I loved that phrase you used - 'Revolution not Evolution'.

No it was the opposite: 'Evolution not Revolution'.

Well you know, whatever. Because that is me. I evolve, but I don't... revolve. Or vice-versa.

As soon as they get a new vice-chancellor, the university will undergo another rebranding, spending millions of dollars, to end up with (almost) exactly what they had before the last rebranding. Or is that just Surrey.

What benefit do they think it will have?

How will they measure said benefit to show whether it was worthwhile or not?

Rebranding costs an absolute *fortune*: Everything must be redesigned and reprinted - banners, headed paper, IDs, signs, booklets, adverts, etc.

And that's on top of the cost of the original consultants, designers and the obligatory 'launch party'.

At a low-end cost estimate, this probably costs more than CAD$100,000, possibly as high as half-a-million.

So, will it somehow gain that much business? Will it introduce cost savings?

The answer to the former is Probably Not, and the latter is Definitely Not.

So what's it for?

I happen to like the example banner shown, but I have definitely seen it elsewhere so it may cause trademark infringement lawsuits on top of the normal costs.

As it happens, I am wearing such a shirt this morning.

The embarrassing part is, my Mum bought it for me because she thought I'd like it. Thanks, Mum.

But that's not all. My wife bought my a Che Guevara keyring because she thought I'd like it. It holds my Tesco Clubcard key fob. The irony is not lost on me. XD

The uni used to have a heraldic shield. Heraldry immediately associates with tradition and knowledge based upon historical experience. Heraldry also associates with reliability and respectability. The heraldic shield sends a clear message that people (students) going there are doing something good and will come back with knowledge and skills they can use for the rest of their lives.

The uni now has . . . a w-shaped black figure with colored lines crisscrossing it. The only thing that can possibly be associated with that are Sunday school drawings. Or Web 2.0 - which is like Sunday school drawings only worse.

Although I cannot deny that there is a progression, I highly doubt that it is a positive one. I am also quite incensed at the thought of all the money that was wasted on a project made by a 7-year-old. Rebranding think tanks should be shipped out to the Great Pacific Garbage Dump and sunk.

Well, the new font is OK, I'll give it that. The coloured lines, though? Not sure about them, screams somewhere between 'sleazy but pretentious nightclub' and 'overpriced housing development' to my mind...

Exactly the same thing happened at the UK's University of East Anglia. They launched an expensive rebranding campaign last summer (during a recession - great idea guys), in which the logo morphed from the tried and tested 60s one, to a new "corporate identity" which was designed to appeal to international students who to UEA - as with most UK universities - are walking blank checques...

OLD LOGO

http://www.jpaget.nhs.uk/documents/paeds/images/.resized_300x254_UEA%20logo.GIF

NEW £40,000 LOGO

http://knowledge-controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/i/logo-uea.png

Most uni logos are filled with meaning and history, even when they redesign them they retain what was key to the previous logo (typically a crest).

This just seems like a paintshop job.

The rebranding my local library had a few months back, loads of free bookmarks with a nice multicoloured crap on a black background - costs thousands, but the only people who saw them were the ones going in to the library in the first place....

I think that's the no-longer needed Woolworth's 'W' with a spray job.

I think the old one could do with freshening up.

But the new one looks too abstract and reminds me of a superficial new-university logo seen here. e.g. www.solent.ac.uk

By the way I'm not a snob. I went to a new-university (ex-Polytechnic.)

Maybe it needs getting used to.

Nearby Canadian-based Nortel used to take a lot of interns from there.

And wasn't Nortel once a pioneer in fibre optics, including Dense Wavelength Multiplexing (DWDM) sending multiple wavelengths/colours down one fibre to increase bandwidth? So perhaps the new logo refers to this fact with the lines?

Or represents the many directions and opportunities to be had?

Shame to hear about their demise, as I am an ex-employee...

Re UEA,

See what you mean: the old one was a bit tired, though functional, but with the new one you can't be sure that the A IS an A.

The university also has a crest with the motto "do different" rendered, as it is pronounced in the area, "du diff'rent".

I wonder if its still known as the "University of Easy Access"

Dew you keep a troshin....

I've seen some of the adverts U of Waterloo has put on the TV. They're pretty funny. Maybe no different from the average Uni adverts, but they seemed hopelessly out of touch. Saying the university was for leaders with generic rock musak in the background. University is not for the eltie anymore, pretty much everyone here gives it a go, it's damn near impossible not to be accepted. It only make sense it's going to at least seem dumber.

The old one does look a bit dull. That was due to the fact that last year (2008) they faded the yellow and made the font simpler. The original logo from 2007 and back had a much nicer font and the crest was actually much brighter. Apparently most people didn't notice that they put the logo in the wash last year with too much bleach, but the new one they now seem to be proposing is just silly.

The facebook group has pictures of both the old and new logos and the very old (aka 2007) version that everyone seems to prefer (we would actually like the 2008 change to be dropped too).

The Uni tries to prepare its students for real life in the real world. Expect exciting scientific breakthroughs, honest work, ...? Nah, that's not it, go back to the university for some update!

Back in the early 1990s, I worked at Queen Mary and Westfield College, part of the University of London. This was just after the 1989 merger of Queen Mary College with Westfield College, and the old QMC coat of arms logo had been replaced with a new "modern" design based on the letters "QMW". It was fondly known as "Jaws" because the juxtaposition of the M and the W looked like a mouthful of teeth.

Then in 1995, the college merged with Barts and the London Hospital, and huge amounts of money were spent by the marketing wonks on a new logo, a motto and a coat of arms. We used to get frequent emails from the college Principal about his meetings with Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of the College of Arms. The Corporate Affairs office issued detailed rules about how, when and where the new logo was to be used, down to the precise Pantone colour in which it was to be printed.

In 2000, there was yet another re-branding. The word "College" was dropped from the name, supposedly because of concerns that A-level students might mistake it for a sixth-form college. It's now known as "Queen Mary, University of London", and yet more money was spent changing the logo. Other colleges of the University of London followed suit, notably "Goldsmiths, University of London" and "Royal Holloway, University of London".

By contrast, the larger colleges -- Kings, Imperial and UCL (my alma mater) -- didn't feel the need to treat potential students as idiots. They remain Kings College, Imperial College and University College. Besides, "University, University of London" just sounds stupid.