Will Waterloo Logo Survive?

I’ve said it before and I’ll unfortunately have to say it again: Designing identities for higher education institutions is the most perilous realm of identity design and not too different from stepping right up front during Pamplona’s running of the bulls. The latest fiasco comes courtesy of the student body of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, a well regarded and large university.

This past Monday, banners, like the one above, started propping up on campus in preparation for a student and parent visit. This was the first public indication that change was coming. The previous week, a memo titled “How to better tell the Waterloo story” began seeding the fact that the university was about to undergo serious change to modify the institution’s perception.

In a recent national reputational survey, we learned that respondents see Waterloo as a regional university and very few people outside Ontario were even aware of Waterloo’s reputation or what sets us apart from other schools. Although we “owned” the innovation- and industry-connected categories, we were not known for specific strengths.

Over the past year, these teams have developed a positioning framework, which includes our vision, values, positioning attributes, and our promise - “building the future through innovation and experience.” They have also worked on a new identity to visually present Waterloo and a roll-out process and schedule for the new positioning and identity framework.

In late July, we will mount updated street pole banners reflecting the spirit of the new marketing-oriented visual identity for Waterloo. You will see new colours that will be associated with each faculty and bolder use of line, character font, and colour.

The memo further describes how decisions were made and what committees made them. Which is all a nice way to keep people abreast of what is going on, rather than just springing a new identity on the unsuspecting faculty and students. But that didn’t matter. Somehow, this past Wednesday, the new logo was leaked. And people freaked the hell out. How many people and how freaked out you ask? A Facebook group with 5,530 members as of this writing opposes the logo with knowledgeable and mature comments like “Yay for 12-year-old graphic designers!,” “my 12 year old sister could have designed a better logo using Paint,” “OMG LAZERS!!,” and “welcome to WacDonald’s can I get your order please?” There are more than 40 pages worth of comments.

The main complaint throughout is that the new logo is not dignified enough and it does not represent the school. But somehow, a crest, like thousands of other crests — who the majority of people don’t know what they stand for anyway — does. Unfortunately this is antiquated thinking. Universities can not get by with traditional crests in today’s über branded environment and, if you look around, most large universities operate with a “marketing” logo and use a traditional seal for boring things like diplomas or the back covers of their catalogues.

The new logo for University of Waterloo is actually an extreme, I will grant the whining Facebookers that. It’s not a comfortable logo to look at and it’s unclear what all those lines mean or are meant to do. Unfortunately, they don’t do much other than distract. But, in application this logo and its extended identity could be very interesting. However, this post and the controversy around it doesn’t have as much to do with whether the logo is good or bad — it’s neither really — but the propensity of students and faculty to cry foul with any change that has been carried out thoroughly by a range of committees. If they respect their university and its values they need to trust their leadership. Not whine about how 12-year-olds could do a better logo. Because they can’t.

Dear Waterloo-people-in-charge: Stick to your plan. Don’t succumb.

Thanks to Brandon Walkin for first tip.

Jonathan Good’s comment is:

My goodness, did you actually write this:

If they respect their university and its values they need to trust their leadership.

Should we apply this principle to our governments, too? Surely protesting inanity (and not accepting crap handed down from on high) is a cherished democratic value. In this case it also shows that the students actually value the place where they’re studying.

By the way, it’s a coat of arms, not a “crest.” And it doesn’t need to stand for anything - or rather, there’s no reason why it can’t be an integral part of a university’s brand. (Have a look at Memorial University’s Rorschach blot of a logo if you really want something nondescript).

On Jul.27.2009 at 02:15 PM

Josh’s comment is:

Anytime a mark with potential for varied use comes along its immediate declared a failure. Is it an eloquent first attempt? Not really, but maybe it a mark they plan on creating variations of.

Though this isn’t a new concept, I think universities are great places that should have a formal mark, but with enough latitude to be transformed based on university events and change. I wouldn’t condone this for every institution, but it shouldn’t just be art schools that treat their student body to dynamic uses of identities. Arguably, this should be done at school like Waterloo that offer more than just a few art concentrations.

I say evolve the mark and be playful, U of Waterloo. Lets reassess this in a year or so.

On Jul.27.2009 at 03:32 PM

Carlos Escobar’s comment is:

I tend to think that what’s important is, who is the design for, and who does it represent. If it’s for the administration, and not a representation of the student body or faculty, then By all means do what you want. But now if there are banners and posters around that are for the public, and are supposed to represent the school and the people who go there, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to weigh in. I also have some issue with the attitude that since the old logo didn’t mean anything and wasn’t very good, that it should mean the new one can get away with the same thing. It should be an opportunity to properly solve the design problem with context and critical thought. If the idea, though, is just to appear more modern why not gloss it over with some gradients, slap a sharp sans serif font on it and call it a day? At least, then, it is consistently devoid of meaning and complaining might be avoided. In the end maybe it was just too large of a project for students to handle who have not had real world experience. Anyone else?

On Jul.27.2009 at 03:40 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

Reactions like this are (almost) never the result of people being averse to change, rather it is people being averse to the particular kind of change that has been enacted.

The old adage rings true: ‘If Henry Ford had asked people what they were looking for they would have said a faster horse.’ He gave them the car and they embraced it because it was simply better at the tasks it was meant for. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t what people were asking for because the results exceeded their expectations.

I’m going to start calling this the ‘Tropicana Syndrome’. An entity attempts to reinvent themselves and does so poorly. The public outcry which follows does nothing but convince that entity that change is a bad idea, and they either revert back to the branded identity they had previously decided was no good, or they persevere in an effort to persuade their detractors over time. Its not about people disliking change, its about people disliking a change to something worse, which this clearly is.

On Jul.27.2009 at 04:14 PM

Patrick Lyver’s comment is:

Although it is awkward and will have obvious production issues in print I think that this logo will do one thing (and perhaps, under it all, is the main objective) and this is it speaks to a younger demographic - one who’s constant bombardment of band posters and techno-core metal music is being over stimulated on a daily basis. They are the ones (17 years old and off to University) who are lining up schools for potential attendance and making their decisions based on guidance councilor marketing materials and first impressions.

Yes, there are some students out there that look closer at the schools they wish to attend, but for the majority, the choice making time comes between soccer practice and drinking vodka in the bushes.

At the end of the day, Alumni, current students, and faculty may have a problem with the new identity - but enrollment means paychecks, and I’m sure as shit they’re not complaining about those.

On Jul.27.2009 at 04:29 PM

Jeff’s comment is:

I can not believe that you think that the students, faculty and alumni should have no say in how their school is represented. The school is a community of thousands of people who want to study there and call the place their home. To say that all present should not be able to have input on how their school is presented to the public is asinine. The fact of the matter is, is that this logo does not represent one of the best school for computer science and engineering in the country. It is gaudy and looks like its from a B-list designer of the 80’s. There is no respect in a logo like that.

On Jul.27.2009 at 04:32 PM

Tez’s comment is:

woohoo anybody for a game of pick up stix? OR is that the school of eternal rave partying? Really whats wrong with re-creating a new skew on the “coat of arms/crest” (what ever I’m not into semantics of it). and building something new creative and über cool?

On Jul.27.2009 at 05:59 PM

aaron’s comment is:

I wholly agree with Jeff in the asinine nature of this article. The thesis here is that alumni reaction is predictable because we all just fear change (As opposed to be the consensus result of critical thinking - as if we went to a *university* or something).

At the same time, the high school graduates the university needs “for paychecks” are looking for something like…. this logo? Glad to know we’re looking for the creme de le creme for tomorrow’s engineers. Maybe they’ll get more studying in because on ecstasy you don’t sleep?

Then he goes on to concede that graphically, it’s not a very good logo anyways. Boy somebody sure thinks highly of themselves. Too bad there isn’t some kind of body of higher-educated people who might also be able to notice the blatantly obvious.

But wait! That’s not supposed to matter because the real message is that the bureaucrats, in all their wisdom, need cheerleading! Evidently the critical-thinking skills we all went to this university to gain in the first aren’t very good for anything.

Considering the esteem you hold both potential students and alumni in, I guess there’s only one conclusion to draw: We’re going to need a good logo!

On Jul.27.2009 at 10:00 PM

Joe Bloggs’s comment is:

Design by committee: BAAAAADDDD. Design by Students: the darkness, the pain, the agony

I also can’t believe how closed minded the students are about this.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:25 AM

David’s comment is:

We’ve all heard the expression: you are the company you keep. Well, at this tage in their lives, the students are the brands they keep. Considering the investment being made in the university by the students today, and the fact that as soon as they graduate the university will ask them for donations, it’s perfectly acceptable for the students to express dissatisfaction with the new logo.

The truth is that there is nothing innovative about this new logo. In fact, it looks like someone just reworked the W Hotels logo. The Helvetica font is so overused I don’t see how that is innovative. Perhaps the problems with the universiy’s brand positioning have less to do with the logo and more to do with how the university interacts with the public.

The response by the students may be somewhat emotional in nature (emotional reactions are natural for people this age), but it doesn’t mean they are wrong. The university administration should have the courage to scrap the logo and start over. Universities need to be in the busienss of democratizing education and ruling with an authoritarian grip is not the way do that.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:13 AM

Ariel’s comment is:

Wait… people on the internet, when voicing their opinions, don’t act as professional as they do in real life? You gotta be kidding me right!!?!?!! Teens and young adults don’t always act mature? No way!!!!

Way to ignore the thousands of legitimate, mature, professional, logical and well-written complaints and focus on the small percentage of ones that don’t meet this criteria. This article is analogous to stating that everyone who complains about the Iraq war must be all be rednecks, and therefore their opinion should be discounted. It is horrible journalism. Please try and get all the facts straight before posting in the future.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:01 AM

Darren’s comment is:

First of all, before you start bashing the students, faculty, and alumni on our distaste for this new logo, please do look at some of the comments and feedback made. Yes, there are some students that just whine and complain, but much of the feedback provided by students and alumni have been mature and professional. Just selecting a handful of comments does not represent that ALL the comments are of that nature.

Sample feedback below that I believe summarizes the main concerns:

First: What was the target audiences? Where were they located? How were they chosen? What was the sample size? In other words, show us that they were truly representative. At one point, Meg said that it was K-W students who were sampled. Demographically they are not representative of Ontario students, let alone those who are likely to want to go to Waterloo! Quite frankly, the only people who take kids’ opinions literally are kids. Simply because they don’t know better (yet). Yes, that is going to sound horrendously patronizing to the majority of people who read this, but: think about how much your attitudes, opinions, and world view shifted between Grade 9 and Grade 12. Then the four years of undergrad (and, if done immediately thereafter, grad school) are another big shift. But after five, ten years in the work-force, that’s when everything changes, and suddenly you realize how little you knew before. Basing a marketing campaign that is supposed to raise awareness, credibility, and reputation of a school to all potential audiences (applicants to undergradute, graduate and post graduate programs; employers; parents; alumni; government funders and donors; the media; faculty; etc) on the views of a handful of senior high-school students in one region of the country is simply bad marketing management.

Second: who is the real target audience for this campaign? If it’s university-bound high school students, then perhaps this logo IS appropriate. However, if the audience is their parents, prospective employers and possible faculty, then this logo fails to convey the desired messages AND is too reminiscent of the 1980s. Those fashions are coming back for kids (to wit, pegged jeans, neon, leggings, blouson tops, etc). That’s a fresh and new look if you 16, but very much eye-rolling fashion regurgitation if you’re in your 30s or 40s, let alone older. Thus, the new logo is not professional (and thus worthy of respect), it’s not innovative, it’s not creative. It is, however, risk-taking and unconventional (since it stands out— like a sore thumb, in my opinion— from other schools’ marketing logos).

Third, I am surprised that awareness of Waterloo’s strengths are so low. I would like to see the questions posed, and the response data. A survey that indicates that many people are surprised to learn that there are faculties other than engineering or computer science, THAT I would believe. If the high school students were truly university-bound, and had done their homework of different schools, and you sorted the answers by discipline of interest (ie someone interested in journalism wouldn’t have this school on their radar), I suspect most of the students you would want to apply to Waterloo do so. Or is there a problem with numbers of applicants or quality of applicants, and that is why Waterloo wants to market themselves better to high school students?? Given enrollment rates are much higher than expected for most universities this year, if that isn’t the case for Waterloo, a logo change is not going to solve the problem…

Fourth, reputation and awareness. Was like compared with like? And how was this analyzed? Since the majority of Canadians have not graduated from university (our national rate is embarrassingly low for a “developed” country), then asked about a university they are most likely to refer to their nearest school, and the oldest and best known ones. So McGill, Queens, UofT are undoubtedly up there, because (in Canada), if you’ve heard of a university, it’s likely one of those. That doesn’t make any of the other schools less good— in fact, for some faculties, other universities will be much better. And anyone interested in studying that (particularly at the advanced level), or in teaching there, will know that. Just because many people may only know of Harvard, Yale or UCLA, that doesn’t make Chicago or MIT or Johns Hopkins any less sought out by those in the know. How did Waterloo compare against other post-WWII schools (e.g. Carleton, Concordia, York)? Or among those with a university education themselves, or with children who are in or have graduated from university? Or when asked about good schools for certain disciplines?

Fifth, is it a good idea to market Waterloo as a school for math, comp sci, engineering ONLY? There are merits to Institutes of Technology focused systems, but since Waterloo is launching new non-technically oriented schools and programs, then perhaps a campaign, and a supporting logo, that says “You know us for technology - come see what we can do for you in [international affairs, health, environment, etc]!” would be a better idea.

Sixth,will the logo solve the awareness problem? If people aren’t thinking about Waterloo, then a mere logo won’t make a difference. It’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (to use a cliche): the new arrangement may be very nice, and far more practical, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of the collision with an iceberg. Even large companies that follow major rebranding with massive advertising campaigns do not always succeed in getting the desired message across. Some companies lose market share because people haven’t heard of them and so go elsewhere (a name change, a logo change, a logo that doesn’t explain what the organization is). And then there’s cases like the New Coke fiasco. Given that Waterloo cannot afford a major campaign to explain the new logo, let alone teach people to associate it with the school, they should have gone with a design that at least is tied in to what is known/identified with Waterloo somehow. Most schools’ marketing logos have some connection to the official logos or to well-known symbols. For the handful that can get away with just a letter (e.g. Michigan, Harvard), they are so well known, and often so old/well established, the logo has instant recognition (like the Apple logo, or GE or Coca-Cola wordmarks).

Seventh, kudos on the cost. After 13 years working, hiring student interns, managing projects, etc, and rising to a senior analyst position (so far!), since I completed my last Masters degree, I know that a $40-60K budget may look large to many students, but for multitude of the costs involved in a project such as this, that is impressively low. And some of the products (e.g. those banners) are very, very nice. The website mock-up’s OK.

Eighth, I agree that the university could benefit from a marketing logo. However, it doesn’t have to be just one. There could be a casual, fun logo, particularly aimed at kids (ie prospective students). That could change every few years, so that it never gets dated (this W will). There could be the official logo for diplomas, transcripts, letters of acceptance, etc— places where dignity and convention and power are the only appropriate message. (“You’ve arrived!”) Something else, maybe touching on traditional logos, but with a modern feel and less formal, for grown-ups (ie parents, employers, alumni, faculty). It may even be appropriate for the different faculties to have logos (lasers and techie looks would be appropriate for some of them!). Then make this available on a number of products that students, faculty, alumni, and fans could buy. (The bookstore, at least based on the website, has a shockingly limited— and lame— selection!). Other universities have gone this route. For example, Carleton (also a post-WWII school with a strong engineering and computer science branch) has 3-4 looks, and merchandise to appeal to virtually any taste (and budget).

Ninth, I don’t see “power, energy and connections” in this W. It just looks bright and cluttered, and more suitable for a huge sign outside a campus nightclub. If it needs this much explaining, it is NOT a powerful means of conveying Waterloo’s desired message.

Tenth, given the level of creativity and skill in some of these mock-ups, perhaps one option would be to invite Waterloo students, faculty, alumni and “friends” to submit designs that they feel would convey the innovative/creative/courageous/connected/etc message? Set it up online so that people can vote and comment, and go from there. It really would be collaborative, creative, and unconventional— and be an excellent lesson in the importance of Web 2.0 and new (innovative) approaches to business.

This is not a problem with change. Yes, it is interesting how many of the people on this sight like tradition when it comes to the symbols of their universities. But that makes sense, given the time, cost, symbolism and perceived future benefits of a university degree. But, note the popularity of the banners. Note that many fully agree that there is a place for marketing-type university logos. The issue is the logo selected is one that has us worried about the credibility of our school’s image. I don’t even think it was the fact that work was done without everyone being consulted that was the problem— if the Visual Identity System process had turned up something that 6000+ people felt perfectly represented the school, then we’d say, “great job, now you’ve shown it to us, we love it, go ahead”. It’s that we’re unhappy with the result, and are afraid that there’s no chance for improvement before it will be rolled out.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:16 AM

Andre’s comment is:

I have a feeling this logo would have been much weaker (and would have cost 4 times as much) if everyone who doesn’t like it now had had their say.

It’s naive to think that a new, entirely democratically-designed mark would magically solve everyone’s problems, and at the same time, better meet the university’s needs and goals.

I think the students are overreacting in asserting that the work is a total disaster. Thankfully, it’s not a logo’s mandate to satisfy everyone’s personal tastes. I’m with Armin, there’s enough good here to build on. Scrapping the logo and starting over would be the exact opposite of courageous.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:28 AM

Adam Schoales’s comment is:

I’m from the Waterloo area and have many friends at the university, many of whom have complained. Of course, and no offense to them, they’re mostly computer-science students or engineers and have no sense of design ;)

Fact is, I agree with you entirely. The crest makes a terrible logo. I’m not saying get rid of it - of course it should be on your diploma instead of some logo, that’s part of the tradition. But Marketing materials (letter heads, signage, etc.) can benefit greatly from a nice logo.

I’m not saying the new logo is FANTASTIC… it could use some work (and the use of Gotham is SOOOOO 2008/2009) but I think it’s a great improvement over the old “traditional” (aka Old Men with Grey Hair in Suits) look.

But like I said, U of W isn’t regarded for their design programs ;)

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:29 AM

Anon’s comment is:

Adam: Waterloo is extremely highly regarded as top in Canada for its architecture program. (Which is design.)

I like what MIT did with their logo. I think it was good of them to go more modern, but they should have went way more simpler, similar to the MIT logo.

On Jul.28.2009 at 04:06 PM

Tim’s comment is:

Reminds me too much of http://www.laserportraits.net/

On Jul.28.2009 at 05:05 PM

Menk’s comment is:

It should be an unwritten rule. If you have heraldry, use it. It’s a nice treatment but when you see what they gave up for it… Oh dear.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:40 PM

orangetiki’s comment is:

The logo isn’t terribly bad, but I think it is unbecoming of a university that teaches engineering. The logo should fit the client.

On Jul.29.2009 at 07:55 AM

Louisette Lanteigne’s comment is:

I’ve always loved the traditional logo. It’s been used for 50 years and is a testimony for the longevity of the institute itself. It’s distinguished, elegant and need not be revised. The current logo is a “pop culture” statement which will quickly fade in novelty over time. In my view it’s ugly. What is the symbolic meaning behind “hot pink”?

On Jul.29.2009 at 08:21 AM

Iulian’s comment is:

@Jonathan Good:

“Should we apply this principle to our governments, too?”

Well, yes, you ARE supposed to stand by your leaders and their choices, since they were elected by vote by the majority of the population.

The leader is supposed to speak on behalf of the voters, to act in their best interest, WITHOUT always asking for the voters’ opinion on every single item on the daily agenda. Once elected, the chosen leader (not the voters) is supposed to take the hard decisions, be it sending troups to Iraq or choosing a new logo for the U of W.
That’s how democracy rolls, isn’t it?

@Jeff:

“I can not believe that you think that the students, faculty and alumni should have no say in how their school is represented.”

I really don’t see why this identity project should have passed the students’ vote; harsh as it may sound, at the end of the day/semestre, they are mere clients of the University, not shareholders. I pay for my CocaCola but that doesn’t grant me any type of control over The CocaCola Company.

On Jul.29.2009 at 08:46 AM

Jon Kinneman’s comment is:

You have no control over Coca Cola? Do you not recall New Coke? They didn’t thrust it down the consumer’s throats after the huge outcry — they went back to the old formula (Though I think it was slightly altered). In the end the consumer dictates if the marketing and products are successful.

Universities differ greatly from corporations. They do not have a CEO that calls all the shots and everyone gets in line or gets out. Though many presidents would like this too happen it is just not the reality of higher education. There are many groups that the president is answerable to and students are one of the most important of these. If the students, who this identity is supposed to represent, stand up and say “no, this is not us” shouldn’t the administration pay attention?

By the way, does the writer of this article really think that anyone knows what this new logo means? If crests mean nothing in the literal sense, symbolically they stand for credibility. This? This looks like a game of pick-up-sticks in process. Pick-up-sticks were fun but hardly a symbol of excellence in education.

On Jul.29.2009 at 09:33 AM

Iulian’s comment is:

New Coke and Tropicana are exceptions. Keep in mind that New Coke wasn’t just another crazy marketing scheme, it was actually created to please the growing number of people that would choose Pepsi over Coke in the blind tests that were conducted around that time.

Yes, leaders, decision makers don’t always hit the spot, their mistakes will be remebered and they will eventually be replaced by more competent people, but in the meanwhile, it’s still THEIR job to decide what goes where.

What some people were asking for here was that perfect kind of responsibility where you receive an email with some logo versions and you just click on the winner from the comfort of your armchair. And let’s not even talk about the other version, where the students are asked to send in their logo proposals; it doesn’t work.

It’s a huge W, it’s energetic, modern, it may not be perfect but it wants to break free from all the crests and coats of arms. In any other domain, such a departure from the group would be welcome. Give the W a chance, will ya? :)

On Jul.29.2009 at 11:53 AM

Zenmonkey’s comment is:

As a UW alumni and graphic designer I was initially appalled by the new logo. But this is just the marketing logo. And for the target audience it may work. Kind of an 80’s retro-futurism vibe. Though I don’t know what kind of message of innovation 80’s retro-futurism brings to school building a quantum computing and nanotechnology think tank.

Here is the Official Documents Logo to belay some worries

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2009/jul/24/cover/loco-logo/page01a%20new%20seal.png

On Jul.29.2009 at 02:05 PM

adam’s comment is:

@ lulian

i must comment on your post about how we shouldnt question and simply just follow whatever our leaders say and/or do. see this quote from president roosevelt in 1919 (bolding by me to highlight):

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

just because our leaders send our troops to iraq or choose an inappropriate logo (i dont necessarily dig the logo itself, but i can see how it will translate across mediums, as generic as that translation is) does not mean we should support them or stand idly by and let them do whatever it is they want or make whatever decision they want.

On Jul.29.2009 at 06:19 PM

Iulian’s comment is:

Sorry for dragging this into the realm of offtopic, I’ll shape up after this comment.

I am not saying the students and alumni of UW don’t have the right to disagree and ask for an explanation regarding this logo. It is their right to voice their opinion. What I don’t see appropriate is this “why were we not consulted on this?” claim. Why? Because we know what screenings usually lead to: the safest version, nothing new, nothing daring.

The committees wanted to present THEIR vision of where UW should be heading. They are supposed to know what’s better for the university, right?

Imagine trying to sell a logo to a big company. Also imagine everyone in that company (from the CEO to the water boy) has an equal say over your logo. Will you ever be able to please all of them and sell that logo? Nnno. That’s why the leaders’ say should be enough, it’s their job to make these decisions and through their choices, to represent their people and work in their best interest.

It’s quite simple. For example, if your president does good, you should be proud, you voted for him, you made the right choice. Equally, if he does bad, you should feel ashamed, because again, you (the country, the people) chose him. Remember http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/1/ ?

On Jul.29.2009 at 07:34 PM

phof’s comment is:

Even though I’m a UW alumnus and sentimentally loyal to the old crest, I agree with Armin that the old crest’s meaning (and that of most universities) is largely lost on me. The new logo is indeed a daring step for renewal — just too bad that the line segments couldn’t have more form and structural integrity a la Melbourne’s new logo: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/pieces_of_melbourne.php

On Jul.29.2009 at 11:56 PM

Senhal’s comment is:

Oh God, I know exactly what this logo means: U. of Waterloo is a second-/third-tier university with some national pretentions; it’s strengths lie not in the most traditional academic subjects, but it has a number of programmes in more applied subjects which have a quite decent reputation in the relevant industries. Media studies might be big; there’s possibly a faculty/department of Communication Studies. If they’re unfortunate, they have a B.Sc. in golf course managements. Being a quite new (but not, unfortunately, brand new) university which has realised that the whole long-tradition-of-academic-excellence thing isn’t going to work, they’re attempting to trade on their youth: something along the lines of ‘innovating the future through creative excellence’ will probably be their motto. Indeed, reading the story in the student paper, I see that

The eight defining “attributes” were identified through the task force’s research: innovative, collaborative, connected, creative, risk-taking, courageous, critical-thinking, and unconventional. These can currently be seen on the new street banners that line Ring Road and the streets bounding the university.

If there’s any university in the English-speaking world which doesn’t feature these buzz words somewhere in their marketing it’s probably somewhere like Bob Jones. My point is, I’ve already seen this logo and marketing strategy too many times to remember. Find any UK ‘1992’ university and you’ll probably see something quite similar. In short, it’s boring and everyday, and practically screams that the U. of Waterloo is practically interchangeable with a vast number of other universities in its class.

Speaking of student involvement: something similar happened at Cornell some years ago, and they were forced to scrap everything and start over again. In the end I believe everyone was happy that they had managed to combine a more modern feel with the traditional identifiers of the university: the coat of arms reduced to its outline, while the university rediscovered its traditional Cornell red, which hadn’t been used properly for decades. Now it’s a feature incorporated in myriad ways across the university (the Big Red Barn for graduate students, for example). (As regards the coat of arms, Oxford went for a similar approach for its marketing and day-to-day identity purposes.)

One can also compare this to Cambridge’s new identity guidelines on the occasion of its 800th anniversary (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/communications/services/identityguidelines/index.html ), which feel pretty fresh and contemporary to me - but not flashy. They’re also highly flexible (and can allow for quite a bit of creativity from departments, groups, individuals, etc.) while remaining unified. Their logo does make use of the coat of arms, and one of the possible colour options is the traditional Cambridge blue. In short, they’ve retained their traditional strengths and their attended gravitas and immediate recognition from those who are familiar with the university, while not being stuck with design decisions of the moss-grown kind. I’m impressed (and pretty jealous:)). Waterloo, on the other hand, should listen to its students and go back to the drawing board.

On Jul.30.2009 at 01:28 AM

unilogo’s comment is:

By any standards, the new logo is poor. I know it touches a nerve with designers when an attempt to be modern and trendy falls flat on its face. As a designer, I’m not as irritated by whining students as whining designers.

While I have no attachment to the old logo, I do recognise that it is well balanced, authoritative and appropriate. The old logo has a sense of tradition and history to it, which is something that cannot be bought or acquired through branding. By whatever means, they could promote the university with new graphics and banners, but they should respect its core value as an institution.

On paper, the new logo makes a respectable university with character and history look like a new “buy-your-degree-online” school. Sad.

On Jul.30.2009 at 04:51 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

The confirmation bias going on here is appalling. The path and target of the university is the decision of the university alone. How they want to establish it and forge it is the correct way. How you or others want to the university to act, behave, or be represented is the wrong way.

For the record the old logo has little tradition or history. It’s an extremely generic crest. The lions actually do mean something, but not to the university. There are four or five official lion designs for royalty crests, and on the Universities shield it’s tantamount to clipart since none of them are representative of the university.

The perception of the old logo having prestige is a load. It’s a rehashed, ripped off version of some old rich royal family in Britain somewhere.

BUT… the old logo was designed to set the University on a path for the last fifty years, and that path was correct, and achieved it’s goal. And I have every reason to believe that the new logo will do the same.

I would love to know what people had to say about the universities ‘new’ logo, 50 years ago. Probably all the same complainers beating their chests.

On Jul.30.2009 at 03:06 PM

DaveyJJ’s comment is:

As someone whose been designing identities for nearly two decades, and has had the pleasure of working directly with some of the very best living designers and media editors in North America (i.e., Bob Ciano) during his career, for clients around the world, I do get to comment as a professional (who is still always learning). I also live in Waterloo, for whatever that counts for.

Though not as bad in my opinion as the disaster that is the London 2012 logo, I do not know how this reflects the brand that is University of Waterloo. No clue in fact. I sort of get the “modern” vibe, the lazery effects of the lines, but black? And that pink and orange together? Seriously?

To me it looks like a second-rate effort, designed by committee, that could not have had any feedback or user testing from the various target audiences it must resonate with and provide the message. Students, present and potential, obviously; it perhaps works for that generation, one that can’t focus on anything for more than a few seconds at a time. They won’t look at the thing and figure out it’s supposed to represent something more than simply a flashy logo. But as a visual message for anyone else … media, parents, administration, faculty, I can not see how this works given the generally “traditional” atmosphere of a higher institution of learning.

Granted, my 11 year old could not have done a better job (and neither could anyone else’s 11 year old, please stop dragging that old garbage out), but there are far more competent examples of logotypes and symbols available today than that fat W with the silly coloured lines.

I don’t necessarily mind the typographic treatment, though the text colour of the kerned out top text leaves something to be desired, the typeface is a nice, modern san-serif, as it probably should be. But the symbol? Hmmm. Why not something more abstract, more concrete, more solid? It’s going to be difficult using *any* symbol to represent everything that the university is, and perhaps a W might work, but I’d certainly not have done it that way. There will be terrible issues with print with that W as it must still be effective scaled small.

Nope. It fails almost every test I’ve learned, taught, shared, or needed to apply over my 20 years of design work. It’s flat out not “good” and does not represent what I know U of W to be as a place of learning, mental idea, or brand.

On Jul.30.2009 at 03:19 PM

Christopher Anderton’s comment is:

I just see the new one as a logo for a sporting or song contest. Sorry. I think they should go back to the drawing board.

On Jul.31.2009 at 12:02 AM

Gen’s comment is:

I think Ryan above and some others are missing the point. The new logo is universally unpopular because it is a bad design. Plain and simple. It would be rejected by the average corner sweet-shop as being lazy.

The comment above, “How you or others want to the university to act, behave, or be represented is the wrong way” sums up the attitude that poor design or logos are fine if the creators of the logo like it. What nonsense!

If nothing else, the original logo has a prestige as a symbol of the respected institution that it represents. It it entirely appropriate for the purpose, as others have pointed out. People trying to find meaning in the lions and color might be better off studying heraldry rather than logos, as that is where nit-picking details of crest design is applauded.

On Jul.31.2009 at 03:13 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

Gen, I think you missed the point of my comment too.

You may be right, that it’s a bad design, that’s not my point. My point is that as an exercise in branding, it matter less what the logo looks like or even what it means, and more what is done with it, how it is marketed, and how versatile it is throughout that process. You’ve already seen banners and department specific treatments, and just based on what’s been leaked, it has already shown to be extremely versatile in just about every situation. The rules of branding would dictate that the logo in it’s form are NOT used the same everywhere. But that elements of it can be changed for any given situation. The ‘official’ logo may only appear on the cover of the course magazine for all you know.

The fact that this logo may not work well in reductions is moot. If it doesn’t work well in this form, then you design another form where it will work. The point of branding is not that you plaster this particular logo on everything you sell. It’s that everything carries a theme. And just about the only consistent elements are black or white gotham, coloured or white lines whether curved or straight. You can spread this theme on anything.

Really, it doesn’t matter how good it looks just that it’s technically competent. Designing is about the user experience now, and creating a style or theme that can spread. People who believe that a good logo is all you need are the lame-ducks who are running LogoMaster on Harvester in Burlington.

Again you are claiming that the original logo has prestige. That is by design, not by history. It was a ripped off crest, the kind that has been used by groups and institutions for decades, who had no right to use such crests in the first place. It had no meaning to the university when it was introduced, and it had no right to replace (im sure) the old wood cut ornate seal that preceded it. What matters is how it was used and parlayed into making the university’s image what they wanted it to be.

Clearly the same can be said about the current logo in 20 years from now. The U of W will be seen as the ‘awesome university’ where they make all kinds of future ready students because it was founded in an age when lasers were invented (tongue firmly in cheek).

But if you think that fact that it’s an old prestigious institution is going to be lost on people in 20 years, you are dead wrong.

On Jul.31.2009 at 09:03 AM

Santa Claud’s comment is:

So basically it’s a huge “W” with a laser light show going on inside it. I bet their students could have designed something better.

On Jul.31.2009 at 09:29 AM

emmaC’s comment is:

WOW! Just shown the new logo my one of my colleagues. That new logo is woefully bad. They should keep the old logo until they can come up with something better. It is poorly conceived and executed.

Sorry Ryan, but I disagree with almost every point you are making about the logo’s design. Unless I too am missing your point, your argument is running contrary to what I have learned over the years from people much better than (at least) me on these matters. I have no idea where you are finding *the rules of branding* that *dictate* these things to you.

A solid logo design is essential to the branding, not something that should be changed at will to suit a designer’s latest idea. Sure there are variations on the design, but any variation on that big “W” logo is likely to look just as bad. Keep the big W’s for the college football team shirts!!!

On Jul.31.2009 at 09:55 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

Emma by rules I of course mean de facto specifications based on successes in general of other branding exercises. Branding is a whole family of solutions and making sure that it is not limited to these solutions. After all, there are no rules, right?

Here’s an example.

Say the university want’s to make a new building and base it on the brand. This is a virtual impossibility with the old logo. The most that can be done is to create signage of the logo and put it up on every top left corner. Which may have been impressive 50 years ago, but not today when it has to compete with the thirty other logos in eyeshot that are doing the same thing.

Since the new logo relies on elements like colour and line, you could make the entire building black glass, and draw coloured lines all over it. Certainly a building like this is extreme, but the point is that it’s possible. At the very least it isn’t as extreme as the OCAD building in toronto. And yes, the knee jerk reaction is that it doesn’t look nice, but that’s what engineers and architects are for.

And this is exactly what I mean by changing the brand to suit the application. It just isn’t possible with the old logo, but in this form it is, and it doesn’t change the overall theme of the brand, just the form. This is the point I am making. And it’s not the designers will that is being placated, it’s the requirement of the application that is being fulfilled.

Again, it may not be your favourite logo, but if the university is trying to move to a more marketing based approach, this solution is light years better than the current solution. Even if it’s not the best branding exercise ever conceived. Which I think we can all agree, is a bit far reaching an expectation.

And I’m sure we learned from the same types of people the matters of design and branding. I’m sure your mentors will also agree that to think you can start with by giving consideration only to making a nice logo would result in failure somewhere down the line. I’m sure we can all rightly assume that there were probably far nicer logo’s generated in the early rounds of this exercise that were rejected because they were not as extensible as the final design.

I also think we can agree that at some point you have to give compromises in leu of the bigger picture.

“A solid logo design is essential to the branding…”
While mostly true, it’s simply not 100% the case. In a whole branding exercise, every touch point is considered a logo. Every iteration and application ‘grows the brand’ the Logo is another jumping point of this brand but it is not responsible for building this experience. The every day interaction with and daily minutae with the brand has for more weight than the logo alone. It is more important that the logo be a support to this brand idea than the dictator of it. In this sense branding has little to do with a logo, and much more to do with daily positive user experiences with the brand itself. Experiences that are easy recognized as UofW experiences, and this bold combination of bright lines is very noticeable and not soon to be forgotten. And in time all that peripheral UofW recognition of bright coloured lines will be come as ubiquitous as apple pie in america.

But go ahead, keep thinking that a strong logo is all you need to start with. While your at it why don’t you hop into your horseless carriage and drop by the post office, I heard there’s a telegram there for you -(STOP)-

On Jul.31.2009 at 10:47 AM

Jeff’s comment is:

With almost 30 years in the branding business, I have seen good and bad marks come and go. The new University of Waterloo logo (as shown above) represents very poor design in my opinion. Some may like the way in which it thumbs it’s nose at convention, but the real loser would be the university. Within a year or so, they would be looking to replace that “W” with something that looks more suitable (and less embarrassing).

Ryan makes an interesting point - though he sadly descended into the rude and ridiculous for his final paragraph. (Emma, you are quite entitled to disagree with Ryan or anyone else for that matter).

However interesting Ryan’s point may be, I have not seen any approach work over time without some respect for conventional design ideas. His “example” beginning with… “Say the university want’s to make a new building and base it on the brand” just lost me. I doubt that even an effective logo is going to provide the best inspiration to an architect for a new university building. On the other hand, logos inspired by buildings or structures are quite common.

The University of Waterloo are right to look at new branding as a way to get their message across. However, they need to be cautious in choosing a designer who will respect their tradition and values while giving them a fresh new look. I am in the business long enough to have seen many new trends arrive to great fanfare and then die just as quickly. I am all for change, where change is an improvement.

On Aug.01.2009 at 12:33 PM

Nathaniel’s comment is:

My first thought would be why not update the logo with a new and beautiful crest?

On Aug.05.2009 at 11:25 AM

David B’s comment is:

I, for one, think the new logo is a vast improvement over that old, typographic mess. It’s easy to defend the need to change/update the logo, though I don’t see what is so “horrible” about the new one. Personally, I like it. I like it in a way where, if I’m looking at it, I’m certainly not thinking of donning my wizard cap or worrying about whether or not I have enough ink for my quill.

The new logo is bold, “energetic” as someone said, full of a sense of movement. If it was just another kerned-out, all-caps Trajan Pro replicant, no one would be paying any attention.

On Aug.07.2009 at 11:06 PM

TW’s comment is:

I think the purpose of a logo has to be taken into account. The new logo may be acceptable for a museum of modern art or perhaps a design company (though both could do much better than use that logo). For the University of Waterloo? It would look ridiculous.

On Aug.08.2009 at 07:44 AM

Nitric Acid’s comment is:

I find it horrific that anyone would prefer such an idiotic logo to an actual coat of arms. A coat of arms carries the dignity that is proper to an institution such as a university or city. Sure, they all look the same- to idiots and illiterates, at least. But a university is supposed to be for educated people.

On Aug.17.2009 at 04:50 PM

mertz’s comment is:

although this is better than the old uwaterloo logo/crest/arms or w/e that thing was, this one is making me laugh. it’s an interesting path for the school to go, but is it really definitive of the school? i mean i look at this and i think more art&technology but really just nothing concrete and something that gives me no idea of what the school is…the art&tech bit was a long long long stretch, and me trying to be nice. atleast people are discussing it though.

On Aug.19.2009 at 01:51 PM

Nate’s comment is:

UPDATE:

The university has just issued this statement stating that they will drop this brand design in favor of a new design.

“We understand that the bold coloured lines within the W symbol do not resonate with enough of our stakeholders at this point in our process. We believe we should reconsider the symbol and engage our stakeholders in the process more broadly, since they have made it clear they are keenly interested in how we market this institution.

In the coming weeks we will seek online feedback from stakeholders interested in participating in our identity project. We will outline our task, the criteria for consideration and some options to consider. The feedback generated and ongoing face-to-face discussions across campus, will guide our final decision making.”

http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/

On Aug.28.2009 at 03:34 PM

RW’s comment is:

Hey, I love the daring difference they made for the new logo. But, they really have to define what those lines mean.
U know what people would think seeing this logo? This university must love nightlife n parties! u know what I mean.

On Aug.29.2009 at 04:14 AM

Morgan Smail’s comment is:

Looks very much so like a generic copy of what Hesse Design did for Kieler Woche in 2006…

http://www.artgraphics.ru/images/identity/best2008/winners/C6_290_1.jpg

though Hesse’s solution seems far more purposeful and developed…
http://www.hesse-design.de/en/start/portfolio/graphic/kieler-woche/2.html

On Aug.29.2009 at 12:34 PM

sameer’s comment is:

Here’s the difference between the old and new logo.

91% of the student body didn’t hate the old logo.

How about making a logo that is both modern and that people will like? How about that eh? Novel idea, no?

On Aug.30.2009 at 05:26 PM

Toby’s comment is:

@ Iulian: “that’s how democracy rolls”

Egregious errors made by “democratic” “leaders” should be seen for what they are, and not necessarily tolerated. One’s first right is to protest.

On Sep.01.2009 at 08:23 AM

Toby’s comment is:

@ Ryan
“Say the university want’s to make a new building and base it on the brand”

Does that even make sense?

I’m with DaveyJJ on this one. The university did well to admit the criticism of both its lay constituencies and experts, and rethink.

On Sep.01.2009 at 11:24 AM

Jen’s comment is:

The problem with the new logo is that it is a fad logo. It is not classic and will lose it’s interest very quickly. A logo should be timeless or easy to adjust to accomodate the times. This logo is actually quite bland minus the colours. There is not much you can do with it once the lasers don’t make sense anymore (ie when fibre optics are replaced by the next new technology) There are much better ways to create an interesting logo that can still be modern and timeless. It is not a bad graphic for banners and marketing but it is not a good logo.

On Sep.07.2009 at 11:27 AM

Annie’s comment is:

I understand the desire to differentiate UW from other universities and be innovative, but perhaps less effort and money should be spent on developing logos, and more on equipment and students. Innovation comes from encouraging creativity and providing opportunities to foster new ideas, not from a picture on a brochure.

With that being said, the first attempt at a new logo was quite miserable. The newer submission is more pleasant, but the student and alumni body should have been more involved right from the beginning. Unofficial polls like the one below are showing that the newer logo is being better received than the “laserbeam” logo:

http://www.dipoll.com/index.php?poll_id=157
(this site is still open to votes regarding the logos)

On Sep.18.2009 at 09:49 PM

Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:

Even though this is a very split board, on the reasons why, or even if the new logo is good, bad, doing it’s job, off the mark it seems to have everyone talking which is worth a point. I went from seeing a logo and thinking “ehh, it’s a school logo” to being sparked with interest. Granted I’m not a big fan of the logo, I’ll give it to a school that is focused on progressive science for taking a logo that was obviously “old school” and doing anything with it at all.

On Nov.11.2009 at 02:17 PM

Robert S.’s comment is:

As a student at the University of Waterloo, I am not opposed to the rebranding so much as the totalitarian approach that the administration is taking to implement it. Students, alumni and professors are all stakeholders in the university and should have been consulted. The Federation of Students often holds referendums to decide on things like the construction of new student facilities. Instead of contracting the job out to a graphic design company, why not look to the inside for talent and have student entries considered with a final vote put out to the stakeholders in the same way. This way the logo would have truely expressed the culture of the school.

On Dec.09.2009 at 12:43 AM

Ray Chan’s comment is:

Way too much time has been spent on doing something that inevitably be of little consequence to the University. Rebranding an already respected university with little need to reinvent itself shows all the committees, research, consultations or any democratic process have lead them nowhere. The old design isn’t perfect but surely a more sensible option would be to simply give it a niptuck.

Ps. If you really want to see a disaster, go look at the Aston University of Birmingham, UK. Sometimes tradtion is a good thing.

On Jan.05.2010 at 05:01 PM

JC’s comment is:

Sorry Robert S, as much as you dislike the approach, they are doing it the right way. (whether you agree with the look the design studio came up with or not)

Nothing good ever comes from a committee. Bold approaches always provoke criticism, but if you wait until everyone loves it then no one will.

And then when a new brand is created you must force it on everyone, otherwise there is no point in doing it. And I wouldnt trust my business to a bunch of amateur design students either.

I personally would have gone another way, but that doesnt mean I disagree with the way it was done

On Apr.13.2010 at 10:23 AM

silagra’s comment is:

I find it horrific that anyone would prefer such an idiotic logo to an actual coat of arms. A coat of arms carries the dignity that is proper to an institution such as a university or city. Sure, they all look the same- to idiots and illiterates, at least. But a university is supposed to be for educated people.

On Jun.10.2010 at 03:40 PM