Further to UW's new logo
Juvenile criticisms aside (it looks like it was graffitied by a Jackson Pollock wannabe), I think the new UW logo has some more fundamental issues.
I think what everything is boiling down to is that the problems that have been identified lie in the selling of the brand, not the brand itself. I endorse the University's efforts to raise awareness of Waterloo, both as an institution and a brand. I reject the notion that cutting ties to the past and replacing them with something so easily ridiculed is necessary for that to happen.
- It has no gravitas. The old logo was based in heraldry, and the coat of arms is a strong, distinct design. Heraldry automatically brings with it an aura of respectability. When people see the new logo, they think "ooh, colours!"
- It has no link to the past. I.e., it represents a totally new direction in branding. One of the issues identified is that people aren't all that familiar with Waterloo. Since the new logo has nothing in common with the old one, at a glance, now no one will.
- It's an exercise in branding. Universities are staid institutions that are generally expected to have a certain same-y-ness about them. The names are more important than the logos, but the logos that are used are established and don't change. Think of a top University anywhere (Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford...hell, even Toronto or Queen's). Now think of the laugh you'd get it you tried to sell them a rebranding.
- It has no link to the University's identity. It's a W. So? There are two other universities in Ontario alone that lay claim to the letter (Western, Windsor), and at least two others in North America that identify themselves as "UW" (Wisconsin, Washington). At least the coat of arms was chosen for a reason (viz., it is the University's coat of arms).
- It's not distinctive. There are no memorable elements. It doesn't stand out. There are many things that identify themselves with the letter "W". If you see the new logo without the wordmark below, there's nothing to tie it back to the University, or even any University.
- Informal polls I've seen (self-selection bias, etc, etc) show people preferring the old logo to the new 10 to 1. In less than 24 hours, nearly 4000 people have decided to register their disgust on Facebook. Even if only half of them are current students, that's 10% of the student body. If a design is eliciting such a negative reaction from those that it is expected to represent, something's gone wrong.
I think what everything is boiling down to is that the problems that have been identified lie in the selling of the brand, not the brand itself. I endorse the University's efforts to raise awareness of Waterloo, both as an institution and a brand. I reject the notion that cutting ties to the past and replacing them with something so easily ridiculed is necessary for that to happen.