Larry Witherspoon writes:

I am not usually one of the more vocal USHPA members but sometimes there is an issue, where and when, one feels an overwhelming need to speak out, for the sake of ones’ own pride and integrity in the face of injustice, and for that of others who are less vocal, as in this case where there appears to be ill advised activity.

When one seeks to find information about the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Logo Contest, one of the first things discovered is the statement, “Thank you for your interest in the USHPA Logo Contest! Well, we changed our name, now it's time to update our logo.”

Who says?!

The recent USHPA logo change decision was in my opinion, one of dubious necessity to begin with. The logo has served the membership well for all these years, and doubtless has come to be dear in the hearts and minds of most Association members, though perhaps not all Association members, and I will address that reality later.

A logo however well designed, for such a specialized enterprise as USHPA, obscure as that enterprise is to the general populace as a whole, in all probability will only ever possess meaning to the Association membership, and have only negligible effect, if any, on the interest, curiosity, and impressions of the Sport and the representative Association, to those outside of said membership.

I truly doubt, that any new USHPA logo design, would result in the conversion of, or the increase in curiosity, over and above that in which the old design would result, and certainly it would not result in an increase of statistically significant proportion.

We won’t get people going, “LOOK, look at that cool logo! What is it? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Get up close so we can try to see what it is. Oh WOW it’s a logo for the United States Hand Gliding and Parachuting Association!” “What’s that?” “Who cares, I’m impressed by that logo, stop this guy. Let’s see if the membership is open to anybody. Follow him, maybe he will lead us to someplace where we can find out about joining or maybe even taking lessons!” “Yeah, and from the looks of that bird it might be something for skydiving with those new suits they wear now with webbing between the arms and legs that lets you fly like a bird”. “Let’s check this out!”

Not gonna happen…not unless the observers already had it in their heads to try and gather information, then the design will not be the determining factor, or even a factor.

Now if you ask a professional graphic artist if it will make a difference, yes they will think so, they have to think so, that’s how they earn their living, that’s how they are “programmed”. They can’t imagine why everybody with an old logo doesn’t need a new logo, and will give honestly originated reasons why a change is needed. If they didn’t think that way they would not be very good professionals. Okay maybe that was an exaggeration, but no less an exaggeration than reasons given to discredit our present logo.

When you are bringing a new product to market, or want to wash a tarnished image, or create an image where none exists, or merge two companies with different logos, yes go find a professional to help you out. But decades old trademarks associated with an established product or service or organization rarely undergo change, nor is there a need. In fact, those trademarks which have come to signify and identify such owners are jealously guarded against infringement, and even designs of a too similar nature can be ruled illegal.

Change is not always a good idea, though it is sometimes represented to be, through various exemplary suggestions.

In any case, the design won’t matter, except to the members.

The members. Remember them?

Service to the membership should be the primary focus of office in the Association. There is an expectation that the clear wishes of Association members will be supported by Association officers. The position of office in the Association should not be used to dictate individual wishes in direct opposition to those of the Association members.

This concept of member control is very important and should not be brushed aside.

When there was a belief that the operation of motorized hang gliders might be closely enough allied, and perceived by the general public and FAA with that of unmotorized hang gliders, there was a movement to include them in our number, and arguments were presented on both sides in the magazine, a membership vote was conducted, and rightfully so.

Then there came to be a similar belief that paragliders and hang gliders were closely enough aligned, operated, and perceived by the FAA and general public. There was a movement to include them in our number, and arguments were presented on both sides in the magazine, another membership vote was conducted, and rightfully so.

It wasn’t too long after the paraglider population was taken under the Hang Gliding Association wing that we had discussions pro and con in Hang Gliding Magazine about whether to combine the two magazines representing both hang gliding and paragliding into one. We had another Association membership vote to decide the issue. Then a call went out to serve the belief of some members that the Association name should be changed to better reflect the new membership. What did we do? Again we had discussion, debate, propaganda, argument, and ultimately a membership vote, all openly published in the magazine, and all again rightfully so.

If I recall correctly, one of the above topics even required a second vote due to some impropriety, and I believe going to that extra measure was commendable.

I did not agree with all of the decisions. But by whatever methods used to persuade a majority of the voting membership, the decision was made by the membership, and I have learned to accept the outcome of those decisions as the desire of a majority of the representative membership population who bothered to vote. All as it should be.

Now however, we have a decision, which for better or for worse, affects uniquely, the USHPA membership, and from what I have read about the logo vote, and the declaration of award, it appears the expressed will of the membership has been subverted.

I have read about the ground rules and the intentions and the decision making freedoms of the jury, and the graphic design professional opinions, but I would like to put that on the back burner for a little while, and offer a different perspective.

I thought about submitting a design, very much like our existing design. It was a natural, logical extension of our present logo. It was such a logical extension in fact, that I did not submit an entry because I thought probably it would be the most common variation submitted, and the eventual winner. As it turns out it was exactly “The Peoples Choice”

Since I was not submitting an entry, I did not bother to carefully analyze the ramifications of the entry rules and requirements when published in the October 2006 issue of the magazine, and consequently I was unaware of the possibility that the membership vote might not be the determining factor.

Honestly, had I taken the time to analyze the rules and requirements, I am not prepared to say that I would have even then grasped the full extent of what was going down behind closed doors.

The Logo Design Requirements were innocent and well intentioned enough in what was to be attempted, required, allowed, and not allowed.

It’s when we get to the Rules and Submission Requirements that things start to get kind of murky. I work with contracts every day, and now that I look at the language used in the Submission Requirements, I can see where there were indications that a democratic process was not intended, but those indicators were in my opinion, easily overlooked by the trusting and unsuspecting membership:

For example there were Rules 5D and 7D

Rule 5D) Should the jury determine that no design meets the qualifications, we reserve the right to continue seeking design concepts through an extension of the competition or by other means.

Rule 7D) If submitted designs do not meet the criteria or are deemed by the judges not to achieve our goals, we reserve the right to continue the search for a new design by continuing this competition or by other means.

Now my first impression of these reservations was the jury would extend the contest if by some outside chance all submissions violated one or more of the prohibitions, e.g. the design requirement that states; “It must be distinctive in the quality and originality of its visual image and naturally not offend any national, cultural or religious sensitivity”,

Or if no entry met all of the technical format requirements, the jury would extend the contest, e.g. Format and transmission of artwork: …”Judging will be done electronically due to geographic separation of the jury. Therefore, all submissions are to be in an appropriate electronic format (.jpg, .gif, .png) for viewing on-screen, the longest dimension to be 4 inches”,

It probably never would have occurred to me that the term “Our Goals” in 7D, might actually be the goals of a small group of individuals rather than the Association membership, and which might not coincide with, and in fact, be in opposition to the Association majority opinion.

After reading the Jury Report, which was not published in the magazine, it is apparent that the present design was out of favor with many if not all in attendance. The qualities of the existing logo were negated to the greatest extent possible and there was a predisposition for something very different.

In the opinion of an educated few, as stated in the Jury Report, the existing logo has been characterized variously as:

“…having a homemade quality that suggests a grassroots club rather than a professional national organization, with the only equity it’s familiarity to members which a good new logo will very quickly become equally familiar”

“…lacking in emotional impact for people who don't already know it”

“…not nearly come close to the styles and qualities familiar to today's youth, those we hope to attract to the sports”,

Whereas a new logo would, as if by divine intervention, have qualities not existing in the original which:

“…speaks of us and our sports clearly the first time people see it, even if they have no other knowledge.”

“… bring important advantages that adjusting the existing logo can not”.

Well, all of that is only somebody's opinion stated as though it were fact.

Where and in what form is the objective evidence to support these base allegations about the old USHPA logo? Is the evidence to support the opinion of those who make a living by discovering such things available? Did somebody go out and engage the Gallup Organization to conduct a poll of several thousand Americans? Several hundred? Several? No? That’s alright, I have evidence at hand, and it’s from a significant portion of the population that matters most.

Guess who?

The People’s Choice variation on the old logo captured a whopping 26.3 percent of the 616 votes registered. Of the 134 designs submitted, six were clear variations on the old logo, with a combined vote representing 73.5 percent ( ! ) of the total votes cast, as opposed to the design selected by the jury which only tallied 4.9 percent of the total vote.

What’s going on here? What is this? What’s wrong with this picture?

And even if somehow there was evidence to support the opinions stated in the Jury Report, but for whatever reason the majority of the Association membership disagreed with that opinion, or is indifferent to it, and if the Association membership finds merit in retaining the existing USHPA logo, or something similar, then so be it!

Yes, under Selecting The Winners: Rule 7C does indicate the jury selection of winners;

Rule 7C) Final selection: The jury will confer via email to select the winners by March 1, 2007. Two final designs will be submitted to the board of directors for their selection during the March BOD meeting.

I guess I just kind of glanced over, or off this important clue, which in my old fashioned way of thinking about how the Association does business, I must have just imagined this selection would entail nothing more than to count ballots after weeding out those submissions which offended national, cultural and religious sensitivities or failed to meet the technical format requirements.

In either case we are brought to my next point of contention.

I have seen on more that one occasion, requests for the option of a reduced USHPA membership fee to be made available without a magazine subscription. The answer has always been that the magazine is the official method by which information is disseminated to the membership, and so is a necessary component of membership.

Yet here we have had images of entries available only through a medium other than the magazine, a vote taken with methods available only outside the magazine, and a decision made contrary to that vote, using criteria not published in the magazine. All this was done virtually without benefit of the official method for disseminating information to the membership, Hang Gliding and Paragliding Magazine.

Unflattering statements about the present logo have been put forward to justify why it or variations on its’ theme are unsuitable. That’s fine, and the opinions of those who feel that way deserve to be heard, and the freedom to express them maintained.

Regardless, they are only opinions, however professional or widely recognized and acclaimed those professional sources prove to be. And as highly regarded as they may be, they do not take precedence over, nor are they more valid or valuable than those opinions of the hundreds of Association members who feel otherwise. Most Association members have probably never heard of these professionals, and would no doubt maintain their opinions of logo design preference, even after being advised of the impeccable credentials of the jury and professional consultants.

All of those uplifting virtues the jury’s winning selection supposedly typifies, to the stated detriment and lacking qualities present in the existing logo, is an expression of an ideal design which can not be achieved by any one example for all of the members, so since it is the members who are impacted, it is the members who must choose.

The Association membership must choose whether to change the existing design and if so what the new design should be. This impact is no more properly delegated as one for committee decision than any of the other past impacts to USHPA membership.

And so, as poorly suited as the present logo may seem to some people, it should be left to those people to convince the membership of the inadequacy of the present design, as has been the practice in the past when an issue affecting the membership was at hand.

All effort should be put forward to give a fair shot at credibility to the choice some have for the new design in favor over the old.

We can have a recap of discussion and rationale presented from the eleven page Logo Contest Jury Report PDF file, examining preferences of the jury and other professionals, for Association membership consideration, just like we have done for other issues which affect the Association membership

Ideally we should have all the submissions, published in Hang Gliding and Paragliding Magazine, “the official method for disseminating information to the membership”, just like other choices before us, which affect and are affected by Association membership preference, so that the greatest number of members have a chance to examine for themselves the merits, pro and con of any suggested change.

Then we need a United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association membership vote, as the FINAL authority on the design for the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association Logo. The members of the Association should vote, on whether to retain the old logo, or change to one of the alternate submissions such as “The People’s Choice”, or the professional graphic artists, board of directors, and jury’s selection, just like we have done for other issues which affect and are affected by Association membership preference.

Alternatively, for the sake of expediency, at the very least, we need illustrations published in the magazine, presenting the people’s choice and the professional’s choice, for a runoff election by the Association membership. Then the Jury’s selection process will possess merit through having brought a professionally suggested candidate to the membership attention.

And if the members select something which in the opinion of professionals is poorly suited as an expression of the stated ideals, then so be it, because like so many other things, everybody has an opinion, but it should be the majority opinion of the Association membership who take the time to vote, which is upheld, not the other way around. The design selection should not be some small minority of individuals who have a preconceived idea of the inadequacy of the old design and what should be embodied in a new one regardless of what the majority of the membership has indicated.

Noble and honorable intentions are appreciated, and volunteered donations of time and resources notwithstanding, an undertaking such as the above affront to our Association membership, is an act which may be described by several terms, all of which are inflammatory, and to put it concisely, is an egregious overstep of authority, and disappointing betrayal of the Association membership trust.

Okay somebody didn’t think this all the way through. We need to rectify that now.

Why?

Because as clearly stated in the masthead of the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association magazine, “The USHPA is a member-controlled sport organization…” It is not one controlled by the opinions of a few, however well intended or credentialed.

Or is it? Or should it be? All who disagree please step forward and present your case.

Larry Witherspoon
4260 West 182nd Street
Torrance, California
310-370-9793

Larry Witherspoon’s first hang glider flight was on a too windy Fourth of July in 1974 with a Seagull III he built from a kit. It was one of the first “advanced” Rogallo 2nd generation wings, with curved leading edges, nose angle significantly greater than 90 degrees and 265 square feet of sail.

On that first day the uninitiated young man who had only witnessed hang glider flights a couple of times, and who had only received the most rudimentary instruction on how to fly, would soar for short periods above the sand dunes before crashing at their base at now legendary Dockwieler Beach, under the flight path of jets departing Los Angeles International. Somehow, Larry survived those self-taught, unhelmeted, unparachuted, early days, and became a member of the ancestral Southland Hang Gliding Association, which held monthly meetings at the Department of Water & Power in downtown Los Angeles and which eventually became the United States Hang Gliding Association.

Larry’s mug shot can be found in the 1975 “Hang Gliding – The Flyingest Flying”, one of the earliest books to feature hang gliding’s activists with the caption, “Someday A Balloon?”. Larry’s dream at that time to launch from a hot air balloon was realized a few years later when he was employed as one of two instructors at Hang Gliders of California in Santa Monica. Larry pulled together a double hot air balloon drop from a mile above the original Ontario Motor Speedway, for a California 500 pre race air show, featuring a few mild aerobatics and culminating in a racetrack infield landing.

An unpublished short story is available if anyone is interested. Larry has been involved with early hang glider flight testing programs on Bob Trampenau’s first Seedwings Sensor series glider, and Richard Miller’s unpowered “Model A”.

Larry is married with a 17 year old daughter, and has been a Procurement Quality Specialist (specializing in contractual quality requirements) for the past 20 years with McDonnell Douglas division of The Boeing Company.

Larry is USHPA Charter Member # 8651

Discuss Logo at the Oz Report forum
   
 
 
del.icio.us