New Logo Designs Are Inherently Controversial
- By John Chambers
- Published 02/17/2011
- Graphics
- Unrated
When a major university made the decision to design a new logo, the media covered the story so the university looked like it made a huge mistake in doing so.
I think the opinion of the public was wrong in that they were getting the news that the media wanted to report and left out a lot of extremely important facts that go along with designing a logo.
The university's biggest mistake was to not look to the student body for input on the design of the new logo, as well as failing to issue graphic standards for usage of the logo and the university seal.
But no actual crimes were committed by the university against itself or its students and residents, a fact that was not made clear in your coverage.
Something that the university should strongly consider is creating one singular logo which can be used alongside the seal of the university.
A program for creating a consistent graphical identity is based on creating a logo which is standardized for all uses and defining exactly how the logo should be used. Otherwise, this important logo may not be recognized by the public.
However, the administration at the university was smart to try and develop a new logo in an effort to eliminate some of the past confusion regarding their logo identity. Creating a logo can be more complicated than it seems, especially if the institution in question is highly diverse.
It is no simple task to design a logo which incorporates all facets of a university, from all academics to all sports programs available. As someone who designs logos for a living, I've had my share of heated discussions concerning new logo designs.
Many people were shocked when one reported stated that the university paid $20,000 to have the new logo designed, however, that cost is nothing compared to all of the other media, printing and costs associated with re-banding the university under the new logo. It is just a fact of human nature that a
major image overhaul will trigger negative responses in the community and there are probably a few reasons why.
Most people have a problem with change, especially when the change is to a symbol that they are emotionally invested in. Individuals who have issues with an institution, tend to use the logo as an easy target for their political frustrations.
In addition to this, anyone who has ever taken an art class seems to think that they are qualified to criticize a logo which a design team likely has been researching and adjusting for years.
It takes time to research, develop and adopt a new logo. It is ignorant to believe that everyone will simply jump on board with the change, after almost 120 years of unofficial symbols and well known typefaces, and only a seal as the only clear representative.
In the business world, I know individuals that use outdated corporate symbols even at the threat of reprimand from higher on the chain of command because they have grown attached to them. Inconsistent and outlaw usage problems of a company's logo will continue even when the company can fire those who misuse it. To no surprise, some of the old symbols that were used were still in use.
Of course, the students of the university should be consulted during the logo design process, but it's also not realistic to expect universal agreement between residents, staff, alumni, professors and students, not to mention the company which would print up the merchandise with this logo. Too much involvement from outside parties can create an ugly logo.
Clarity allowing it to be adapted to all types of electronic and print media, familiarity which will arouse emotions, and distinctive originality are all vital elements in the design of an effective logo. The logo needs to be consistently distributed through every material the institution puts out, so it becomes even more recognizable.
I believe that the new logo for the university lives up to these requirements, or is well on its way to doing so. I see the new logo as a clear improvement, from the confusing substitute that had been used previously.
I think the opinion of the public was wrong in that they were getting the news that the media wanted to report and left out a lot of extremely important facts that go along with designing a logo.
The university's biggest mistake was to not look to the student body for input on the design of the new logo, as well as failing to issue graphic standards for usage of the logo and the university seal.
But no actual crimes were committed by the university against itself or its students and residents, a fact that was not made clear in your coverage.
Something that the university should strongly consider is creating one singular logo which can be used alongside the seal of the university.
A program for creating a consistent graphical identity is based on creating a logo which is standardized for all uses and defining exactly how the logo should be used. Otherwise, this important logo may not be recognized by the public.
However, the administration at the university was smart to try and develop a new logo in an effort to eliminate some of the past confusion regarding their logo identity. Creating a logo can be more complicated than it seems, especially if the institution in question is highly diverse.
It is no simple task to design a logo which incorporates all facets of a university, from all academics to all sports programs available. As someone who designs logos for a living, I've had my share of heated discussions concerning new logo designs.
Many people were shocked when one reported stated that the university paid $20,000 to have the new logo designed, however, that cost is nothing compared to all of the other media, printing and costs associated with re-banding the university under the new logo. It is just a fact of human nature that a
Most people have a problem with change, especially when the change is to a symbol that they are emotionally invested in. Individuals who have issues with an institution, tend to use the logo as an easy target for their political frustrations.
In addition to this, anyone who has ever taken an art class seems to think that they are qualified to criticize a logo which a design team likely has been researching and adjusting for years.
It takes time to research, develop and adopt a new logo. It is ignorant to believe that everyone will simply jump on board with the change, after almost 120 years of unofficial symbols and well known typefaces, and only a seal as the only clear representative.
In the business world, I know individuals that use outdated corporate symbols even at the threat of reprimand from higher on the chain of command because they have grown attached to them. Inconsistent and outlaw usage problems of a company's logo will continue even when the company can fire those who misuse it. To no surprise, some of the old symbols that were used were still in use.
Of course, the students of the university should be consulted during the logo design process, but it's also not realistic to expect universal agreement between residents, staff, alumni, professors and students, not to mention the company which would print up the merchandise with this logo. Too much involvement from outside parties can create an ugly logo.
Clarity allowing it to be adapted to all types of electronic and print media, familiarity which will arouse emotions, and distinctive originality are all vital elements in the design of an effective logo. The logo needs to be consistently distributed through every material the institution puts out, so it becomes even more recognizable.
I believe that the new logo for the university lives up to these requirements, or is well on its way to doing so. I see the new logo as a clear improvement, from the confusing substitute that had been used previously.
John Chambers
Visit crowdsource logo to learn more about design. To keep learning about design be sure to check out Graphic design jobs.
View all articles by John Chambers