6 ms·

The University of California Logo Controversy

28 points by usaphp 14y ago

electrograv 14y ago
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 14y ago
  ...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.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  I think the logo is okay (though merely okay) without the gradient, but I cannot fathom why the gradient exists in any of the variants. It looks totally stupid, like someone just filled it the wrong way in Illustrator and then didn't bother to fix it.
- DrJ 14y ago
  android progress dialog[1] in a blue background was the first thing I saw... Other people saw a toilet flushing [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A_FNfqyuLTQ/Sp1g8tvyVtI/AAAAAAAADV4/XX3V666NIsg/s400/android-simple-progress-dialogue.JPG http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A_FNfqyuLTQ/Sp1g8tvyVtI/AAAAAAAADV... -- I am UC alum and I felt they did a horrible job with the new 'web friendly' logo.
MartinCron 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Another opinion I've heard: The "C" in the new logo looked altogether too much like a stereotypical Web 2.0 "loading" animation.
  - pkill17 14y ago
    Like this you mean? http://i.imgur.com/K7LzA.gif http://i.imgur.com/K7LzA.gif
    - duskwuff 14y ago
      Precisely like that!
pkill17 14y ago
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 14y ago
  "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-university-of-california-re-brand-is-better-than-you-think/ http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-universit... http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we_all_c_for_california.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we... 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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
      - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
austenallred 14y ago
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.
gall 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Or, people saw an inaccurate before and after set, compared apples to orange soda, and freaked out.
nichols 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    This logo doesn't look unfamiliar. It looks too familiar. It looks like something that belongs on a powerpoint presentation in the 90s.
    - colmvp 14y ago
      Hardly. Fact is most people expect certain visuals from academia.
jason_adleberg 14y ago
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.
- colmvp 14y ago
  "Saying that the logo is just a small part of the overall identity is really dumb." His point is that it makes no sense to evaluate a logo on it's own without greater context of how it fits with a fuller identity. "saying that the general public is unqualified to comment on it is even dumber." Why? Doing an identity is hard work and it requires more thought than just looking at a screen, evaluating it against something which it isn't even replacing, and then making a gut reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if most people went into the discussion with a bias introduction ("checkout this ugly logo!") without any rationale. "if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo." Well that depends on their taste.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "Well that depends on their taste." Here is the problem: a logo is designed for the general public, not some elite audience of art critics. Their taste is THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. It doesn't matter whether the designers like it. At all. If you want to do that kind of thing where only your esthetic opinion matters, you should be doing fine art, not web design.
- taligent 14y ago
  >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 14y ago
    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.
ethank 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        If they did not anticipate the backlash, then they did something wrong. If they anticipated the backlash, but decided not to care (because their target audience is the NEXT generation, as you suggest), then why are they surprised that this generation is responding poorly. They saw it coming and decided not to care.
zinssmeister 14y ago
this is worse than the GAP logo redesign fail.
justhw 14y ago
Utterly absurd. That logo might work fine for a corner store, but not for an education institution, especially one like the UC.
curiousdannii 14y ago
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 http://omc.uq.edu.au/news/599UQNEWS.pdf [2.7MB]
- jlgreco 14y ago
  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.
arjn 14y ago
One can argue the methods used to block the new logo, but its an ugly, bad design and UC is better off without it.
jey 14y ago
I like the gradient-free white-on-blue version, on the right side of: http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images/3896.jpg http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images... That one seems to hit all their design objectives while still looking nice.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

28 points by usaphp 14y ago

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 14y ago
...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.
georgemcbay 14y ago
I think the logo is okay (though merely okay) without the gradient, but I cannot fathom why the gradient exists in any of the variants. It looks totally stupid, like someone just filled it the wrong way in Illustrator and then didn't bother to fix it.
DrJ 14y ago
android progress dialog[1] in a blue background was the first thing I saw... Other people saw a toilet flushing [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A_FNfqyuLTQ/Sp1g8tvyVtI/AAAAAAAADV4/XX3V666NIsg/s400/android-simple-progress-dialogue.JPG http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A_FNfqyuLTQ/Sp1g8tvyVtI/AAAAAAAADV... -- I am UC alum and I felt they did a horrible job with the new 'web friendly' logo.

MartinCron 14y ago

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 14y ago
Another opinion I've heard: The "C" in the new logo looked altogether too much like a stereotypical Web 2.0 "loading" animation.
- pkill17 14y ago
  Like this you mean? http://i.imgur.com/K7LzA.gif http://i.imgur.com/K7LzA.gif
  - duskwuff 14y ago
    Precisely like that!

pkill17 14y ago

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 14y ago
"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-university-of-california-re-brand-is-better-than-you-think/ http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-universit... http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we_all_c_for_california.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we... 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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
    - 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

austenallred 14y ago

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.

gall 14y ago

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 14y ago
Or, people saw an inaccurate before and after set, compared apples to orange soda, and freaked out.

nichols 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  This logo doesn't look unfamiliar. It looks too familiar. It looks like something that belongs on a powerpoint presentation in the 90s.
  - colmvp 14y ago
    Hardly. Fact is most people expect certain visuals from academia.

jason_adleberg 14y ago

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.

colmvp 14y ago
"Saying that the logo is just a small part of the overall identity is really dumb." His point is that it makes no sense to evaluate a logo on it's own without greater context of how it fits with a fuller identity. "saying that the general public is unqualified to comment on it is even dumber." Why? Doing an identity is hard work and it requires more thought than just looking at a screen, evaluating it against something which it isn't even replacing, and then making a gut reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if most people went into the discussion with a bias introduction ("checkout this ugly logo!") without any rationale. "if 90% of people don't like it, it is by definition a bad logo." Well that depends on their taste.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  "Well that depends on their taste." Here is the problem: a logo is designed for the general public, not some elite audience of art critics. Their taste is THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. It doesn't matter whether the designers like it. At all. If you want to do that kind of thing where only your esthetic opinion matters, you should be doing fine art, not web design.
taligent 14y ago
>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 14y ago
  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.

ethank 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      If they did not anticipate the backlash, then they did something wrong. If they anticipated the backlash, but decided not to care (because their target audience is the NEXT generation, as you suggest), then why are they surprised that this generation is responding poorly. They saw it coming and decided not to care.

zinssmeister 14y ago

this is worse than the GAP logo redesign fail.

justhw 14y ago

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

curiousdannii 14y ago

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

jlgreco 14y ago
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.

arjn 14y ago

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

jey 14y ago

I like the gradient-free white-on-blue version, on the right side of: http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images/3896.jpg http://digital.coolspringspress.com/rp_columns_images/images... That one seems to hit all their design objectives while still looking nice.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]