Institutions want/need to change their look every so often and with that in mind the University of California system has decided to update their logo from the one on the left to one on the right. Reviews so far? Ouch. The San Francisco Chronicle reports these reactions:
- [The logo would be appropriate for] "a shady online startup, not one of the top universities in the world."
- "It is everything our school is against. Might as well have slapped a McDonald's 'M' on top of it. It looks so corporate, and it looks cheap."
- "The visual language is generic, commercial and utterly forgettable. It is a complete mismatch for the university's history and reputation. (It) has no visual or conceptual gravitas."
So what I want to know is: do people resist change because it's new, or because it cheapens what came before it? Is modern always better? Is this a bold step into the future, or a bold step into...something else?
Leave a Comment:
The new logo certainly screams 'education is the path to enlightenment in the great tradition of California.' NOT!!!
Puke isn't quite that blue.
That it looks nice and corporate and against everything California higher education used to be for is entirely appropriate for illustrating California "education" today. Sadly enough.
People resist change implemented without reason or value. And having worked with marketing firms, I know they paid a boatload of cash for this PoS logo. How many better ways could those funds have been used?
As a UC grad, I am dismayed at how the UC system has been corporatized, eager to sell itself to the highest bidder (or donor, in this case).
They could have outsourced a design search to any grade school, and I'm sure it would be 100x better.
Totally agree. You could hold a contest and award the winner a UC 4-year education ($120,000+), and it probably would be a tenth of what they paid.
mmm2 + bdop4
No - you wouldn't get a better logo from a grad student. - any more than you could get a good surgery from a pre-med student at 1/10th the price of a real live surgeon.
Professional designers are professional because they've developed expertise.
Your lack of understanding of that basic fact of like is really just commentary on your ignorance.
Spending a ton of money is fine if you are a profitable company selling products that require mass recognition to generate profits. I don't think an under-funded state university system needs to spend 6-7 figures for that kind of brand recognition.
They are in the business of selling quality education, not shoes.
P.S. Just read down thread and saw your post. Sorry to have hurt your feelings. There are situations that call for a good design professional. This isn't one of them.
They didn't spend that kind of money for a logo - they spent it for an entire Visual Identity system. Here's a link to the Cargill visual system.
http://www.cargillbrandidentity.com/identitysite/
So UC didn't waste a lot of money for a PoS logo, they wasted a whole lot of money for a conceptually incoherent and ugly PoS "Visual identity system". They should have gone to UC Davis, because as an ag school I'm sure they could have gotten a whole lot of bull manure for free from them and save a few bucks. And probably better-quality manure, at that.
No - you wouldn't get a better logo from a grad student. - any more than you could get a good surgery from a pre-med student at 1/10th the price of a real live surgeon.
Bull. Surgery requires actual skill and actual demonstrated outcomes. Getting paid and having business cards is no guarantee of outcome.
Being a graduate of the of the UC system I feel a certain obligation to offer my considered and reasoned opinion.
It looks like a swirling toilet bowl and it stinks!
http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much-did-they-cost
my favorite "fail" of the group is 2102 London Olympics...
Nobody pays that kind of money for just a logo.
They are buying an entire graphic visual identity system. The logo is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here is a link to the Cargill Identity Guidelines website. Take a gander and learn what this stuff is really about.
Geeze - the ignorance about visual communication is just astounding.
http://www.cargillbrandidentity.com/identitysite/
Astounding is right. You ARE referring to whoever did this design, aren't you?
Nope - referring to you.
favedave, hanging out a shingle, calling oneself "professional", and slathering one's marketing materials in BS jargon doesn't give anyone even the SLIGHTEST shield against being called on a professional fail. In fact, it makes it even more imperative.
This is a fail. Amateur or professional, thrown together or slathered with a thick coating of marketing jargon: makes no difference. Fail.
I think there are matters of heritage & tradition involved here. The original logo is much more suited to a venerable institution of learning. I like the old-style original college logos, and think this one has more to say about the nature of theUniversity.
It looks like two butt cheeks and a colon. I may be old and change frightens and confuses me but frankly I think the new logo sucks. They say it took 11 people three years to come up with this abomination, say they worked on it one day per month, that's still 11 times 3 times 12, or 396 days, let's be conservative and say 300 per day per employee, that's 118,800 plus the standard 40 percent the U charges for overhead is, um, 47,520 so that's, um, 166,320 at a minimum. I'd a done it for half that and got a way better result...plus, it fails the most basic principle for a logo, that is, can you instantly tell what it is? It don't look like no "U" or "C" to me at first glance...
Been a graphic designer for over 30 years. Almost guarantee you if the designers of this gave the University ten choices, they narrowed it down to three, then the graphic identity committee the University picked to select the design came in to make their decision... they chose this one, that the designer put in the original ten with the intent that it be a 'throw-away', and the one he/she thought and wanted to be picked probably ended up being third choice.
Happens all the time. Finally quit giving people that pick their company's logos, and their noses, more than two... both of which we like.
I will see your butt cheeks and raise you a bent penis, trumping your colon :D
(er, that didn't come out right but i think i will keep it)
I think we each possess our individual degree of resistance to change. That said; I think that logo would be a poor choice for a university. I hope they didn't spend a lot of money on it. That would be a shame, considering what tuition costs are like these days.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537705_10151175261218595_625453144_n.jpg
Ugh, good luck putting that on a t-shirt...
Wilted weeny.
Thanks, burro,
I'm don't feel so alone...
It speaks to California, where medical marijuana doubtless keeps people from seeing the obvious...
Oh, if they switch to it, there will be MILLIONS spent. They'd have to redo all their print items that contain the logo. I'm not sure how widely used a seal like that would be (may not letterheads, etc)... but I'm sure there are many things that contain it.
I am an Art Director. I've done hundreds of logos and icons. In fact I make a decent living creating graphic solutions for a broad range of clients.
The old logo sucks. It's horrible. It's not even a logo - it's closer to a blemish. It is impossible to cheapen it because it's so bad.
The new logo would work much better if it wasn't for the fade-oput of the "C". The fade-out ruins it and doesn't make any sense. My guess is that it was presented without the fade-out and some administrator pushed for "something" to jazz it up. I've seen it happen a million times.
It is not too corporate. It's just a good start that got derailed.
As to the negative comments - there will ALWAYS be negative commentary about anything that is put before the public. You know the public - the ones that crucified Christ? They will always spew at a pile of bile given an opportunity.
Finally - as for people and change: there will ALWAYS be people that don't want to change. Those are the people that should be ignored while the rest of us move on and live.
"You know the public - the ones that crucified Christ? They will always spew at a pile of bile given an opportunity."
Yes, because criticizing a crappy looking logo is just like crucifying Christ.
Dave,
YOU are an Art Director. La dee dah!
Too bad you have no taste.
For professionals in The Arts (as I AM,) it's an important element.
If you like it, good for you; I think it's poorly conceived and just plan Ugly.
Joe56
"Taste" is not a professional term. It's a term wannabe's and dilettantes use when they just KNOW they have the magic touch. I run into folks like you everyday.
You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
I didn't expect you to have any concept of "taste."
It would interfere with your professional training.
Who are you to judge when someone's OPINION is wrong?
I avoid folks like you everyday.
Thank Heaven! Bwaaaahaha!
Fave - As an art director, I know you know that a logo is about instantly giving one a sense of who/what it represents. The colors that are used, whether it's soft or hard lines, the strength and shape of the letters all go into making a great and memorable logo.
The new logo says to me, soft, flowery, wishy-washy and yes, like burro says "wilted weeny". If we hadn't been told what it was for I might have guessed public swimming pool or child care. It certainly doesn't say, education, respected university or higher learning.
Both logos are pretty bad, but at least the old one gave you a sense of what it represents. Change shouldn't be for the sake of change. It should be an improvement because we have gotten better, smarter, hipper or ready. Ask Coca Cola.
Dave,
Are you just an artistic hack or a corporate shill, also, too?
You've promoted the Cargill Brand Identity site twice here.
Nice try. (Bwaaaahaha!)
Joe
RimKitty-
First, I don't think it's a wonderful logo. But it's light years better than the monstrosity next to it.
I think your critique is off. It's definitely not soft, or flowery or wishy-washy. It's not soft because of the hard edges predominating the design. It's not flowery because it's not ornate or intricate in any way. It's not wishy-washy because the forms are very distinct and very simple.
It does communicate education as the top indent makes a book shape. Get it? Books = learning.
The "C" at the bottom picks up the "U" shape of the bottom of the blue shape = UC.
Sheesh.
As I said in my original post the gradation, the fade-out, of the "C" shape is a mistake. But other than that it's not bad.
That piece of crap next to it isn't a logo - it's a blemish. A pimple on the butt of the UC system.
The old logo represents amateurland. It represents non-professional antiquated approaches to education.
Thank Heaven they're dumping it.
Joe 56
First dilettante I've met named Joe. Usually you folks go for something a little more pretentious in a name.
I don't care about Cargill one way or another. The point is not to promote Cargill - the point is to educate ignorant people like you about the reality of visual communication and Identity Systems.
Not surprised you didn't get it. Try actually clicking on the link and taking a look at the real world.
You might actually learn something.
J.H Christ, you have a high opinion of your own opinion Mr. Cargill.
Do you work for the company that created this piece of crap?
I am an Art Director.
And from the evidence, not a particularly good one. You certainly sound like a prima donna who gets touchy about anyone critiquing your masterpieces.
Perhaps you've forgotten a really basic rule: if you have to explain the elements of a design you've already failed. If your defense of that is that the audience doesn't understand the design, requiring the explanation, then you've forgotten ANOTHER basic rule.
So you have to have a 6 year degree to understand what the lame design means? That says it all
Ok-- be real. It is butt ugly! says this alumni of the California University System.
Change is something I had to deal with every day of my 36 yr. working career, so I am not adverse to it, but I am also confident that change does not need to happen just for the sake of change.
What was wrong with cursive Cal?
If you must change it, perhaps just added the clock tower in a simple graphic?
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/uc-berkeley-chancellors-statement.html
You asked if we hate the new logo because we just don't like change...
Answer: NO. We hate the new logo because it's unbelievably stupid, not because it's different. It's a bold step into a steaming heap of fresh dog @!$%#. Scrape it off and start again...
All those supposedly really bright people running the UC system and THAT was the BEST they could come up with?? Looks like a kindergarden art project!! Sorry.....my apologies to kindergardners.........it's not even THAT good!
It's New Coke all over again.
I'm compelled to take my car to the car wash after looking at that.
Must....resist....
When the circle stops spinning the new logo will load.
Yes. Exactly what I was thinking. That has to have been deliberate, right? It's all I can see.
Maybe the idea is that education there is loading new software into your mind?
This is misleading reporting -- the seal on the left has been refreshed from the original black-and-white rendition to the current cyan treatment. The new logo (visually offensive -- a swirling gradient, seriously?) will NOT replace the seal on official documents and communications.
OK, now you know what people think about the reject... where's the real one?
And who did this... a UCLA grad that thought it would be cute to ditch Cal's navy and gold for UCLA's pansy blue and yellow?
Ye olde people would love it if ye slappeth some Latin or olde English on it.
What sayest thou?
It looks like a Cheetos puff.
Visually Disturbing, Incoherent, Irritating,
Confused, and Contrived.
It makes me want to run the other way.
Kinda looks like digital scrambled eggs.