Edmonton Valley Zoo: Using Sex to Sell?

I just wanted to make a quick comment today about the new look for the Valley Zoo here in Edmonton. As part of the major renovations that will be taking place there over the next few years, a couple weeks ago the zoo unveiled their new logo.
For at least the last several years (I was unable to find out exactly how long) the zoo has used a stylized image of an elephant as their logo. It is understandable that they would want to distance themselves from this image, as the presence of the elephant, Lucy, has drawn increasing criticism from animal rights groups who argue that her isolation, relatively small habitat, and Edmonton’s cold climate have combined to create both mental and physical problems in Lucy.
So we are presented with not one but eight new logos for the zoo. Rather than focusing on a single animal, each stylized logo looks at a different species. Though the press release invites you to see any animal you would like when you look at the designs, they did have specific animals in mind: a panda, seal, two owls, snake, meerkat, sea lion, and lemur. Despite this large number of logos, to date most of their signage and materials features a single logo:

I like that this logo (as well as the rest in the new style) feel less formal and are more colourful than the old design. My initial assumption was that it was an image of an owl, perhaps reinforced by the fact that the current radio campaign is voiced by an owl character, or perhaps because of the logo’s similarity to another famous design. And that’s my real problem with this new look.
Does it remind you of any other brand? Maybe a restaurant chain whose sole selling feature is the opportunity to be served by attractive girls in short short and tight top?

The new design in conspicuously similar to the Hooters logo. It is fairly common knowledge that the O’s in Hooters were designed to not only look like the owl’s eyes but also the restaurant’s namesake – a pair of breasts. That’s what makes the thought process behind the new Valley Zoo logo so hard to understand. I find it hard to believe that everyone involved in the design and approval process failed to see the blatant similarities between the two designs, but it’s equally hard to believe (despite the rather leading title of this post) that they could have seen the similarities and decided to proceed with the design anyways, out of some misguided desire to make the zoo subliminally sexy or otherwise.
As I pointed out above, there are seven other logo designs that the zoo will be using in various locations. The most common design, pictured above, isn’t even one of the owls, it’s a panda, but it is definitely biggest offender when it comes to the “zoo tits” design gaffe. “Zoo tits” are still present in most of the other designs, with the exception being the snake, but on many of them to a far lesser extent.

Lemur	Meerkat	Panda
Owl	Owl	Sea Lion
Seal	Snake

So are the new logos a complete failure? No, I don’t think so. Certainly not everyone will make the “zoo tits” connection. If the zoo move to one of its other designs as the primary, I think that any potential damage can be minimized as people will be trained to look at it as it was intended and will be less likely to make the “zoo tits” association when they do encounter the more blatant designs later. The snake, seal, or sea lion designs should be on the forefront of this campaign and the other designs used sparingly. It is remarkable to me, however, that they got this far without anyone rectifying, or apparently even noticing, this problem.
I hope a little more thought and attention is put into the rest of the zoo’s renovation.
Sleep well,
DTE
____________________
Songs of the moment:
Emily Browning – Sweet Dreams; Daft Punk & Crystal Method – The Grid Remix; Garfunkel & Oates – This Party Took A Turn For The Douche
Music while I wrote:
Smodcast Network – Jay & Silent Bob Get Old