Many signees of this petition are students and graduates of Richmond, The American International University in London, including those that are now professionals in marketing and design, and/or work within the creative industries. We understand that resistance and controversy often surround brand redesigns and are part of any major rebranding effort. We likewise understand that this process was started over a year ago by a previous University President, and that while not relating to the logo, a small number of focus groups were conducted as part of a wider re-evaluation of the University’s marketing which may, or may not, have influenced the decision to adopt the new logo. It is only recently, that without notice, the wider stakeholder community has become aware of the change after its implementation by the present Senior Management team. 

To be clear, this is not a petition against change in principle or innovation for the betterment of the University community, it is a petition against bad brand design and implementation of major change without transparency and a widespread public consultation with stakeholders. An approach that demonstrates the wider lack of understanding by successive University Senior Management teams towards the role, and rights of stakeholders in decision making. This latest example stands to create serious reputational harm to those who have an inescapable and lifelong association to the Richmond brand.

Richmond, The American International University in London will be celebrating its 50th anniversary in less than two years, having educated 16,000+ students from over 100 countries, having been graced by prominent alumni and faculty, and having grown from a small American study abroad programme adjacent to London's Richmond Park to an institution that truly reflects “Unity in Diversity”.

The stag crest shield emblem has become iconic in attaching these ideas of prestige, heritage, internationalism, and respect. The new brand identity instantaneously loses all of these values, and disregards the University’s diverse community by focusing only on the US and UK accreditation aspect of Richmond’s identity.

From a visual perspective, the new logo lacks correct alignment of the flags featured, the font spacing and sizing appears off when examined online and the inclusion of four stars on the US flag is culturally insensitive to China, the market Richmond, The American International University in London has turned to for survival, as the number four is considered unlucky in Chinese culture due to it being homophonous to the word "death" (死 pinyin: sǐ; Cantonese Yale: séi).

This change, following a year of bad press, wider actions to the detriment of Richmond’s history, and the uncertain future of the University's Richmond Hill and Kensington campus leases significantly devalues the brand for stakeholders, including all students and alumni, whom have on average invested £36,000-£140,000 in their Richmond degree. Substantial sums in the hope of having a qualification to be proud of.

A great example of this is the simple display of Richmond, The American International University in London on a personal LinkedIn profile. The new flag only logo on digital platforms completely devalues all sense of quality as a trusted academic institution, confounded by the Marketing Departments choice to upload it on Facebook and Twitter in a below satisfactory pixel resolution.

We know that one of the hardest battles as a marketer can be convincing stakeholders that change is good. This is seen clearly and vividly in brand development and redesign. Change can be great in realigning your values, providing clarity, and building a more comprehensive brand. But when done badly, it creates brand damage that does more harm than good, and risks both the failure of its intended purpose, and alienation of stakeholders the organisation relies on.

So, what is the difference between good and bad? Good brand developments have a unique and distinct mark that is visually intriguing. The mark can often be used separate from the text and visuals cue meaning (shape, colour. industry association etc.) and recognition. A rebrand can allow for change of direction in brand positioning but does not negatively affect the perception of the brand’s core values, and, or history. A good rebrand if done for the purposes of attracting a desired audience, as the Richmond, The American International University in London rebrand has been claimed to do, should also at least stand out from other brand when looked at – which this design does not. 

In regard to the second point of this letter, only a small handful of alumni, faculty and current students were invited to attend the focus groups mentioned in the opening, which is less than 1% of the wider population, showing the lack of communication and general disconnection that the University currently has with its students, faculty and alumni. Even then these focus groups were not dedicated to reviewing drafts of any new logo - instead examining a name change for the University to reflect it's geographic growth across London (a process that was handled far more appropriately). The duel-flag logo now adopted was also voted down by the previous Board of Trustees per speaking with former members, and yet it has now been adopted by the present Senior Management team without explanation, or scrutiny - outside of possible consultation with a very small number of present trustees who do not feature representatives from current students, staff, faculty and alumni.  

No attempts were made by the Marketing Department to solicit feedback on the branding change via the newly established Alumni Engagement Committee, no surveys were sent as was done for the name change proposal last year, and no alternative options were presented publicly at the time of writing this petition. Those signing this petition do not feel as though the consultations to date were good enough. We have not been given a proper chance to voice our views. And we are the ones that stand to suffer.

We therefore request that you revoke the 2020 Richmond, The American International University in London rebrand, subject to a re-evaluation by the Marketing Department. One that explores either the re-adoption of the previous stag crest logo and wordmark, the current duel-flag logo and wordmark, a hybrid, or an alternative design that, while pushing ahead to an exciting future for the University (and which can be adapted for different mediums as required), maintains the prestige, heritage, internationalism, and respect of the institution to date.

This re-evaluation should be transparent, and seek quantitative, and qualitative data from a sample size in the thousands, better reflecting the desires of the 16,000+ alumni, 1,000+ current students, and 200+ faculty and staff,  along with any additional groups the Department judge worthy of inclusion (parents, partner institutions etc) with results published for scrutiny. 

While there will be questions of cost involved in any change to branding, having already consulted and paid outside agencies, money is not an excuse for bad solutions. Food on a tight budget remains edible, so it fulfils it’s basic purposes. The logo of this new visual identity does not. If there is no investment then a rebrand process should not have began in the first place.

As a University community made up of multiple stakeholder groups, we have spent nearly 50 years building one of the most formidable reputations as the only UK university to be able to award UK and US degrees, welcoming students from over 100 countries, producing industry leading alumni and promoting cultural exchange through learning.

This year especially, the world is watching following Richmond’s funding dispute with the Sir Cyril Taylor Charitable Foundation in January, the subsequent, and still unexplained nature of its partnership with the China Education Group, and the uncertain future of its current campus locations rented from AIFS Inc. It would be a travesty if we were to further tarnish it here. Lets have something we can all be proud of, something that better represents “University in Diversity”

We call on the Marketing Department and University Senior Management team to reach out and engage with those of us who have signed this via the Alumni Engagement Committee, Student Government and Faculty Senate in the full spirit of two-way communication. This petition will be taken to them in time to facilitate further response and actions in a constructive and professional manner.