Jason Whipple :: Like the Saying Goes, "No good deed goes unpunished"
aka . . . You Can Share My Link But Not My Logo
I got an email a few weeks back from the National Trust of Historic Preservation. They asked me to take down a link on my site that directed people towards their site. “Why?” I asked.
And I was told — because I used their logo to package the link and apparently they are very protective of it. I understand that there is a particular logo that identifies members, and that should be sacred, but that’s not the one that I used.
I spent some time and money on my site to make it look nice, and out of the goodness of my heart I included their logo in a side bar and coded it with a direct link to them. No claims of being a member, nor of having an endorsement from them at all, just a simple way for my viewers to find great information and for me to send them more traffic, possibly even more members.
I attempted to remove it myself and screwed up my whole site. I’m not a web site guy, I’m a Preservationist. I paid a fee to have the hosting company re-set it and I put in a call to the builder of the site to make the changes. It was done in a day or two.
I guess I just don’t get it (or maybe they don’t), I’m not sure. I have other logos for brands I use that don’t even include links, and I’ve never had issues. One of them (Abatron) thanked me for including them. In this day of information sharing, I’m really surprised by this. In fact, I put off by them. I have a solid gold record with my clients, architects, and with a network which includes some of the top dogs in Preservation. There should be no reason they would be embarrassed by MY endorsement to them and there should be no reason to feel threatened by some small town Vermont contractor.
I called the person who sent the message and explained that I wasn’t trying to steal anything. I pointed out that it’s quite obvious who I am, and what I do when you visit my site. I continued by explaining that they provide some informative articles that would be of interest to my visitors and that I’m only attempting to bring like-minded people together at their site.
I tried to make the comparison to my Facebook page that also has the logo on the side bar, because they are in my favorites list. The lady I spoke with said social networking was one thing but because my site was a commercial site it would not be allowed. I thought to myself, “Isn’t my business page on Facebook a commercial site too? If it’s not, then, heck, I’m doing something wrong!”
I guess I’ll never understand the sensitivity on their part. I also won’t bother to share their links or articles anymore. The good thing for me (and you) is there are luckily still thousands of other media outlets out there that aren’t so stuffy and actually do like people to share their content, and links, and even their logos!
Well, I’ve gotta get back to figuring out what to put in place of this un-authorized information on my website . . .
*******
Note from the hosts: Big shout to Jason for taking the time to share his story (and frustration) with us. Jason and I go way back: I believe he may have been my first direct respondent on Twitter, and that interaction was exactly when I realized that I COULD use Twitter to ask for and get advice. Jason can be found in there @NewVentureLLC and on Facebook at >>http://www.facebook.com/NewVentureLLC.
He has also been known to show up from time to time in Remodel Crazy‘s forum. Thanks again, Jason. ~jb
-
After 20+ years in marketing, the one thing I have learned is the high level of paranoia some companies and organizations have about their brand and logo. Like you, I’ve been contacted by lawyers about use, so now I an nuts about asking permission for use. Fortunately most companies and groups are very obliging, but boy, is it extra work!
-
-
#4 written by Amy Good 1 year ago
-
-
Wow is right Alycia. I pleaded with them to understand but in the end they just don’t get it. The link had absolutely no benefit to me or my site at all. It had all sorts of benefits for them though. I still don’t understand it but maybe they will chime in and tells us the method behind their madness.
-
-
And double wow- the National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization. They don’t actually sell anything; their whole purpose is to educate and advocate. They are dependent on exposure and membership. Obviously, their marketing and communications department is…confused (to put it mildly) or just flat out stupid. Nice way to alienate their advocates.
-
-
This reminds of a story I read about the CEO of Absolut, the vodka company. At the height of re-branding his product he was passing through an airport and spotted a man wearing a dirty Absolut shirt. He paid the man for his shirt, took it off his back and then informed his people that Absolut would no longer be putting their products advertising on clothing. He said it was too difficult to control the company image.
I think this says something about old business versus new. Old business was all about control of public perception and new business recognizes that control is no longer possible. Instead, companies must act/post/promote a message and then let go of expectations. In this way I think new business cannot help but foster more honest dealings which is cool.
The sad thing about your story Jason is that more than likely the merits of your site, business or you were not even considered. I am guessing they simply have a blanket policy which determined their course of action.
Peter hit the nail on the head.
-
I think that you hit it right on Barry. With the introduction of social media, companies can no longer control their message. Wendy Clark of Coca-Cola said in a recent presentation that “The days of controlling the message are absolutely over. At best you’ll be invited in and you’ll get to co-create and participate with consumers.”
-
So true! I do hope they start to understand this. They are a good organization, just a little over protective and can’t seem to understand the difference between someone trying to give them a boost and someone trying to make false accusations about being part of they’re group.
I think they need some new people monitoring this stuff and put the old school people working on something else…
-
#13 written by Shannon 1 year ago
So I have been debating posting anything to this blog posting for a few reasons and I have even chatted with you on twitter regarding your unfortunate experience with the National Trust. I do not work for them, but I have worked with them and not directly with their marketing department, so I can’t speak for them I can only offer an explanation (which I am not sure if you care, but I know it will not change your mind on them, but I wish it would).
I understand everyone’s comments regarding marketing in this day and age. But the one thing that is different from all the other companies and the Trust is: yes they are a non-profit, but they also give out grants for historic preservation and they are considered a respected leader for preservation practices for the whole country. Their focus in not state to state but the nation as a whole. In the preservation industry an endorsement by them is high and to have their backing on a project is even more important considering how hard getting a grant from them really is.
Now I am not saying that this is their reason, but most preservation agencies that I have run into require that any project that they are helping to fund that their logo is placed on any publications that deals with the project that has been funded. You don’t have to list them as a “sponsor” but you have to have just the logo on any and all publications (including pages on websites that deal with the preservation project)
According to you, you had the logo placed on your services page without a header that said something to the effect of “to learn more about preservation practices in the US check out these services” you simply had their logo and no one else. It was not even on a resource page it was on the page that tells anyone that comes to your page about the services that you offer that fall under the preservation practices. In addition their were NO other links to other local preservation groups. Which is what I find most surprising considering this is your industry and you seem to pride yourself on doing proper preservation projects in Vermont. (Which for all Preservationist that I know means they follow the Secretary of Interior standards for Historic Preservation). You could have listed The Preservation Trust for Vermont which is an amazing local non-profit that gives grants, local assistance that would help you and all your clients navigate through the benefits of owning a historic property (eligible for the National and/or State register or not plus they are your local equal to the National Trust) . Then there is the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation your State Historic Preservation Office that can help you help your clients navigate through state permit requirements (if the project requires a section 106 review or uses federal or state funds ), federal and state preservation tax credits, getting their property listed on the national/state register so that they can qualify for tax credits and grants, and help navigating through the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation (which by looking at all the projects you have listed would be one of the major benefits for anyone you are trying to get to be your client). And finally the National Park Service which is in charge of the National Register and are the writers and publishers of the Preservation Briefs which is a boat load of information on how to properly maintain and renovate a historic property, clearly an important resources that you are missing for you and your clients.
So I am not really sure what your point of having the National Trust logo (and just the logo) on your page if your goal was to help others that come to your Services page (clearly a page that is there to promote the types of projects you do and not offer resources) of your website, when you have so many great organizations in your own state. I mean seriously Vermont is one of the leaders in country that have resources purring out for historic property owners.
So I can understand the misinterpretation that the Trust had if only because a logo placed on a site without any explanation is a little misleading and for some offer an instant endorsement in the preservation world, and for some seen as a requirement for some granting agencies. Its different from a Facebook page because its clear that those are companies that you “like” and last I checked you can’t control which company shows up on you “like” pages on your wall.
So I am incredibly sorry that you had such a road block with the Trust and that because of that you had a hard time getting the logo off your website. I can say that everyone that I have worked with at the Trust have been nothing but helpful. Your post made me think about how the company I work handles the use of our logo and to make sure that it includes additions that account for the way people interact on the web these days. So if that was one of your goals then it was accomplished. But I encourage you to think about putting your own states preservation groups and the NPS preservation briefs up on your website. Because for a property owner trying to navigate through tax credits, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Project, designations, permits, etc need to understand that every state is different in how it handles everything. Its far more appealing to know that a company that they work with actually understands what all that really means.
-
#15 written by Jason E Whipple 1 year ago
Thanks Shannon, all very good points. I have some changes coming up that will have a resource page with local agencies in Vermont and New York. As for linking to the NPS Briefs, I won’t put up that information because it’s literally a guide on how to do the work I do.
I guess the main reason I decided to link the National Trust is because of their great articles. It hit a wide range of projects all over the country and with me working in 3 states, I wanted to share just general information and not get too specific into any one area.
I did try to see if it would be possible to set it up differently but they flat out said no. It didn’t seem to matter how it was presented. That’s were the whole thing just started to rub me the wrong way.
I will say this, before putting up any logo’s that link to other site or organizations, I will ask first and avoid this problem in the future.
-
#16 written by Shannon 1 year ago
Yes Jason, bottom line it is a shame that some sort of compromise couldn’t be worked out regardless of the mistake and that is what truly is unfortunate, and an understandable bad taste left in your mouth. As for the Park Service I could see where briefs and tech notes would not be a good resource to showcase your clients, because sometimes it is better for the professionals to handle such things. Here is a page on a Colorado based website that has other items from the Park Service that you might find useful http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/guidelines-historic-preservation-projects.
And the whole posting articles piece, I think it would be great if things like that were covered in your blog. The National Trust did a great piece on the value of repairing instead of replacing historic window, it would be great if you had point and counter point to how that translates in the environment that you work in and then reference other issues. There is a big misconception surrounding some key types of preservation incentives that only people like yourself that work in the field can really help change the opinion of the mass public (i.e. windows and adaptive reuse)
either way thanks for the post!
-
- Comment Feed for this Post
And they probably spend thousands on SEO ever year.
Nothing beats other sites linking to yours, when it comes to SEO. So they are going to police the net and make sure they aren’t getting linked to.
Genius, absolutely, genius!