NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Identity work for educational institutions — specially large universities — is one of the most superficially scrutinized and hardest to amicably propagate among the student body, faculty and alumni. Most people build extremely tight bonds with their institution and any change to what they remember or grew to love is always cause for dissent and, strangely enough, identity changes ignite some of the most fervent ire. The biggest complaints are always the cost, regardless of whether it’s a four, five or six figure budget and the claim that it could have easily been done in-house or by the students of the design program. Recently released, the University of Arkansas tried to quell both issues in the design of its identity by asking its office of university relations to lead the redesign in-house and letting their audience know that they would not be willing to pay top dollar for the change.
Chancellor G. David Gearhart asked university relations to manage the design change in-house, noting that estimates from outside firms ran as high as $200,000 with no guarantee that the campus community’s opinions would be fully considered.
— Press Release
The new design maintains the cornerstone of the logo, the north tower of the Old Main building (built in 1875), except that instead of trying to pull off an IBM stripe design it goes for a competent simplification. The tower is set against a crest which comes from the seal of the university and it is fronted by a ribbon with the date of establishment. The typography is the ever popular Trajan, which is as common in movie posters as it is in logos for educational institutions. And it is particularly funny when you compare it against the University of Kansas logo, which uses the same type treatment, minus the beginning “AR.”
The overall result is a definite improvement in readability and functionality and even though complaints are starting to file in, the redesign was much needed and whether or not $200,000 would have yielded a better result… we will never know.
Thanks to Jon Schleuss for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Malcolm’s comment is:
Certainly an improvement. Those stripes were overwhelming. But the trajan doesn't do the word Arkansas any favors. The 'A's in particular look weak and create an awkward spacing issue, mostly in the final SAS. Perhaps Arkansas is just one of those words which is going to look weird anytime you really stop and look at it closely. No, the more I look at it, the less impressive the Trajan looks.
On Mar.26.2009 at 09:54 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
Much better looking identity. The tower on the shield makes for a much more recognizable and identifiable mark than the "IBM-esque" striped pattern. My biggest complaint is that the logotype looks like it is set in Trajan, which is the same font that is used with most other universities...apparently because it looks "scholarly."
My alma matter, The University of Kansas, went through a similar re-brand a couple of years ago and spent a small fortune on it (close to $100,000, if memory serves). There was a big uproar, especially from the alumni design community, because all that really changed was the typeface...to a slightly modified Trajan!
On Mar.26.2009 at 09:58 AM
Joseph Cotten’s comment is:
The choice of Trajan will impart an immediate sense of being known. Similar to what Helvetica can do for a corporation, Trajan is becoming a typeface that helps (hurts?) businesses to blend in, and carry an air of ubiquity and comfort. People are used to seeing Trajan in pleasing contexts.
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:01 AM
Scott Lerman’s comment is:
The Chancellor's concerns should be our concerns. The design and branding community still has a difficult job ahead. Many potential clients don't understand how to get what they want (or if they will want what they get.)
Clients don't know the answers to basic questions like...
What's the right way to choose a consultant? How can we ensure that our voice is reflected, without stifling the creativity we're paying for? What do we need in addition to a better icon?
In-house or not, we all benefit from better educated clients.
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:07 AM
Kosal’s comment is:
Trajan's becoming the new Helvetica – beautiful at first turning into a boringly neutral auto-solution. The illustration has no elegance about it. No relation to the type proportions, nor any brand-fueled direction or connotation. It's as if the goal was to illustrate the building for clip art usage. I wonder if the in-house team considered any application ideas while doing this.
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:10 AM
Ryan Adair’s comment is:
As to Armin's point, pleasing the immense group of faculty, community members and alumni must be an absolute nightmare. The results are probably, more times than not, very conservative.
This is an extremely conservative upgrade. Whether it hurts or helps, It doesn't evoke any sort of a different emotion in me. Just a shifting of elements. (Those stripes were pretty awful though!)
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:10 AM
Erik at Logo Critiques’s comment is:
phew... the new one is much easier to look at, though I'm still not loving the new mark.
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:22 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
Could have done without Trajan, but the new illustration is so much cleaner, and the linework is really nice. Not a bad update.
@ Kosal - Trajan can never be the new Helvetica, as it has serifs :)
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:54 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
Competent, yes. Compelling, no.
The Trajan is worse than neutral. I'm sure they were going for "historical," but what they got was "dated."
The logo itself is so safe that it looks kind of scared. A university rebrand -- something that should happen only once every few decades -- is a great opportunity for an institution to differentiate. These guys missed a chance to make a mark.
Sigh.
On Mar.26.2009 at 10:57 AM
Joseph Maguire’s comment is:
It looks like they went backwards. I mean its more illustrative will it work sure. But the abstraction in the first one even though it wasn't aesthetically all that strong it at least was easier to reduce. The other one cant be reduced much further without losing 1871.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:05 AM
mac’s comment is:
I graduated from the design program at the University of Kansas in 2008, so I was a student when the redesign was first introduced. As Ryan stated, there definitely was an uproar, especially with all of us design students & faculty, as we would have loved to have been asked to make a redesign for our school. The price of the rebranding was actually $80,000 (you were very close, Ryan!), which was at the center of controversy. Even though I think the design is a decent solution (KU's), I'm sure some of our more talented professors alone could have come up with something more unique and for free. Never-the-less, there's nothing we can do about it today, so no use in worrying.
So on to the University of Arkansas. I can't help but feel as if the Arkansas students may have "used" (consciously or unconsciously) KU by letting them pay the big bucks to tell them what looks good for a university logo (even though it is fairly generic), and then applied its ideas to their own school. I mean, it looks nearly the exact same (not just because of the Trajan font...the word "Kansas" is in their state's name too for goodness sakes!), so one tends to wonder if KU's logomark "seeped" into their amateur minds. It's a definite improvement from what they had before, but there's nothing spectacular about the new illustration they have now, either. And did they even think about how it will look in black & white? The only thing that is identifiable about the school through the logo, to someone who doesn't/didn't attend their school, is the school color of maroon. Once it goes to black & white, I don't think many would even take a second look.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:20 AM
jRod’s comment is:
HOLY CRAP! I really never thought that would happen. I worked for the UofA for a couple of years and they are sooooo engaged in this logo that i thought it would never change. Amazing I find out about it here on Brand New and not through the grapevine here in Little Rock. Total surprise.
Anyway, considering that this came from in-house, it actually turned out to be pretty good. Most of the stuff that comes directly from the UofA seems to be sub-par but this one came out well. Its nice to see that the UofA is well represented.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:38 AM
Scotty’s comment is:
TRAJAN wasn't a default choice here. The University of Arkansas has a tradition of engraving graduates names in its sidewalks all over campus. Its a really cool tradition. They have been doing this since the 1870s. The University has used Trajan font for this since the early 1900s or late 1800s.
The look they were going for was historical, because it is historically significant to the campus itself.
Any similarities to Kansas or any other logo are purely coincidental.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:41 AM
Andrew_EMPAC’s comment is:
Definitely an improvement, my one issue is that the new logo mark and font are not working together. The stroke width of Trajan is too weak on the "university of" text which battles with the logo mark for dominance, a secondary font choice should be chosen for that text so the stroke weight looks more unified overall.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:41 AM
Pappy’s comment is:
clients : a bunch of people sitting around not know what's best for their company.
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:42 AM
Scotty’s comment is:
Here's a link to a pic of the Senior Walk.
http://www.uark.edu/~arsc/fulbrightreview/summer07/images/people/senior-walk.jpg
Trajan wasn't a snap or default choice, y'all. Not that anybody no associated with the University will know that...
On Mar.26.2009 at 11:49 AM
Carlo’s comment is:
It's painfully cliche, and in a market where the cliche doesn't have that much going for it to begin with.
I think the previous image had a bold graphic simplicity about it that screamed versatility and uniqueness. They went backwards on this new one. Nothing about this new logo matches "razorback". And not that universities try to match their brand and athletics mascot. But maybe they should start - or maybe that's a whole other can of worms for the design industry to open?
And I disagree that it's similarity to KU (and several other universities) is coincidental. It may not be deliberate, but conformity is not the same as coincidence.
On Mar.26.2009 at 12:29 PM
Ross’s comment is:
The Old Main graphic bothers me more than the use of Trajan. Why is there a white stroke inset in the top half of but just solid black on the bottom? Also, having the red shield hit directly against the black of the building is a little irksome.
I work at a university about an hour from Fayetteville and I can sympathize with the issues of identity work for a state univerity. Having to go through the bureaucracy of an institution like that can really hand-cuff your ability to be an "expert". An outside firm would be hired and paid for their expertise so their ideas would probably be better received. "We should listen to them because we've invested in their expertise." If it's something done in-house, the process falls in line with every other university project and the roles of the institutional ladder are assumed again. You have people without "design eyes" calling the shots. Honestly, I'm not sure how I'd respond if given the choice to work on a redesign in-house instead of having an outsider do the work. (scary, huh?)
On Mar.26.2009 at 01:01 PM
Madeleine’s comment is:
Funny... I took a look at the beginning of the post, and my first thought was, 'those pictures have to be backwards!'
The old logo was unique; it made me want to take a double look.
One look at the new logo, and I've already written it off as a cliche, an overused image, font, and feel.
On Mar.26.2009 at 01:04 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
My favorite quote from this story was from Carter Ford, a junior majoring in biochemistry and pre-medicine, who said: "It's hard to explain: It's so traditional, yet so modern."
Another "win" for Trajans.
VR/
On Mar.26.2009 at 01:07 PM
jarrod’s comment is:
@mac
Why should U. of Kansas professors design a new logo for the identity for free? Design work is a professional service, and should be properly remunerated.
As a recent graduate who will presumably have to support yourself, you should understand and promote this as much as anyone.
On Mar.26.2009 at 01:32 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
Hey Scotty, I hate to tell you but that's not Trajan used on the walk. Trajan wasn't designed until 1989 (See "About" here.), so it certainly hasn't been used for 100 years. In fact, a quick look at that photo makes it obvious that it isn't Trajan and that's the point.
Choosing Trajan, the "in" University typeface, instead of trying to find something distinctive and unique to U of A is exactly what makes it disappointing. Not horrible, just not as good as it could have been considering the expense of the actual rebranding itself (signage, collateral, etc).
Also, that "K" is killing me. Instead of a nice ligature like UK, they just squeezed it into an unbalanced mess.
On Mar.26.2009 at 01:43 PM
jarad’s comment is:
@Carlo:
I am an in-house designer at another major university - one that is known, first and foremost, for athletics. Overcoming that stigma to promote our academic merits is a constant challenge, so including references to the school mascot in materials outside of athletics would seem to be counter-productive. Yet our mascot creates instantly positive associations everytime he is seen. It is a tough line to walk, for sure. But I think any university's identity shouldn't rely on the mascot.
As for this rebrand, I can totally empathize with the nightmarish levels of opinions they likely had to endure and appease. Even posters and brochures can be difficult to push through all the levels of approval they usually go through. The final result here is probably much more conservative than their original ideas.
On Mar.26.2009 at 02:59 PM
Mongoose’s comment is:
Trajan, and similar fonts, do utterly scream 'University'. My college (Baylor University) has gone to a similar font as well.
Of course, these sort of logos will have little to do with the athletic departments, which for most universities are the true moneymaker logos, and the face of the university most often seen. This logo here is going on mail that will by and large be reviewed by parents of students or prospective students. So what's needed? Legibility, respectability, and college-ness.
So we get Trajan, or another roman-style font, in college attempts at classicism for the Academic Logo. It's to be expected, even though it does get a bit bland.
As for the tower in front of the shield: Once again, classicism. Take the oldest and/or showiest building on campus, often named 'Main' or 'Old Main' or such, and feature it prominently. In this case, ditching the stripy stylification of said building for a nice simplified version works well; in 20 years it'll look dated as well, but for now, it's crisp enough. The shield works nicely for a place to put that Razorback Red.
All in all, I grade it at a B: Not that the new version is anything beyond the generic, but the old logo showing its age with the stripes and that twitch-inducing underlined 'of'.
--Mongoose
On Mar.26.2009 at 03:25 PM
Geoff’s comment is:
I like the new version. I think it's much more prestigious looking, more of what a university logo should be conveying.
I just wished that when all of these places used Trajan, that they'd make more of an effort to make it their own version of the font, not the straight out typeface.
On a side note, the University of Kansas went through some legal ordeals a few years ago over their "KU" and how it is so similar to Kutztown University's "KU" that they were using for two years longer, and paid significantly less for.
(You can see it below)
http://www.beadesigngroup.com/blog/archives/2005/10/logo-news-2.php
On Mar.26.2009 at 03:47 PM
Adam’s comment is:
Ooh, I bet IBM pulls their sponsorship.
On Mar.26.2009 at 04:11 PM
D’s comment is:
What gets me is the terrible craftsmanship. The letterspacing is weak, and the tower has all the grandeur of Adobe Illustrator clip art.
For that kind of money, hire an illustrator and a typographer. This looks like a comp.
On Mar.26.2009 at 04:14 PM
OSFA’s comment is:
Not bad, really?
I bet their meeting went like this...
"Let's grab that font everyone uses now, what's it called... I see it everywhere and my PC at home has it...Trajan? That one! Now, grab some clip art from the school library and done! Who needs agencies or experts to do this for us?...oh wait is that logo looking exactly like the Kansas University one? Damn, I hope nobody notices...I'm sure nobody will, no one pays attention to this sort of things anyway."
And tomorrow, we'll ask the students to come up with
On Mar.26.2009 at 04:24 PM
Jason A. Tselentis’s comment is:
Great improvement, although it still falls into the use-building-with-crest category. Still, a marked improvement.
On Mar.26.2009 at 05:05 PM
Aubrey Klein’s comment is:
I second many of the others. I'm not a fan of the kerning here, and obviously, the font choice.
After looking at the old mark, I think they could have modified it and cleaned it up a little. Maybe thinner lines separating the text and a different representation of the building would have made this more successful than their chosen redesign. While I disliked the original, at least it had some character.
On Mar.26.2009 at 05:29 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Big improvement, I'm surprised they kept that previous logo for so long! it looks dated by at least 20 years. How long did they have it? It looks so outdated.
The new one is MUCH better much more clearer and no annoying lines to irritate you,well done!
On Mar.26.2009 at 06:08 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I put their website in the Wayback Machine the internet archive, and they had the previous logo since at least 2005.
On Mar.26.2009 at 06:17 PM
Gary’s comment is:
If you ever get the chance to design "THE" identity for a university, run away. Very few universities have a single graphic device that functions as "THE" identity. My alma mater, Michigan, for example, has a block M device, a classic medallion, a distinctive football helmet design, etc. And which one is "THE" identity? Unless constituents understand the specific application for the device you're designing, you're in for Big Trouble.
On Mar.26.2009 at 07:47 PM
Kareem’s comment is:
Trajan is being used at Saint Louis University as well:
I'm currently a student and we had the damnedest time trying to use the current school logo in the campus newscasts. We threw it out and went with a neutral identity, instead.
On Mar.26.2009 at 09:18 PM
Poo Poo Head’s comment is:
this won't make the designers here happy, but I think part of the new design world is the reality that every logo needs to be compatible with multimedia.
Whereas an older logo appeared primarily in print, on paper, and occasionally on commercials for football games or whatever, today's logos appear primarily in the context of websites and in television, and print is a secondary or tertiary use.
As such, each time the logo is used, it is used in the context of OTHER indentifying information about the university. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DISTINCTIVE. it needs only to clearly convey the name of the institution, within the oft cluttered context of multimedia.
I think this updated logo reflects that modern reality. it cuts through the clutter. its simple. some say generic, but in the context that it will be used, (websites and television) it works.
Not bad for in house work if you ask me.
Don't get all torn up over the fact that this unveristy didn't hire someone with your job title to do this work. Be objective.
On Mar.27.2009 at 01:47 AM
joe moran’s comment is:
Poo,
Honey, "Multimedia" is probably 2% of what's being viewed by university contributors and basic donors. And yes, people still use fax machines.
VR/
On Mar.27.2009 at 02:24 AM
Yves’s comment is:
The stripes may look 70's-ish, but that crest feels like it was made in the late 80's. They could have refreshed the old one, which was better for scaling, more original, already in people's memory, and in general had more impact and more balance than the new one. Losing the stripes and making a few minor tweaks would have made it look modern and classy but without any of the drastic changes that get people all worked up and end up looking like a patchwork of compromises. Something subtle and beautiful like http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/philips_gets_a_niptuck.php (but adapted to this context of course). Keeping what's strong in an existing brand can be a good thing.
On Mar.27.2009 at 03:05 AM
Andrew E. Clark’s comment is:
@ Scotty and Kareem:
Neither of the fonts you guys are pointing at are Trajan. Yes, they are both Roman-esque –but not Trajan.
There are several subtleties that differenciate the various roman-style fonts. It just so happens that Trajan was the first to be widely distributed digitally. Like the pervasive Papyrus, Comic Sans and Interstate, Trajan has been wearing-out its welcome since 1999.
So what fonts are they? The Senior walk has as many different fonts as there are decades but my favorites defer to a classic roman style.
The photo posted by Scotty appears to be a brand of Goudy.
NOW, if they had implemented THIS font which was used on the senior walk for the official identity, there would be shouts of praise from every true typophile on this blog. The font on the sidewalks is absolutely BEAUTIFUL! Sad that no one thought to use it. Probably just assumed it was Trajan :(...
Check out these links for great photos of some classy typography embedded in cement:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=arkansas%20senior%20walk&w=all
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harkey/58383774/sizes/o/
It's not just me, EVERYONE who is remotely cognizant of fonts is TIRED OF TRAJAN
Why is Trajan so overused? The whole story is here in this short film by Cheshire Dave.
This is a MUST SEE film for anyone who considers themselves a typo.
As far as the logo redesign, it's better but not quite there yet and I believe the use of Trajan is indicative of the lack of research and effort put into this redesign.
On Mar.27.2009 at 04:54 AM
Andrew E. Clark’s comment is:
To see what was done to 'logofy' the tower, here's the actual tower in question:
http://brendakilby.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dscf1563.jpg
On Mar.27.2009 at 05:06 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Funny you mention its similarity to the University of Arkansas logo, because it is also very similar to the logo of the University of Melbourne:
Gary Wales’s comment is:
Armin - hoist by your own petard! Asking whether $200k would have delivered a better logotype is exactly the type of media shorthand you strive to avoid! Peace.
On Mar.27.2009 at 07:03 AM
Adam Haase’s comment is:
I don't know a lot about this uni but i see a change which hasn't been properly executed.
I like logo changes but this doesn't quite have an appeal to me.
and one last thing, how is the University Of Arkansas an educational institution?
On Mar.27.2009 at 08:11 AM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
I would have redesigned it for $5000
tis tis...
On Mar.27.2009 at 08:16 AM
C'a'r'l'o’s comment is:
@Jarad
Thanks for speaking to the issue of a university's challenge to form an identity against or in concert with the impression of it's athletics/mascot. I worked in-house for a university whose overall brand is shaped far more by its academic reputation, which made it much easier to unify their entire visual identity. It's an interesting challenge because every institution has a different dynamic between academics and athletics.
On Mar.27.2009 at 10:05 AM
jRod’s comment is:
@Mark -
That logo has been around since at least the mid 90's... it was there when i was there. it really wouldn't surprise me if it had been used for close to 20 years.
On Mar.27.2009 at 10:45 AM
Rebecca’s comment is:
@ mac - I'm pretty sure your design professors wouldn't work for free on a logo that's totally out of the scope of their professorship. And students are quite honestly not ready to handle something so polarizing as a university redesign. Students don't understand the client's viewpoint yet and the art of compromise as it relates to design. It could be a nice exercise for a class however and one that could forward successful options to the actual design team.
Regarding the logo itself ... I just cannot understand how so many universities seem to believe that their clock tower-type structure is unique! That tower seems to account for about 75 percent of university logos out there. I ran into the same problem designing Salisbury University's capital campaign logo ...
On Mar.27.2009 at 11:45 AM
Jim’s comment is:
Reminded me of the University of Georgia logo.
Marie’s comment is:
Reminds me of my own school (Simon Fraser University) spending $250k on a logo that many disagree that it worth that much especially when the money comes from students' tuition. I understand design students may not have the qualifications to rebrand the school but they should definitely be given the opportunity to be part of it. Perhaps, ask the students to design a new logo before contacting outside firms. Just my thought related this similar case to my own university.
On Mar.30.2009 at 01:14 AM
Kareem’s comment is:
Thanks Andrew. If SLU's identity font isn't Trajan, then what in the world is it?
As to the overuse of Trajan, does anybody have any idea why?
On Mar.30.2009 at 12:51 PM
Ronnie McD.’s comment is:
Q: As to the overuse of Trajan, does anybody have any idea why?
A: Sadly, it's the American way:
Try to look like you spent a lot of time or tried hard without actually going to 'all the trouble'. "Salon hair without going to the salon." if you will.
Could also be the same reason BILLIONS flock to McDonalds: It's fast, cheap, easy, requires no thought etc...
Could also be a widespread case of ignorance.
Let's get back to honest craftsmanship. Ex: www.houseind.com
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:24 AM
Ronnie McD.’s comment is:
Q: As to the overuse of Trajan, does anybody have any idea why?
A: Sadly, it's the American way:
Try to look like you spent a lot of time or tried hard without actually going to 'all the trouble'. "Salon hair without going to the salon." if you will.
Could also be the same reason BILLIONS flock to McDonalds: It's fast, cheap, easy, requires no thought etc...
Could also be a widespread case of ignorance.
Let's get back to honest craftsmanship. Ex: www.houseind.com
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:25 AM
Ronnie McD.’s comment is:
Q: As to the overuse of Trajan, does anybody have any idea why?
A: Sadly, it's the American way:
Try to look like you spent a lot of time or tried hard without actually going to 'all the trouble'. "Salon hair without going to the salon." if you will.
Could also be the same reason BILLIONS flock to McDonalds: It's fast, cheap, easy, requires no thought etc...
Could also be a widespread case of ignorance.
Let's get back to honest craftsmanship. Ex: www.houseind.com
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:26 AM
emily’s comment is:
Despite being heavy, dated and reminiscent of jailhouse stripes, the older logo is memorable.
The new version is plain-oatmeal-bland and I think I've forgotten what it looks like in the time it too me to scroll down here to comment.
On Mar.31.2009 at 12:04 PM
knowing’s comment is:
There is actually a reason for the use of the font. As there is a reason for everything in the new log. The font is the same font that is used on the original senior walk names. Of course no one is ever going to know this unless you are fromn with in the UofA.
On Apr.01.2009 at 05:42 PM
Nate’s comment is:
I would have gone for a bit of maximalism in a crest. Elegance in complexity, and so on. I've never seen a university do that before. Has anyone seen this anywhere?
On Apr.02.2009 at 04:50 PM
Bruce’s comment is:
Letterspacing could use some help so that it doesn't read ARK ANSAS.
On Apr.04.2009 at 05:03 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
