[dahart]

> If your corporate environment can’t deal with the reality that a logo is there to be memorable and fundamentally has nothing to do with functionality

Unfortunately, that argument is entirely straw man. Most corporate environments are absolutely fine with memorable non-functional logos. The issue is the narrative about gay turtle sex and perhaps the implied suggestion that the “rec” in recutils might stand for rectum.

In my personal life, I’m comfortable discussing turtles and rectums and sex and homosexuality. But I don’t want to discuss those topics at work with my co-workers, and most corporate environments aren’t just avoiding them for fun because they’re a bunch of stiffs, they’re avoiding such topics because there is a history of them causing actual problems at work, often lead to hurt feelings and the sense that the environment is not welcoming to all, and as a result there are several ways they’re legally required to encourage employees to avoid discussing such topics, and legally required to take disciplinary action if someone complains that someone else made negative comments about gay turtles or sex.

BTW this is all a side point to the fact that this photograph of turtles makes a terrible logo. It doesn’t work as a small icon or with reduced colors. It has no shape or symbolism. It’s unrelated to the product. It’s hard to see the detail even as a large full color image. The only thing that makes this logo memorable is the FAQ text, the story that it’s gay copulating turtles, which for all we know isn’t even true - turtles sometimes climb over each other, sometimes fight, and there’s no way to identify the sex of the turtles from this photo.

[dahart]

I really don’t know why this is getting downvoted like so, but in case it’s the “rec” comment, I am of course aware that rec stands for record, I meant to suggest the alternate meaning may be a pun. If this is lame or wrong or offensive for some other reason, I’m curious and open to feedback.