ptg logo (long)

[Vince Mrykalo]

For your perusal:

From: Andrew Margrave,rpt           July 3, 1995
      North VA chapter
      po box 2593
      Fairfax, VA  22031
      Tel: 703-273-5646

The enclosed commentary was intended for publication in the May 1995
Journal, or its grey suppliment, but for some reason did not see the
light of magazine print.  This, despite the fact that the piece was
sent in soon enough.  Therefore, this is conveyed here and
elsewhere:

This set of comments on Bill Spurlock's article, "Making Our Logo
Work for Us" (PTJ, Jan 1995, pp 12,14, and 16) is in no way to be
construed as an attack on, or criticism of Bill himself.  Bill
is a friend of mine who played a major role in my Feb '94
upgrade to rpt.  He has been responsible for much wonderful
instruction and for many outstanding innovations in tools and
techniques.  The music industry would be in far better shape if
it had more people with Bill's dedication and integrity running
things.  It is a sign of Bill's and Fern's selfless devotion to PTG
that they have done so much to advance marketing ideas they have
presented and made available to us.

In principle, I agree that there should be only one PTG logo,
just as PTG does well to have only one designation for its title
of professional certification, and one universal set of exams.
Currently I use both logos as much as possible, giving space to
each and generally not having them near each other.  Then if one
logo is temporarily or permanently taken out of circulation, the
other one will still be recognized by my public.  The absence of
"Registered Piano Technician" from the old round logo is not a
problem; all an rpt must do is spell out his title near the
logo.  I happen to believe that the old logo is much better as a
pin, while the new logo is slightly better in all other
contexts, but I believe the round logo should remain as a "badge"
of honor.  One major advantage that the old round logo has at present,
both within PTG and elsewhere, is that it must be earned, while the
admittedly more distinctive new logo can belong to anyone
willing to buy it.

I never used a PTG logo while still an associate, but I decided
in the spring of '93 that I would use the new item, shortcomings
and all, as soon as I upgraded.  I always have considered the
new logo's near microscopic subscript, which denotes membership
category, a major defect both before and after my upgrade.  I
still use the logo as it is because it has much promise and
potential as a veritable sapphire in the rough, but those
proportions need correcting.  The subscript comes across to me as a
severe and inexcusable lapse in graphic design, and gives me the
impression that we are almost ashamed of our certified title.
Finally, there is something in our bylaws about letter size for
membership category in relation to letter size for "Piano
Technicians Guild".  The logo's current proportions have
necessitated a bylaws escape clause ("...except as otherwise
specified in the graphics standards manual...") that is a very
small fig leaf on a very large emperor.

More than once, Bill's article implies that associates use their
version of the new logo.  Associates really should not use the
logo or anything else having to do with PTG commercially; they
should advertise as if they were non-members, as I did and as
many do today.  I believe the public will recognize the ethical
shortcomings of using a logo and other public PTG resources to
gain customers while lacking clear evidence of any attained
standard of qualification or accreditation. There is the problem
that the public will eventually link the new logo, not with RPTs,
or the PTG organization, but only with beginners, or others who
walk in off the street, pay their way into PTG, and appropriate
the logo even if they are dilettantes.  At least the old logo
cannot be tarnished in that way.

We will make the new logo work well for us only when we have
established that it must be earned rather than merely purchased,
and when we have brought it into line with PTG bylaws and with
common-sense principles of graphic design.  Until then, we may
be in danger of making our new logo work more against us than
for us.  We have invested too much - time and money - in that
new logo to leave it flawed and continually vulnerable to
defilement by associates.  Let us safeguard the new logo's
future integrity by reserving its public commercial use for
those demonstrably qualified.  Let us get the sapphire out of
the rough and into position to realize its full potential.

Andrew Margrave, rpt