I like it a lot. The FP1 in there is also a nice idea. Not sure how well all the fine details will work on a shirt, but font-wise it looks perfect! Maybe it’s a good idea for a postcard as well?
There is no FP1 in there. If you look closely, you’ll see that it’s the FP2.
You’re right, my mistake!
Very nice work! I think this should definitely be seen by @Douwe
Oh, very nice indeed! Which source did you use for the images? iFixit?
And am I wrong, or have you been cheatin’ a little when making the ‘P’?
Oh, of course I made fit what would not fit I trimmed, overlapped, squeezed and stretched.
The idea was to make a sketch, not a blueprint, so I used solely the background graphic at http://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Story-FP2Render.jpg In my opinion, should this idea ever be considered for anything from Fairphone, there would be two ways to craft a proper blueprint: Either try to use all available FP2 module shapes (not just the 5 or so I cut out of the background graphic – your iFixit suggestion is very good as they provide some of the most lavish FP2 module photos around) to approximate the original FAIRPHONE lettering as closely as possible – or develop a “FP2 module style” for filling the letters, i.e. a style that uses the grey base, the white edges, the blue and white circles and so on, but won’t insist on sticking to the exact shapes of the existing real life modules.
Or “If it’s not a Fairphone, it’s not a fair phone”
Nice wordplay, but the Fairphone as such isn’t “fair”.
It may be fairer than other phones, but imo not to an extent that warrants bold statements implying that the FP is fair in an absolute sense and other phones are not.
In my opinion stressing specific accomplishments as in some contributions above is the way to go…
More as a post scriptum rather than an actual suggestion, I did try to proceed from my initial idea I uploaded here three months ago. There are quite a couple of design challenges anyone encounters when trying to draft a Fairphone T-shirt, the two biggest ones in my opinion:
- When you look at it closely, the Fairphone font reveals it is not based on straight, but bent lines. If you want to photoshop around the Fairphone signet, this complicates the whole thing considerably.
- Plain and simple, I strongly assume Fairphone only prints T-shirts using one colour. That’s what rules out my initial idea, but made me think of the “stylized” approach earlier on.
Now I gave my best to pursue the “stylized” approach, but frankly all that came out of it looked dull:
Again, if someone still likes the idea and is a proper (or just a better amateur ) graphic designer, I’d love to see what you can do with just the idea and your superior skills!
The wordplay is more than nice, nevertheless, I’m not sure whether it is a good slogan, but more for the reason that it is too obvious… Personally, I like understatement much more than aggressive “self-presenting”, and - as I’m a scientist - facts (if available) are (mostly) a better foundation for decisions than emotions. I think that is similar to what you wrote…
On the other hand I had to learn - and it was hard, believe me - that also scientists are humans with convictions, believes, biases, and their conclusions and decisions are quite often (in my field > 90%) obviously based on emotions, and therefore may be just the opposite of what the facts suggest. This means: emotions are decisive…
And I’m quite sure - you will not find many people who would support the idea that products are sold just by facts…
Even the product name “Fairphone” is serving the emotional aspect, it is the necessary vehicle for the transportation of facts. The facts are much too complicated, look at the suggestions. Sure, it is an interesting idea to build up the name Fairphone of some parts which can be easily exchanged: but the message can’t be recognized at a glance, it needs to be explained - and at that moment you have lost. At best, it is overlooked, at worst it results in negative associations: how complicated! A new gadget for nerds. Not cool.
Furthermore, your argumentation would be equally valid concerning the name of the product itself - “Fairphone”. Even if your argument is considered true (difference to other phones too small) it is somehow inconsistent…
And the slogan does not say that the Fairphone is a fair phone. It just says that other phones are not fair. And that is definitely true, no?
In conclusion, I have the feeling that the discussion on this slogan should not end with your statement.
Basically, it has everything a slogan should have to wake interest. And nothing else is the idea behind a slogan. It is easily understood, it has an intellectual touch (word play), it transports one of the most positive aspects in human relationship - fairness. And it transports the message with a twinkling eye, with humour.
Well, the first version of my post started with “I’m basically critical towards this slogan…”, and the actual version also starts still critically. But while writing I changed my mind. I did not rewrite my post completely to show the development.
In the end, if the Fairphone is not successful - and there are some very strong reasons why this could happen - we lose altogether. Not only some money for a phone with exchangeable parts, which may or may not be produced in a better quality in future (thus ending with buying one of the other phones which are definitely not fair [btw: can a product be “fair” at all, isn’t that an attitude or behaviour of thinking living beings?]), but - much more important - we lose also the idea that fair production is not only nice but can also be successful.
Thus, I think it is important that the Fairphone is successful, and in my opinion this slogan promises to be successful to draw attention.
Sorry for my long post…
Thanks for your elaborate reaction, and I “get” and appreciate where you’re coming from. However, I beg to differ at some points.
Well, I think a product’s name and advertisement serve functions sufficiently different from each other. While I sometimes have the impression that the name has misled a certain fraction of this community into really believing that the phone is “fair” in an absolute sense, I still think it’s a great name. A name has to be short and memorable. To me, the name Fairphone is not a description of what is, but what the company is aspiring to achieve. In that sense the name works great, I think. Considering this, I can’t see how my argument is inconsistent. If you still do, please elaborate.
Of course it should stir interest, but not based on false or, in this case (in my opinion), exaggerated information.
While in a very strict logical sense you are right, I’d bet that 100 out of 100 people would understand the slogan such that only the Fairphone is a fair phone.
My goal was not to end a discussion, only to contribute to it and voice a personal opinion.
But I stand by my post. Personally I would be embarrassed by such a slogan. To me it transports a moral superiority that is unwarranted and that I as a FP owner could not embrace wholeheartedly. But that’s just me.
Isn’t that also true for a slogan? Your description of the name and your reason why you accept the name is nearly identical to the definition of a slogan:
"A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a clan, political, commercial, religious, and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose.
The Oxford Dictionary of English defines a Slogan as “a short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising.” (Stevenson, 2010) A slogan usually has the attributes of being memorable, very concise and appealing to the audience. (Lim & Loi, 2015). These attributes are necessary in a slogan as it is only a short phrase usually and therefore it is necessary for slogans to be memorable, as well as concise in what the organisation or brand is trying to say and appealing to who the organisation or brand is trying to reach."
If not transporting what “…the company is aspiring to achieve.”, what is the purpose of a slogan then? What is the intention of a T-Shirt with a logo or a slogan? In my eyes a slogan is a somewhat extended name. And if the slogan contains the name, and even repetetive - the better,
Yes and no. Yes, the slogan provokes the perception that the Fairphone is fair, and that it is the only phone that is fair.
No, concerning the implicit idea of your post that the people would take that for real: This “trick” is widely known and well recognized, and nobody takes it for a definite fact. Therefore I named the slogan “eye-twinkling”.
Sure, and I did not want to provoke the impression that it was your intention to end the discussion. It was just the last post concerning this slogan, and posts which are based on moral aspects by nature claim to be definite and therefore tend to finish discussions (as every answer with a different opinion is automatically immoral). Again: I don’t think that you intended that.
However, moral is of a very high importance, and moral concerns have to be taken seriously. And claiming Fairness is not compatible with wrong (unfair) statements. That means: The slogan is great in my opinion, but the question remains indeed whether it is justified.
I am a Newbie here, I like the idea of being fair, and I see that Fairphone is obviously doing something which I like, and in some fields they are at least trying to improve the situation. They have a moral aspiration, and as far as I can see, they are trying to achieve what they state. And I think they are far ahead of other companies, which seem to do not much in regard of fair production.
In my opinion this justifies to claim to be more fair than others.
But you have a different meaning, and I am always willing to learn. Thus I would appreciate if you could give your reasons in more detail, this would allow a better founded judgement.
Advertising is lying. You want a short catchy phrase that is never 100% true. Also advertising omits the drawbacks, it shows a product from its best side.
Only important question for me: Is it just advertising (saying why your item is “cool”) or is it greenwashing = omitting so much that the whole product becomes a lie.
I don’t think I have anything substantial to add to what I wrote. Also, the discussion seems to be dead anyway.
But again, I think a product’s name and its advertisement slogans serve different functions.
That may be the purpose, but still, a slogan also has to have some truth to it. A lot of ad slogans focus on actual characteristics of products. If Willi’s Wurst vendor advertises “The best Wurst in town”, the sausage better be good. We’d find the ad absurd if everyone knew his sausages are really the worst in town (even if poor Willi really tried to achieve a great product).
“If it’s not a Fairphone, it’s not a fair phone” effectively makes a claim about FP’s characteristics at present. Yet - while “fairness” of a product can’t be quantified in a single indicator, from my gut feeling the Fairphone is still only 10 percent “fair”, and 90 percent conventional. Make no mistake, I still think every single step they’ve taken towards greater fairness is fantastic. But it’s too little to claim effectively that FP is fair and all others aren’t. (It’s somewhat related to the greenwashing mentioned by @fp1_wo_sw_updates above.)
It shows the materials they try to buy from “better” sources (W, Au, Sn, Ta) – not their percentages … for a reason. The only “lie” is that I don’t have any information on their audits. Or if they do audits at all. Nothing was published so far. Or it was published and I missed it. The last blog I article I read was about the New Bugurama Mining Company (NBM), it did not contain audit information, it was more like a “visit”. But I know how hard it is do this right, so I don’t blame anyone.
Yes, you are right, fair can’t be quantified, and if you see it at just 10% - ok.
I see it at a much higher percentage, if I take all aspects together.
Example: I have dozens of power supplies which are redundant - completely useless, but produced and therefore resources have been wasted and the surroundings been poluted. I don’t know the amount of the different materials used, but the weight (80gr) is nearly 50% of the phones weight. The volume should give similar rates. Sure, this does not consider that in a phone most probably more of “worse” materials are used… but I guess it is not negligible. Add the increased lifecycle of the phone itself - it is more than a 10% increase. Yes, it is an estimation…
I just jumped around the internet, and I found a comparison between a TCO-labelled smartphone (indicating a “green and fair produced smartphone”) and the fairphone. A study rather than a personal estimation:
Scores . TCO Fairphone Red ..... 16 ... 5 Yellow .. 11 ... 9 Green .... 7 .. 20
Sure, as every study also this one has to be critically reviewed, but on a first glance it seems to be quite comprehensible.
And of course, a quantification of a fairness-value is not possible, since this would require a definition which of the 34 criteria are more important, and to which amount when compared to each other.
And yes, there is still a lot to do until fair is really fair.
But the Fairphone outscores the other “green and fair” phone considerably according to this
comparative study. All other phones seem to not even meet the weak TCO criteria…
good idea, but in my eyes too long (and too much self-presenting (“talented team”)).
So I just played aorund a bit, hope you don’t mind. It is just a proposal and free for any improvement.
I sense this is going off topic. I invite you to find a discussion on the forum, which is related to this topic, or open a new topic (you can link to this one by clicking the button, which appears on the right side of a post, if you hover above it).
What about questions, that make passing by people think?
E.g.: Do I see blood on your phone?
And how fair is your phone?
Oh and I have another one: A Fairphone a day keeps the Apple away…
I like this one most