Always Proof! Always Proof!

I'd better start this off by stating that I am vehemently against child abuse and even more against child sexual abuse. Furthermore, I am very much in favor of organizations which provide education about how to help keep kids safe from sexual predators. That being said, if you're going to have a foundation or an organization that is going to be against child abuse, do yourselves a favor and please, please stop and think about your logo choice and then please stop and think about how you would like to word your message on your website. I'm not talking just logo colors and punctuation. I'm talking about the overall message that you might unintentionally be conveying.

Let's look at the website for the Tonya Allen Foundation. The website states their mission as an organization "...that raises funds and bestows grants to community-based organizations that serve Sexual Abuse Survivors. This Foundation is committed to proactive steps to help protect children. Our mission is to recognize, prevent and to react responsibly to child sexual abuse." And that sounds like a fine cause and I certainly hope that it is. Here is their logo. Behold!

Um, whoops? That doesn't look good. It looks like...well...like.....like exactly what they're against! Does nobody proof these things anymore? They must not, because at least that would explain some of the wording on the site. Phrases such as:

• If you were abused, you know how it feels and what it did to you. (Yes, I would imagine you do know how it feels. Geez...)


• Child sexual abuse is a very complex problem, and this website touches on only a small part of it. (Touches a small part of it? Again....geez....)

This isn't the first time that I've seen a logo with some serious problems. Take, for instance, the unfortunate logo design of the Office of Government Commerce over there in England. It seems fairly harmless at first, as it looks like this:

But when the thing is turned on its side, then we have something that sends a different message.

When the OGC was asked to comment on the logo, a spokesman responded by saying, "“It is true that it caused a few titters among some staff when viewed on its side, but on consideration we concluded that the effect was generic to the particular combination of the letters OGC - and it is not inappropriate to an organisation that’s looking to have a firm grip on Government spend.” Good Lord, was he the one who designed the logo as well? Not a good idea to include the term "firm grip" in this situation. Not so much.

I don't know, maybe it's just me that sees these things in logos everywhere. (It could be. Things have been a little slow lately.) There's always the logo from the Arlington Pediatric Center. (Not a good choice at all. Compromising, to say the very least!)

Then there's the Computer Doctors. They claim to "make computers work for you." With that sign, my question is "Doing WHAT, exactly?"

I'm probably going to hell for this one, but who in God's name (Pun intended. Hey, it's not like I'm not already going to hell!) designed this light switch? Who?

This one comes from the Brazilian Institute of Oriental Studies. I'd ask what they study there, but I don't really want to know.

I am not going to this dentist. Ever. And neither should you. Unless you have a toothache and you're really lonely. (Is it any wonder people are afraid of the dentist?)

Next is the poor, poor, choice for the Amadeus Frankfurter Company. Enough said.

Here is some sort of a pharmacy that specializes in some sort of back pain. (Your back would hurt too if you were a compromising position such as that!)

This was seen on a Norwegian bus. Judging from the big red 'X', it appears to be telling you not to do something or that you cannot do something. That is clear. What isn't so clear is WHAT exactly it is that is forbidden on the BUS.

Quite possibly the worst oversight of the biggest design flaw EVER. Who's idea was THIS??

Sphere: Related Content