NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Perhaps one of the most underrated and overlooked aspects of identity design is that done for universities. Typically typographic-driven, these identities are low-key and rarely too distinct; understated and elegant is the name of the game; and “a workhorse” is the most sought-after quality, as the identity must accommodate dozens of programs, schools, divisions and more in hundreds of applications. Coming up with unique and proprietary characteristics for a university wordmark is usually the challenge. In its elongated R and funny-serifed U, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has found an identity that saves it from 20 years of different and inconsistent identities.
Designed by Chicago-based Lipman Hearne — one of the most prolific design firms of university materials — the new identity is one more step in establishing a better message and improve communications for Rutgers in order to attract (and retain) the best possible alumni and faculty — a concern all too relevant for all universities. While the Rutgers identity is nothing extraordinary — and perhaps even too eclectic in the slightly unconventional serif type choice (as it’s not classical enough, but not modern enough either, making no statement at all) — it is distinct and personal to the university, emphasizing the peculiar name. (Peculiar, at least to my ears).
Rutgers contracted Lipman Hearne to the tune of a one-year contract reportedly worth US$500,000 to help develop the message, the identity and the implementation. A figure that sounds high, but considering the amount of work that goes into developing an identity for a university — numerous meetings with boards and committees alone justifies the price, I think — it seems par for the course. It is also inevitable not to raise eyebrows and scorn from those within the community: In an article subtitled “Spending thousands to improve image that won’t change”, the Daily Targum questions the decision to spend so much money on an outside firm by writing, “If administrators really feel the need to revamp the school’s image, they should do it in house and not waste millions of the school’s dollars on it. Mason Gross School of the Arts has an excellent graphic design program, and the business school has plenty of professors who study advertising.” When I first read the press release for the identity I silently giggled at one line, “A visual identity system is a set of professionally designed graphic marks that are approved for use when an institution’s name is displayed in various media and formats.” [Emphasis mine]. It seemed a funny distinction to make in a press release, but a poignant one nonetheless: University identities might seem simplistic but, in reality, they are no child’s play.
The identity includes a simplified (or “informal”) seal and the retention of the block R as a “spirit mark”.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
andrew’s comment is:
simple, elegant. it would make me proud if i were a student there.
On Dec.16.2006 at 08:40 PM
Danny’s comment is:
Hm. Very similar to what KU (the University of Kansas) just did with their K. See here. I don't know who, if anyone special, did the KU change.
On Dec.16.2006 at 09:20 PM
Brooke’s comment is:
Simply fantastic.
On Dec.16.2006 at 11:37 PM
Mark Barilla’s comment is:
I am somewhat indifferent about the new Rutgers logo, though it looks better than the previous few.
I find it interesting they outsourced their design. I attend the University of Florida and we recently underwent a redesign as well, and according to the University a contest was held and a winning idea was then utilized by one graphic designer rather than a firm. I think I read the redesign in its entirety cost us somewhere in the realm of $350,000, so the figure itself didn't surprise me at all.
I was wondering what people thought about our redesign. I covered it (somewhat negatively biased.. no, very negatively biased) in a post of mine. Thanks!
On Dec.17.2006 at 01:13 AM
maria’s comment is:
Taken away from the commercial logo to the academic formal typography: an appropriate shift.
Tradition and youth are not clashing in this one.
felix’s comment is:
I live about 3 miles from Rutgers. Good sccer squad; I attend their games- often. That red "R" belongs no where near Team Blue Jersey. Hello; name change please!
You'll find some excellenthistory on the pitch in Blue Jersey.
On Dec.17.2006 at 11:57 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
Mark,
I'm intimately familiar with the development of the new University wordmark at Florida, and understand your points. I would like to say that the contest you spoke of was less to choose a winner but to provide alternative options for the logo that was already approved by the administration for use. The final logo was an amalgam of several identities presented both in that contest and the original design. Submissions were accepted for consideration after concerns were made about the original concept, and the adminstration wanted more input before making a final decision. Was the submissions timeline short? Yes. But so was the entire timeline for the project, which was originally slated for 12 months but then accelerated to six.
Although I would agree that the final design is not a bold new direction for the university, I do understand the reasons that the final design was selected.
On Dec.17.2006 at 05:47 PM
andrew’s comment is:
As a recent business grad and current design professional, I'm compelled to comment on this seemingly logical statement:
"...{the university} should do it in house and not waste millions of the school's dollars on it. Mason Gross School of the Arts has an excellent graphic design program, and the business school has plenty of professors who study advertising."
Design schools often excel at teaching graphic technique, but like in any other discipline, a bell-curved majority of pupils aren't immediately prepared to produce professional-quality work. Compounding the problem, organizations are often unable to consider their brands objectively -- the dominance of agencies rather than in-house departments testifies to that in the corporate world.
Business schools, and the professors therein, are capable of intense research and analysis. These skills, though, don't necessarily translate to success in practise -- in design, in advertising, and in general. In my experience, the consensus-building, sample-taking, customer-interviewing and triple-checking that makes for great research end up hindering the inherantly subjective design process.
Rutgers -- nice new mark.
On Dec.17.2006 at 09:33 PM
felix’s comment is:
the gesture (or feeling) is that the R doesn't go far enough underneath the U to create a sense of purpose (nurturing?). "The State Univ of NJ" is positioned too low underneath the wordmark. It's weak. The hoof capped U is OK... I guess you have to do show something for 500,000.
At the end of the day its definately better than what they had.
Feldhouse’s comment is:
I think Rutgers got robbed of $500,000. If I spent that much on a new identity, I want it to be PERFECT.
The kerning is off between each letter. The space between "Rutgers" and "The State University of New Jersey" is very awkward. The mark consumes too much real estate and the typeface (frutiger?) is very weak with how the mark is laid out.
The "U" is out of place and doesn't have any other character it can relate to, therefore making it an eye sore.
I would have liked to seen more attention to detail. I'd be interested to see if they replace "The State..." with say "College of Liberal Arts" or something to that effect. I think they were trying to obtain a system, but the spacing and kerning still need work. And when your mark is purely typographic, you have to be PERFECT, not close.
On Dec.18.2006 at 12:20 PM
Armin’s comment is:
> I'd be interested to see if they replace "The State..." with say "College of Liberal Arts" or something to that effect.
Yes, that's the intent... From link provided in the post.
http://identity.rutgers.edu/marks.shtml
Feldhouse’s comment is:
Ah, thanks, Armin. The link was down when I tried it this morning.
On Dec.18.2006 at 12:53 PM
katharhino’s comment is:
I like the general idea of the logo, although I agree about some of the spacing issues. I think the "subtitle" is meant to line up with the tail of the R, but it nevertheless does seem a bit off somehow.
But what's really bothering me is that informal seal... the starburst in the middle seems so overpowering to my eyes. It doesn't seem to fit with the more restrained and subtle typeface of the logo. Anyone else?
On Dec.18.2006 at 01:35 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
You're right about the starburst...it at least made sense when the old logo had a starburst behind it, but now it is related to nothing, and is very distracting on what would otherwise be a clean seal design. I don't know what they should put in the middle, but the burst makes no sense to me.
On Dec.18.2006 at 03:47 PM
Mary’s comment is:
I work in a university system that just created an academic logo for the first time ever. The school has been identified by it's "spirit" mark for many, many years. It's been tough getting everyone on board and getting rid of individual departments logos. I admire the simplicity of this new design and I think that approach is the best way to go for a large system like a university.
On Dec.18.2006 at 05:09 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
I think that if that starburst in their simplified mark was closer to the official it may work. Now its decorative element which is simply too distracting.
The wordmark is significantly more refined than the former marks, but I have to agree with everyone else in the lock-up and kerning are all wrong. While using the cap height for placement of the secondary information in the larger version isn't as bad, with the smaller it looks like that R is going fishin.' They definitely needed to line that puppy up with the baseline and the larger versions pegged to the X-height (versus the baseline in the smaller version) to maintain some visual continuity.
Armin, thats a heck of a lot of meetings for five hundred grand. I love these clients who seem to be so proud of how much they spent as a justification for their final result, mistakenly thinking that somehow the more expensive a mark is, the more "professional" it is.
I'd be interested to see what 500 grand gets you. If its simply for research, the mark itself and style and implementation guides then they just got mugged. But if it includes, which I would think (hope) it would, actually producing some of their implementation suggestions such as communication materials, promotion and brand launch kind of things then it seems that 500k wouldn't be too high a figure when everything is rolled together.
On Dec.18.2006 at 10:26 PM
Nathan Philpot’s comment is:
It is an improvement. I think the new seal is great. It looks like it was simplified for the web in mind. 500K is a good price, if you ask me. Especially for an institution of that size.
On Dec.19.2006 at 09:17 AM
Bud’s comment is:
I am a senior in the graphic design department at UMD (University of Minnesota Duluth). This discussion makes me think about our own logo situation here at UMD. It seems to be the general consensus within the design community at UMD that no one likes our logo and it's tacked on slogans. I was interested to hear what you all have to say about it.
Jeff’s comment is:
Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.
The UMB logo definitely suffers from mission creep. Everytime the university decided to go in a new direction, they added a new element without subtracting others. Two tag lines ? A Lettermark that bisects the wordmark, and a Great Lake to boot?
Bud, you and your class are absolutely right. The UMD needs to be cut back down to its bare essentials and rebuilt.
On Dec.19.2006 at 04:49 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Rutgers: absolutetly pheonemonal simple yet elegant it brings out the artistry of the letters.
UMD: what-the-hell THAT's a logo?
you've got at least 5 groups of text battling for the viewers attention and all in completely different fonts!
what a mess.
On Dec.19.2006 at 06:40 PM
Vernon’s comment is:
Now this is a great and simple logo. Personally I wouldn't have had the subline have such a gap between it and the bottom of "Rutgers" but overall a great design for a University.
On Dec.20.2006 at 09:26 AM
s. liao’s comment is:
the new logo is great. the new seal is way too commercial and decorative. i don't see the point of it, when the old seal is still going to be used on official documents and the new logo should be used on most things. i wish they would replace the ugly athletic R with the new logo's R.
On Dec.23.2006 at 10:02 PM
Diane Witman’s comment is:
It's funny that someone should mention KU (Kansas), because I attended KU (Kutztown University) and there was a big controversy over the similarities of their logos because of the typeface that was used, for some reason I remember Trajan being the typeface. I'm not sure what the exact outcome was but it seems Kutztown has remained the same and looks as if Kansas may have altered theirs.
As for Rutgers, it's not the best kerning for the money paid but it is a vast improvement on their identity.
On Dec.27.2006 at 11:01 AM
Jamie Karczewski’s comment is:
As a Rutgers graduate (class of 2000) and a product of the Mason Gross School of the Arts graphic design concentration I'm confused as to why they've added another logo to their vast collection of identities. I actually took a Seminar class where we studied the varied icons of the university through the years and the explanation for the star burst is because Rutgers saw itself as the sun, it shines on everyone. The school's motto is: Sol iustitiae et occidentem illustra (Sun of righteousness, shine upon the West also.)
It's funny that although they've redesigned that logo one look on their site shows that their still using a variety of icons to represent the university and they'll continue to use many logos - they'll never adopt just one, NEVER.
On Jan.15.2007 at 10:44 PM
jharr’s comment is:
I would say that you could add Truman State University to the list of Trajan's with a hooked descender and a loopy M as well.
RU grad’s comment is:
RU kiddin' me? that POS is pathetic. that "U" is ridiculous, and entirely incongruous. the kerning is weak, and the placement of the "state university..." is floating in outer-space.
at least the older Friz Quadrata version wasn't typeset by a drunk monkey.
On Feb.15.2007 at 11:46 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
