Brand survey - what is to you?

Hi All,
As mentioned in the logo dev thread we need to define the various elements (‘mission’ / ‘purpose’, ‘tone of voice’ and ‘perception’) that the brand should encapsulate. So this thread is a space to add your thoughts, which the Product circle will then distill and develop into visual language… and a logo etc.

Any and all input - from everyone (not just Members) - will be useful, so please do chip in!
Add anything you think is relevant… in any format you like… the more input we can gather the better.

Some questions to think about might be:

  • What do you see as the ‘mission’ / ‘purpose’ of
  • Should our brand represent just ‘video conferencing’, or more (i.e. online collaboration in general) in order to ‘future proof’ the brand if we decide to offer other tools further down the line…?
  • What principle and values do you think the brand should represent? Clearly the co-op principles are a key part of our brand… but what else?
  • What other aspects do you consider to be important ingredients of collaborative working? open source? co-ownership? collective-purchasing? solidarity? commons? what else?

When I run branding sessions like this with clients we take time to define each of the four different dimensions of the brand, i.e. it’s functional, social, mental, and ‘spiritual’ (or ‘idealistic’ if the word ‘spiritual’ puts you off!) aspects - as per the attached


So you might like to add thoughts under each of those headings…

Finally, a potential concern was raised on the wiki

threat: people associating with animal meat, it sounds the same, though quite a different business :wink: Therefore we don’t exclude the possibility to also have other domain names pointing to our servers. is nice short though.

So we would also like input on the actual brand name - and, if you think we can do better, suggestions for alternative brand names / URLs

We will let this thread run for a couple of weeks and then, once we have distilled the input we will develop some initial ideas based on your input and present these back to the All Hands meeting to gather more feedback and input which we will use to develop the final brand.

I hope that all makes sense - Any questions, just ask!


Thanks for this @osb. Given the four dimensional model that you’ve outlined, I’d like to be able to respond in line with that, but I’m not sure I understand enough about what you are looking for on each axis? Could you expand just a little on those, and/or maybe point to a source doc that might help?

see these examples - they should give you the idea :wink:


I’ll try to respond from the perspective of a potential client. My own perspective isn’t hugely helpful.

Functional: A reliable and easy to use service that provides the features I need at a fair price.

Mental: Using the service makes me feel good because I’m part of a community, part of something that is shifting the balance in the right direction.

Spiritual/Idealistic: The service is built on a strong set of values that we are aligned with. is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. [Should really have some more ‘active’ in here, but I can’t think of it right now.]

Social: The fact that we use the service, as opposed to one of the mainstream big-tech offerings, sends an important message to our audiences/stakeholders about us and the choices we make.


Hypha’s response. Discussed this between @Yurko @elon @benhylau


  • long-term: integrate floss tools together into a virtual office, and in turn direct roadmap of the projects themselves so they work together
  • short-term: catch everyone who doesn’t want to use zoom


  • comfort that I can access ppl running this
  • I have a voice, I can participate


  • cooperative, not competitive
  • respect data privacy, transparent about operations and how data flows


  • neighbourly
  • associated with free software movement and open work culture
  • I care about my data, not exploited

Functional (what kind of ‘machine’ it is)

  • An infrastructure that potentially can be shaped directly by non-corporate user organisations because it is coop governed.
  • An infrastructure that hopefully will expand to embrace a full-featured easy-to-use toolkit of digital means of organising.
  • A fairly priced service that works OK in everyday life and doesn’t cause me headaches (as user or administrator), without over-elaborate features designed for corporate administration.
  • A venture that builds the coop economy and is a user-facing utility for non-corporates like my organisation, not a machine for network dominance and private intelligence gathering.

Mental (how it contributes to my sense of contribution)

  • I can contribute to a solidarity-economy venture, not a private company, a venture-capital startup or a for-profit.
  • I can be a contributor to a radical shift, not a consumer who carelessly props up the system and sustains capitalist-oligarchic wealth and power.
  • I can contribute to an ethical livelihood for a small number of people operating an essential alternative infrastructure.

Spiritual/Idealistic (participation in traditions of change)

  • identifies with the radical coop tradition of free association, fair livelihood and ordinary people’s provision for their own wellbeing.
  • advances the practice of peer-to-peer production and free-libre software.
  • manifests a commitment to radical practice in the coop sector, including multistakeholder governance, openvalue accounting, contribution accounting, transparency of operations and financial fairness, rather than ownership of financial stakes, commercial secrecy and financial accumulation.
    But let’s not call this ‘ethical’, let’s call it political, anti-capitalist and anti-propertarian. I would expect to fly a banner saying it is building a commons.

Social (sending a message about who ‘we’ are)

  • Using sends a message to my collaborators about my own affiliation with the commons-cooperative economy.
  • I hope that in time it will also send a message about
    . . mutuality between global North and South,
    . . attention to the needs of civil-society organisers in the South and in the global majority, and
    . . collaboration across language regions . . . a message about the geography of digital power and digital infrastructure.

Functional: It’s not just about meetings or generic corporate conferencing. It’s about functionality in which social justice organizations are part of the design and roll out of features, it’s functionality is informed by these use-cases and not controlled by the highest bidder or the largest corporate client

Mental: If I have ideas on how it should work, I can contribute them and they will be responded to.

Spiritual/Ideological: fundamentally, at it’s core, is different from all the corporate conferencing tools because it rejects that capitalist model of ownership and provides something no other conferencing system can provide: a sustainable future

Social: our vision and values of a cooperative economy extends beyond the by-laws, connecting us with other movements for justice and equality, where the links between a fighting for a just economy and the fight against other forms of oppresion are recognized and re-enforced.


I believe just about everything else I would say has been said here! Excellent contributions that make a clear statement on user freedom and software freedom combined! I might add (but it feels redundant…):

Social: * The joy of building software in a collaborative way that functions outside the Googlesphere without ties or report-backs to Corporate venture schemes.

  • Knowing I am part of a team, building something that engages the members in the process even if they are not programmers.

Spiritual/Ideological: Building on the principles of the 4 software freedoms:

  1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
  2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
  4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

** I would also like to see a statement about how we treat our members and BBB hosting recipients as well as we treat ourselves in regards to privacy and that we work to preserve anonymity and privacy for all.
As there are some options newly available with free software for payment transactions with “TALER” ( ) we should work towards implementing options for people to pay for things anonymously.


Hi All - thanks for all your great contributions… :slight_smile:

Here’s a start at distilling the comments and highlighting the common themes… I will do more work on this and start to develop ideas for some initial concepts based on your inputs…


Hello All,
Here’s some initial work on the brand development, including some draft concepts…
Please let us know what you think…?

Any and all feedback appreciated…

  • Are you OK with the possible ‘brand descriptor’ (tagline)?
  • Which, if any, of the concepts do you prefer?
  • What do you like about them and why?
  • If you don’t like any of them, why not?


meet-coop-brand-3.pdf (1.6 MB)

1 Like

Thanks for all this work from the Product circle! I think this looks great overall, and here is my input:

  • Tagline: “A co-operative community providing open source tools for collaboration”
    • I think the “co-operative community” does more than “providing open source tools”
    • There seems to be some intention to become a “steward of collaborative digital spaces that are just and respectful”, which seems to fall outside of the current tagline
  • re: “Non-corporate” I agree that we need a positive word that doesn’t begin with Non-
  • visuals in order of preference
    • Collective: Concept 3 (too close to, consider not the red-black anarchist colours)
    • Collective: Concept 2 (same^)
    • Choice: Concept 1
    • Freedom: ‘Clouds’ concept 1 (like the font, but reminds of an airline)