Bloom logo appears on back cover after update

Less than a month ago I prepared about a dozen local-language publications with all the front and back-matter content and formatting carefully edited to meet our publishing guidelines as closely as possible. Since the time that I submitted those pdf files for publication approval, my Bloom installations have been updated (now at Bloom ver. 4.4.0; BloomBeta ver. 4.5.102). Today the literacy consultant checking the publications asked for some minor changes, but now when I generate new pdf files the Bloom logo is always included on the back cover. These particular publications are currently only aimed at print format, so we’ve had no need to enable the Enterprise features. But even though the collection status is set to use no Enterprise features, the logo still appears. I’ve tried using different xMatter packs, using the “Funded by local community” enterprise setting, and switching between release and Beta versions, but I can’t generate the books without the Bloom logo as I was able to with last month’s version. Is there a way to produce un-branded books without an Enterprise subscription anymore?

Right. The thinking is, if projects are using Bloom without a subscription, it seems like giving credit to Bloom is a small price to pay? I’m open to hearing a different perspective.

Just to make sure you know – because we’re having a hard time getting the word out – Bloom Enterprise is free to SIL projects unless the project is a partnership with a funder. You will generally know if that is the case because the funder will want their branding on the book :slight_smile:

Yes, giving credit is a small price to pay, and, I would say, even a reasonable expectation. I suppose a different perspective would be to leave it up to each publisher to give credit in the format/location that meets the guidelines they follow with other publishing software. I realize we live in a fallen world where one can’t always expect others to do what they “should” do, though. :slightly_smiling_face:

In our case, a space inside the back cover is defined as where to credit the printing house. I think the same space would be acceptable to include credits for the software used as well. I do understand that Branding packs are available; perhaps the folks who approve publications in our branch can work that out with you so we can have the logo there as we encourage Bloom for more purposes. (BTW, I did try using the SIL Intl. enterprise subscription, but it gets us further from our style guide since it includes a big SIL logo on the title page as well as the Bloom logo on the back cover.)

I’m thinking that I may be able to get approval for this batch of publications with the logo on the back cover, but the bigger challenge is learning to deal with the dynamic nature of Bloom documents. Unlike files for traditional print formats, Bloom materials don’t exist independently anywhere per se. After a software update or changes to a collection’s configuration information, a user can find that the contents of a document is different than when they last worked on it. That threw me when the logo appeared after the last update, but I also saw some formatting differences: after having spent time to meticulously adjust the typeface, size, line-spacing of front and back-matter content, I found that some of those details were changed in the last update (specifically: bolding and line-spacing of Title-On-Cover’ style). :thinking: Maybe it should be a feature request (“Lock-down formatting & contents of existing books to protect them from update changes”), but it’s hard to be certain that a publication is done according to a given standard if its formatting (& sometimes content) depends on settings that can be changed or updated.

It’s discouraging to think about re-doing the work on this collection of books, but I trust it will be an investment that helps us understand what we want/need in a branding pack that will make things a lot easier for others later.

Bruce, thanks for that thoughtful reply.

I agree, Bloom is an uncomfortable fit for environments such as you describe, which are strong on rules for exactly how these minority-language books can appear.

And I also sympathize with how unlike normal publishing software it is for, as you say, the exact formatting of the cover page (or any other front/back matter) to be a function of the version of the software. We were fortunate to get some input from a print designer who designed these changes in order to make Bloom books look more professional. I think you might be using a custom front/back matter pack, so you could use a bug report on that to get us to undo the changes it inherited when we improved the default front/back matter pack.

Just to be clear… this is only the “front/back matter” pages that may get improvements from version to version. They are really challenging to make attractive AND carry all the info AND be flexible from book to book AND be automatic/easy. We haven’t worked through all the challenges even yet. But we would never intentionally change how any interior pages lay out.