Your "tone of voice" guidelines seem to fit exactly with the postings I read on
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of
> Tony Keene
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2012 1:24 PM
> To: Graeme Stevens;
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] New Bird Life logo
> Having seen a few rebrandings of late in the academic sector,
> I'm always somewhat skeptical about the results compared to
> the payment. F'instance a certain university rebranded
> recently at a cost of $7 million and basically got a lot of
> colourful squares to daub on every bit of university output
> and a badge redesign that made it look like a 3rd division
> football team, not to mention written guidelines on how we
> should talk to each other:
> "Tone of Voice
> Setting the scene:
> Imagine a conversation between the University's most
> brilliant minds, past and present.
> The exchanges are inspiring and engaging, intense and
> energetic. What people say is informed and authoritative, but
> also crackling with intellect and, occasionally, a show of wit.
> People ask questions, share opinions and discuss new
> insights. They are not afraid to be controversial or provocative.
> Sentences tend to be short, sharp and well thought out,
> prompting a lively exchange.
> The vocabulary is evocative and rich, but never alienating or elite.
> This is our tone of voice, which reflects and brings to life
> who and what we are, as people, and ultimately, as an institution."
> Quite how I was supposed to include that lot into "Hey Mike,
> can I have a bottle of acetone from stores?" I don't know...
> As things go, the BirdLife logo in question isn't terrible,
> but it would be interesting to see what it cost and whether
> that represents value for money.
> Photos, paintings and drawings of Australian, NZ, Swiss and
> British Birds
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)