Many may believe, after reading in the area paper about one large university’s decision to design a new logo, that this was an ill-conceived notion on the part of the school, and resulted in a symbol that was widely disliked. As a person that works for marketing communications, I can say that the story lacked some details that should have been pointed out about why the university made the decision to change the logo in the first place.
The university admitted fault for not involving students in the logo change process, and they also apologized for the delays in submitting the graphic standards associated with the logo and the seal of the university. 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.
One thing that should be taken into consideration is the standardization of a single logo that should be used with the university seal on all things representing the university. There are few basic principles necessary for graphic identity programs, but one is that organizations should always have a standard set of logos and explain explicitly how they may be used so that there is no issue of mistaken identity.
The previous logo of the university was puzzling and disjointed, and led to a less than ideal graphic identity. It may seem like a simple project, but designing a new logo is an extremely difficult task, especially if that logo is used to encompass such a diverse institution and student body. The logo needs to fairly and evenly represent the university, which offers courses on a variety of subjects and specializes in collegiate sports – it is not an easy task. As someone that has been a party to many heated boardroom exchanges about re-branding, I assure you that tempers often flair when thinking about change.
Many people seem to be disgusted with the, supposedly, large sum of $ 20,000 payed to the logo designer, but this is a fairly standard fee and is nothing in comparison to the amount of money that goes into having all the university’s material reprinted. Anytime a well known institution has a new logo designed, people are going to find reasons to hate it, and some of them are as follows:
Most people have a problem with change, especially when the change is to a symbol that they are emotionally invested in. Others will complain just because they already have complaints and problems with the business or institution and this is just another excuse to sound off. Many individuals with little background in art, find it appropriate to second guess, possibly years of work, put in by professional designers and researchers.
Adopting a different logo can take time. It would be somewhat naive of the institution, on the other hand, to think that they could operate for 120 years with no official logo and then introduce one and expect universal acclaim from the start. I’m aware of a fair number of people in businesses who choose to use their old company logos, or logos which they have unofficially throw together themselves, despite reprimands from management. I bring this up because it demonstrates both many people’s attachment to symbols and also that even the largest corporate behemoths experience issues with re-branding acceptance. To no surprise, some of the old symbols that were used were still in use.
There is simply no way possible to satisfy everyone including T shirt sellers, residents, staff, alumni and faculty by allowing their input in the design process, though administrators really should have allowed students to have some level of involvement.
Logos should aim to be familiarly expressive, unique, and easily understandable when different types and electronic media are used to display it. A graphic identity program complete with its own manual for clear direction should be established to ensure consistency in logo design. In my opinion, the new logo meets all the necessary criteria, or will meet it soon. I see no way to argue the point that any logo is better than no logo at all. SABUNG AYAM
Stephen Hawking: Trump stance could damage Earth – BBC News
Stephen Hawking says that US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement could lead to irreversible climate change. Prof Hawking said the action could put Earth onto a path that turns it into a hothouse planet like Venus. He also feared aggression was “inbuilt” in humans and that our best hope of survival was to live on other planets.
The Cambridge professor spoke exclusively to BBC News to coincide with his 75th birthday celebrations.
Arguably the world’s most famous scientist, Prof Hawking has had motor neurone disease for most of his adult life. It has impaired his movement and ability to speak.
Yet through it all, he emerged as one of the greatest minds of our time. His theories on black holes and the origin of the Universe have transformed our understanding of the cosmos.
Please subscribe HERE http://bit.ly/1rbfUog
World In Pictures https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBX37n4R0UGJN-TLiQOm7ZTP
Big Hitters https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBUME-LUrFkDwFmiEc3jwMXP
Just Good News https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBUsYo_P26cjihXLN-k3w246