scotsmen.