

The University of California Logo Controversy - usaphp
http://www.rockpaperink.com/content/column.php?id=468

======
nichols
This article reads like a parody at times.

Clearly the designers who designed the ugly logo aren't the problem, it's
"everyone else." (He actually says this.) Everyone else is "not qualified" to
offer an opinion-- no, not even if they are professional designers. Clearly
only the people inside the organization that did the design are qualified to
have an opinion. People who criticize are "reactionaries" (LOL, comrade).
Above all designers should never "criticize" other designers no matter how bad
their shit smells.

One has to wonder which profession he feels he is in-- manure shoveler? or
perhaps bootlick. Either way, this essay made me laugh like none other. I
think the only appropriate response is U MAD?

~~~
colmvp
But he's actually right.

Do you realize how many people hated the Pepsi logo when it was re-designed?
Now look at it versus the old logo years after we've become accustomed to it:
the old logo absolutely looks like it's a stodgy 80s design. And that was the
point of the logo redesign: to make it feel dynamic and modern.

I'd even be surprised of 90% of people polled in the early 80s would've said
it made sense for a tech company to a) use a fruit as their logo and b) have
it placed on computer equipment.

People often gravitate towards what they are comfortable and familiar with.
That's why I try to not evaluate everything by my gut until I see the full
picture and rationale.

I didn't love the logo but I thought the identity system was very strong and
vastly aesthetically cooler than the majority of shitty academic identity
systems I'm familiar with in North America where no one tries ANYTHING
different. One could toss a few dozen university logos together from Canada
and the United States and they'd probably just mesh into one blob.

~~~
jlgreco
This logo doesn't look unfamiliar. It looks _too_ familiar. It looks like
something that belongs on a powerpoint presentation in the 90s.

~~~
colmvp
Hardly.

Fact is most people expect certain visuals from academia.

~~~
jlgreco
It hardly looks like that to me? I beg to differ, it most certainly looks like
that to me.

Do you expect me to pretend that I don't think that just because I am not a
designer?

------
electrograv
Ever since they announced this logo, I've kind of been speechless on the
matter.

All I can say is: Yellow gradient smeared over sky blue? Seriously? I just...
I don't know what else to say.

~~~
Lewisham
...and it wasn't even UC Royal Blue, it's the Sky Blue that only UCLA uses,
the symbolism of which I thought was particularly poorly thought out.

------
gall
A design that has to rely on the objectivity and dispassion of the collective
Media, that has to be taken in the appropriate context as one part of a
complicated "identity system" and on whose behalf laypeople are chastised for
their immature visceral reactions, is probably just shitty.

~~~
MartinCron
Or, people saw an inaccurate before and after set, compared apples to orange
soda, and freaked out.

------
ethank
A big part of why the faculty body of the UC system was upset is that not one
of the 9 art and design departments were ever consulted about an identity
change. Neither were the thousand or so art/design graduate students.

I used to be adjunct faculty in art at a UC. It is the worst of presumptive
bureaucracies.

~~~
taligent
Why on earth would they be consulted ? The design departments aren't involved
in the commercial realities of branding/marketing and the students are just
that students.

People forget that isn't just about the logo it's about the positioning of the
brand within the economic marketplace. Plenty of analytics, surveys, strategy
etc etc is involved.

~~~
jlgreco
With all of their _"analytics, surveys, and strategy"_ , where they
anticipating the backlash they have received?

If not, then they clearly did something wrong, so why should we give any
weight to the rest of their conclusions? If so, why are they acting so
shocked?

~~~
taligent
Firstly we don't know if they have done something wrong. The target audience
for the branding change is going to be the NEXT generation of students not the
current or past ones. And definitely not the general public. And I personally
can't speak for 18-20 year olds and what they think of the logo. I would
imagine that if the agency did their homework then it would be more appealing
and commercially successful than the previous one.

As for them being shocked. It is always surprising when people become so
passionate about a brand.

~~~
gknoy
People become absolutely RABID about their college brand, however. Can you
imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if Tennessee were to change their
emblem from the T to something ... else? Heads would roll.

As a UC alumnus, I certainly saw that new logo and thought "what the hell is
this??" -- GREAT point about the color bring wrong, for example. If it were
better communicated that it wasn't meant to replace the seal, I might have
liked it better, but it already seemed ugly to me, even before I read about
what it was intended for.

------
pkill17
As a student of the university, we've been notified that the logo will be
going back onto the drawing boards soon. They didn't plan on abolishing the UC
Berkeley seal as many UCB students thought; this is only to unify the image of
all UC's.

We got a massive petition signed to abolish the new logo, and the outcry when
they announced this was overwhelmingly negative on campus. No one liked it,
and it seems the administration has realized that.

~~~
colmvp
"They didn't plan on abolishing the UC Berkeley seal as many UCB students
thought; this is only to unify the image of all UC's."

Yes which as a designer, really annoys me. The thousands of people who berated
the logo and team who designed it simply did not understand what was being
replaced nor the full context.

I think the new identity is vastly superior to the existing branding. Here is
a proper comparison:

[http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-
universit...](http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-university-
of-california-re-brand-is-better-than-you-think/)

[http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we...](http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we_all_c_for_california.php)

An identity is more than just a logo it's an entire system. And I think it's
far better than what people give it credit for.

~~~
jlgreco
Regardless of what isn't being replaced, and what is being replaced, it is
_still_ ugly as hell. Being marginally better than what it _actually_ is
replacing is a pretty poor defense.

~~~
colmvp
I had the same gut reaction, but after seeing it's application I actually like
it. I don't love it, but it's definitely fresher than the vast majority of
academic identities. And it's not replacing the crest which remains it's
separate entity.

~~~
jlgreco
That gradient makes my eyes want to vomit, no matter what it is being used
for. This logo is ugly regardless of application.

------
jey
I like the gradient-free white-on-blue version, on the right side of:
[http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images...](http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images/3896.jpg)

That one seems to hit all their design objectives while still looking nice.

------
jason_adleberg
saying that the logo is just a small part of the overall identity is really
dumb.

saying that the general public is unqualified to comment on it is even dumber.

if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo.

~~~
taligent
>if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo.

Bzzt. WRONG.

If 90% of "prospective 18-20 year olds" don't like it, then and only then is
it a bad logo. Everyone else really should probably stay out of it since they
aren't who the logo is for.

~~~
Lewisham
You're kidding, right? It's just as important that the State, parents, alumni,
research partners etc etc like it too. 18-20 year olds are probably one of the
least important stakeholders at a research university.

------
justhw
Utterly absurd.

That logo might work fine for a corner store, but not for an education
institution, especially one like the UC.

------
austenallred
I opened this hoping that the controversy would be about how bad the logo
actually is. Turns out I was only partially right. It really doesn't get much
worse than that.

------
arjn
One can argue the methods used to block the new logo, but its an ugly, bad
design and UC is better off without it.

------
MartinCron
This was also covered very well on the 99% invisible podcast with Roman Mars.
One of the best podcasts going, in my opinion.

As for the logo itself? I think it's pretty bland and the rounded-edge
typeface for the letter "C" looks cheap.

~~~
duskwuff
Another opinion I've heard: The "C" in the new logo looked altogether too much
like a stereotypical Web 2.0 "loading" animation.

~~~
pkill17
Like this you mean? <http://i.imgur.com/K7LzA.gif>

~~~
duskwuff
Precisely like that!

------
curiousdannii
Rebranding like this can work okay -- The University of Queensland introduce a
new logo recently, which is quite similar to the UC one, and use it along side
the tradition shield. I don't love UQ's logo or its colour scheme, but it's
not terrible either.

Example: <http://omc.uq.edu.au/news/599UQNEWS.pdf> [2.7MB]

~~~
jlgreco
Oh sure, rebranding _can_ certainly work. Nothing about that University of
Queensland redesign seems offensive to me; actually it seems relatively nice
to me.

This University of California logo is not an example of a redesign working.
There is nothing wrong with a new logo, but there is a lot wrong with _that_
new logo.

------
zinssmeister
this is worse than the GAP logo redesign fail.

