INTL. REVIEW BY Paul Vickers POSTED BY Brand New

The Radiance of Knowledge?

The Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris3 (University of the New Sorbonne Paris3) is one of the premier liberal arts and humanities universities in France, it is located in the literary, intellectual heart of Paris in St. Germain des Prés. Established in 1971, it is one of six universities — it being the third, hence the Paris3 designation — of the famed University of Paris whose origins date back to 1253. The domed 17th century central administration building is a familiar landmark on the Paris skyline and draws almost 20,000 students and academics from around the world to work and study in France. The old logo, created in the early 1970s as a repositioning statement following the May 1968 student protests, has all the characteristics of a ’70s mediocre design, with an incomprehensible combination of an acronym, crayoned go-faster stripes and a pyramid — and when it comes to Parisian pyramids we all first think of I.M. Pei’s Pyramide du Louvre. Was there anything else you could add? To anyone outside of the French academic world the name P3 meant absolutely nothing, legibility of both the acronym and the type below was extremely poor to the point where, on the current university web site the name has to be spelled out again in a larger type size and different typeface to compensate for the lack of legibility. So, a redesign has been in order for a long time.

The new brand, launched on the university’s 40th anniversary and designed by Paris-based yvydy, to “reinforce the university’s external identity” to quote Marie-Christine Lemardeley, Sorbonne President, is a big improvement in terms of naming, dropping the P3, bringing back the prestigious Sorbonne name and giving it a dominant position within the identity. The symbol, which can be interpreted as representing an amphitheater, the university’s domed roof and/or the radiance of knowledge — or a combination of “tradition and modernity” as the yvydy’s presentation rather predictably states — is a bit of a compromise solution having neither the history and gravitas of comparable, international institutions like the University of Oxford (founded in the 11th century) or Harvard’s classic logotypes, nor the contemporary feel of the University of Sussex’s “us” ligature or Musashino University, Japan’s “linking thinking” flower-like symbol, that suggests cherry blossom, interconnected molecules or the spark of inspiration.

The solution feels as if we are in a safe, unexciting, classic zone as opposed to pushing boundaries and expressing the quest for knowledge and excellence that a leading world academic establishment should be all about. The colors — grays, black and brown — are bland, the symmetrical layout static and the Université Paris 3 text so small as to perpetuate the legibility issues of the previous logo. At times, on stationary and signage, the amphitheater symbol appears as if it will be embossed or treated in outline which results in it almost disappearing. The Minion Pro Medium typeface is an improvement on the distorted type in the previous logotype, if unexciting. When reversed in 1-color applications the amphitheater symbol is complex and busy.

Overall, a disappointing creative solution to an exciting challenge for an august institution. I feel that neither the client nor the design firm, pulled out all the stops or were prepared to go all the way with a groundbreaking concept that would tell a real story and speak to the future, innovation and excellence. At a time when the world’s universities and learning institutions are competing, intellectually, academically and financially at a global level, this is a missed opportunity, a pity. At the very least, the university did consult its audience, by polling them on the selected option and two more that yvydy created, shown below.

Two other options that were polled along the selected. Here is how the polls turned out…
Students: first logo 34% / second logo 30% / third logo 36%
Teachers and University staff: first 50% / second 25% / third 25%.

Thanks to French Sorbonne student, Vivian Roldo, for the tip.

    

buruno’s comment is:

First of all, the capitalised “E” is despicable, in both (any) logos. Which is a shame, for it [the lettering itself] would make a nicer choice than that hardly recognizable symbol. The second one seems suspiciously random to me, so I wouldn’t pick any of the three.

On Jan.18.2010 at 07:10 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Well, it’s clearly better than the original, but the type is really disconcerting. I do not like the “E” at all. I do, however, like the color choices. That alone will provide differentiation in their market.

The symbol? I don’t know. I’m not sure whether its coming together or falling apart.

On Jan.18.2010 at 07:43 AM

Courtny Cotten’s comment is:

Pretty sharp! Agree with the section about “pulling out all the stops”, the firm could have easily concept wrangled a bit more but overall it’s crisp, clean, and gets the point across.

On Jan.18.2010 at 07:45 AM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

Boring and forgettable

All together, very weak brandmarks that are not memorable and I think the student’s vote says it all; all three are equally bad.

In the first option the brand symbol is too abstract and confusing and when in mono-colour appears even more bland. In the second one the type as the brand symbol is too complicated and hard to commit to memory as a brandmark. In the third one the random arrangement of three different designs of tiny stars arranged in an obscure pattern is totally impractical and irrelevant. The typography in all three options especially the large S and E is extremely unimaginative.

The execution and subsequent results point to the total absence of a solid creative brand strategy.

Paul, I think your review is spot on and it is sad to see yet another academic institution eroding their brand equity.

Author of
Face your brand!
The language of visual branding explained

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:14 AM

Bonnie’s comment is:

I really like this one. It may be because the starting point was so remote and poor that the new logo was an improvement anyway. But I like it.

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:17 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

Overall, a vast improvement over the original. Although, the first one didn’t set the bar very high. The typeface is much nicer to look at, with the exception of the despicable “E” at the end of “Sorbonne” (as others have pointed out).

The mark isn’t really doing anything for me. It feels disjointed. I suppose if the building’s dome truly is that recognizable a structure in the Paris skyline, then this mark at least has cultural relevance. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the mark represents “radiance of knowledge,” though.

The colors feel very safe, especially in combination on the full color logo. I actually like the white logo against the individual color blocks. The toned down “mark-less” version on the stationery, while a bit safe, does feel very clean and academic. Fitting for such an institution.

Despite my loathing for the enlarged “E”, the lock up of the mark and logotype feels right. The mark is not too small, but not so big that it overpowers the logotype and throws everything off balance.

Nice, clean (albeit safe) update to a brand long overdue for a makeover. Nicely done.

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:23 AM

Mog’s comment is:

I would like the symbol, but the curves of the arcs don’t match up. It’s like they made one arc shape and then copied it. The uppermost grey arc, for example, looks like it has to belong to a different circle than the lowermost grey arc. It would have been a better symbol if they actually adjusted the curves. That really bugs me, for some reason.

It reminds me of 1998’s Cendant, only executed poorly.

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:27 AM

buruno’s comment is:

Just noticed I wrote “capitalised ‘E’”, when I meant “large”, as the others above did. My mistake.

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:45 AM

Ronlewhorn’s comment is:

Regardless of any and all “issues” with the new logo, it is SOOOOOO nice to see old terrible brands like that brush script piece of crap getting ditched!

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:49 AM

Ronlewhorn’s comment is:

Regardless of any and all “issues” with the new logo, it is SOOOOOO nice to see old terrible brands like that brush script piece of crap getting ditched!

On Jan.18.2010 at 08:49 AM

John’s comment is:

I am insulted - insulted! - by that large “E!”

Horrible! Who’s idea was that? Line ‘em up against a wall and shoot them, because they have forfeited their right to breathe air! I want them fired NOW!

On Jan.18.2010 at 10:15 AM

Wolfgang’s comment is:

Le Pew!

On Jan.18.2010 at 10:37 AM

C Jones’s comment is:

Has any one else noticed that the symbol does not look like it was built correctly? Where the shapes overlap you can see the line of the shape behind them coming through… Unless that was supposed to happen… which is even worse.

It s not noticeable in the one color application.

On Jan.18.2010 at 10:44 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

@C Jones

I didn’t notice that until you pointed that out. Maybe the images rendered here were taken from low-res .pdfs? I know Acrobat is terrible about doing things like that on .pdfs. I’ve even had Preview do it to me a few times. Surely they didn’t intend for that to happen.

On Jan.18.2010 at 12:08 PM

Scott Souchock’s comment is:

The new logo is safe and imperfect, but at least a move in the right direction. Perhaps in a few years we’ll see yet another revision. The most striking thing for me is how the heck would this work on signage? The one color version looks like a bad Rorschach ink blot test and would look terrible on signage and is actually distracting.

On Jan.18.2010 at 12:58 PM

Alphonse’s comment is:

If I would have guessed what these were for I would have said

Original: ski hill
New: Upper tier bakery, cafe, or supermarket. Possibly all three in one.

On Jan.18.2010 at 01:11 PM

G. Alex’s comment is:

The logo without the colors looks kinda “tech-ish”. Anyway, not my choice for an university…

On Jan.18.2010 at 01:51 PM

stevens point car accident lawyer’s comment is:

Love the new logo, the first one seems a little clip art-esque however I could conceive of either working just fine for the future.

On Jan.18.2010 at 02:14 PM

francisco torres’s comment is:

if you look at it without knowing what it is, it gives you the idea that it belongs to a hotel rather than a university, but despite that I don’t dislike it!

On Jan.18.2010 at 02:46 PM

eric’s comment is:

Good call, Mog. This is Cendant, but sloppier. The misalignment of the wedges should have been corrected before round 2.

I actually do see “amphitheater/radiance of knowledge” in the abstraction, but it really doesn’t fit with this type. I wish the entire logo was either pushed more modern or totally traditional.

The Bookend capS was a popular treatment about 25 years ago – the Classical Tradition through 1985 eyes. At least they didn’t use negative letterspacing or ITC Garamond.

On Jan.18.2010 at 03:38 PM

Dr. Elias Orion’s comment is:

First thoughts? It looks like a logo for a hotel trying to be prestigious.

On Jan.18.2010 at 03:43 PM

room34’s comment is:

Normally I hate logos that capitalize or enlarge the last letter for the sake of symmetry, but strangely it doesn’t really bother me here.

I appreciate much of the criticism here, but ultimately, the old logo is so truly godawful, and the other two new options so uninspired, that the one that was selected seems strong by comparison.

On Jan.18.2010 at 03:55 PM

Simon Coyle’s comment is:

In a couple of years, the old one will look more stylish than the new one.

On Jan.18.2010 at 04:16 PM

Nicole’s comment is:

C Jones, you called it. Looks like someone forgot to merge a shape in illustrator.

I don’t know about this one. The old logo was haphazard and dated (and looks uncannily like a binder I had in elementary school), but the new one is lifeless and uninpsiring. It looks more like a “before” logo than an “after”.

On Jan.18.2010 at 04:33 PM

Tez’s comment is:

YAY to progressing the draconian tacky 70’s look of the original and bringing their identity into the 21st century.

On Jan.18.2010 at 05:11 PM

valt1’s comment is:

Number 3 it’s old logo Sodexo crossed withe Hotel Sofitel
[img]http://web11.twitpic.com/img/58334242-f67ca53be5d5b7db05229733a9258b95.4b550541-full.png[/img] it’s jock, or not…

and Number 2 i see it to an Chocolate Factory.

so, Good choice Sorbonne !

On Jan.18.2010 at 07:15 PM

valt1’s comment is:

Number 3 it’s old logo Sodexo crossed withe Hotel Sofitel
[img]http://twitpic.com/yqazm[/img] it’s jock, or not…

and Number 2 i see it to an Chocolate Factory.

so, Good choice Sorbonne !

On Jan.18.2010 at 07:16 PM

mini sd card’s comment is:

Great sharing here.I would say it nicely blends modernity with tradition and the usability is again a weakness.Thanks.

On Jan.18.2010 at 10:02 PM

Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:

The old one was horribles beyond belief. One of the worst logos I have ever seen.
Hence the redesign is an immense improvement.
Having said so, the idea of choosing logos through polls is just crazy.

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:48 AM

Neil’s comment is:

The icon looks like it is made up of the same arc copied and pasted which really bugs me. Surely structuring and building it around a series of concentric circles - in the way an amphitheater would be - was not beyond YVYDY.

It’s not the most exciting mark in the world but there is potential within the idea to at least produce something much more visually interesting and refined than what has been produced.

On Jan.19.2010 at 04:09 AM

Phanyxx’s comment is:

“In a couple of years, the old one will look more stylish than the new one”

Haha, that’s probably true…

On Jan.19.2010 at 04:40 AM

Gregone Graphic Design’s comment is:

MAJOR improvement over the old logo. Although it’s not groundbreaking and has some flaws, i think it’ll age much better than the previous one. And as a french designer, i can tell you that in comparison with many French universities’ identities, this is way above the country’s average…

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:05 AM

Misterfolkertsma’s comment is:

I think it would have done fine without the mark. The typography creates a somewhat interesting ‘bull’ shape with the large S and E. Bump the PARIS 3 just a little higher to match the spacing of UNIVERSITE and it’s not bad at all!

I have to say I’d rather have seen the 2nd option, I think it’s quite nice.

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:11 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

I think this is a good improvement over the old logo, but it could have been much better. The large E sticks out like a sore thumb and the icon is a big mess that doesn’t fit the academic institution.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:41 AM

Vivian Roldo’s comment is:

Thank you for the review, Paul!

I’m so agree with you, especially with your last paragraph. And as “Gregone Graphic Design” says, other French University’s identity are so sad.

Vivian,
French Sorbonne Student.

On Jan.20.2010 at 12:05 PM

Jhames’s comment is:

I look at the new brand identity and I immediately see the poster design for “Amadeus”. The movie was released in 1984 — getting academia to move a decade forward is pretty good!

On Jan.20.2010 at 03:12 PM

Mokokoma Mokhonoana’s comment is:

I think they did a good job with the choice and arrangement of typography… but the symbol looks disturbing.

And the space between ‘paris’ and ‘3’ looks off.

I also think the ‘E’ seems to standout like a sore thumb to most people, simply because, there’s something that looks exactly like it below it, another ‘E’.

On Jan.21.2010 at 10:36 AM