This update gives visuals to explain great brand design. Unfortunately change.org does not allow images in petition updates. To read this update in it's best format with the visuals go here: https://www.scottlawrence.london/blog/against-loughborough-bad-brand-design/ --- On Friday the Marketing & Comms. department made a quiet response to this petition with a few 'Q&As' on the new identity. So in this update we’ll walkthrough their response and give comprehensive examples of great brand design and how that compares with the unveiled logo element of the 2015 Loughborough University rebrand. For balance I’ve included a university rebrand that was great but revoked because of a change.org petition. You can see this in the first visual. Statement #1 “The old logo was launched in 1996. Its introduction at the time was controversial because it replaced the historic 1909 coat of arms.” Unfortunately we’ve been misinterpreted as a petition against change. We are not against change. This is a petition against bad brand design. As a marketer and digital designer, I and many of the signees understand the importance of change and how resistance can become one of the biggest barriers to progress and innovation. The 1996 was an important step in affirming the institution as a respected university as it chose to drop the words “of Technology”, to be inclusive of the many disciplines of study and research. One of the hardest battles 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. Here are some examples of good and bad brand development (focusing on the logo element): Good - https://www.scottlawrence.london/blog/against-loughborough-bad-brand-design/good-rebrands.png Bad - https://www.scottlawrence.london/blog/against-loughborough-bad-brand-design/bad-rebrands.png So what is the difference between good and bad? The 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 etc.). A rebrand can allow for change of direction in brand positioning but does not negatively effect the perception of the brand’s core values. Statement #2 “It doesn’t work very well online and can’t be customised. It is best suited for print publications and was launched at a time when the world was only just starting to go digital. Over the years, people have tried to customise the logo, but because of the lack of flexibility this produces an almost random series of images.” This problem is an exaggeration and a bad excuse for a poorly executed rebrand. The second sentence is just confusing. The ability to use a brand across a versatile range of media and touchpoints is important, but can be achieved with any well designed and distinct mark. Here are some examples: https://www.scottlawrence.london/blog/against-loughborough-bad-brand-design/distinct-logo-marks.png The pink octagon is completely generic. In an attempt to create "distinctiveness" the letters 'LU' have been cut out. Use of letters might be acceptable if people referred to Loughborough University as the acronym LU, but nobody ever has. If you type 'LU' into Google you get biscuits followed by Latvia University. Brand disaster. The rounded points of the octagon do not display well when the logo is rendered small (e.g in a browser URL bar) because of limited real-estate on a screen (pixels). As a result the points become sharper to the eye or may be interpreted as a circle. In fairness, many marks suffer at this extremity but it does question the big emphasis made on flexibility for digital channels. Many of the above marks are distinct through visual play: Starbucks - character, heritage of identity Microsoft - window panes (Windows is main product) Spotify - broadcasting waves Twitter - birds "tweet" Apple - literal, “bite” makes distinct 1996 shield - 'L' cut out of shield in the shape of 'U'. shield & crests common cue for academia brands They also create meaning through their distinct visual styles. The University of California rebrand used similar visual play as the 1996 Loughborough mark. The blue shape creates a shield (and book?) that spells the letter U, with a yellow C mark inside. The new LU mark appears to have no visual play. The "flexibility" that Loughborough emphasises can be achieved by ensuring the mark abides the following graphic rules: - Distinct - Simple 2D shapes - Use of flat colours (brand specific) - W x H ratio close to 1:1 Based on these rules the university’s new ‘LU’ mark has no quantifiable benefit over the 1996 shield. If they are talking about the overall visual identity (not just the logo), they need some creative people to provide ways to use the logo in exciting ways. This renders the versatility/flexibility argument false. Statement #3 "[The new logo is] simple and clear." Important but the university logo goes beyond simple...it is simplistic. The visuals have no meaning and they do not convey positive meaning either. Statement #4 "It’s also very flexible [queue strange youtube video]" The video could be made with the 1996 mark. The video shows the "flexibility" of any simple shape. Any of the distinct marks in the previous visual could have been used in that video. The video justifies and explains nothing. Statement #5 “The 1909 coat of arms will be [on your degree certificate]” This petition began on Thursday and specifically highlighted the problem that the new LU mark does not give any signal of “trusted academic institution”. We specifically addressed this in the context of the professional network LinkedIn. On Friday, the LU mark was replaced on LinkedIn with the 1909 crest. It is common for academic institutions (especially in America) to have a university logo, a crest and a sporting emblem. Unfortunately Loughborough University’s retraction of the LU mark on LinkedIn confirms they understand that it does not convey the meaning of a professional academic organisation. The statement regarding the degree certificate certifies the same claim. As the time of this update, the LU mark remains the new logo for the university. The university logo and crest are at odds with each other. The visual identity is torn in meaning. The university understands our fears, and admins the LU mark is inadequate, yet continue to use it as the foundation of the brand. How does this work long-term? For every professional publication will the same argument be made, and the logo rendered secondary to the crest? The university is correct in stating the crest if inadequate as a primary mark because of its complex nature. It does not follow the rules laid out earlier for strong distinct marks. However it has now been used on LinkedIn (a digital channel) when their words clearly state “elements in the coat simply don’t work well with many digital applications”. The university’s explanation here is correct, but their actions on Friday are at odds with their words. Statement #6 "The proposed change has to be delivered within the existing budgetary envelope. No additional funding has been made available for the project." For some organisations their brand is the most valuable asset. If there is no investment then a rebrand process should not begin. An alternative resource could be explored; such as peoples’ willingness to be generous. 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. Statement #7 "The 1996 logo polls very badly when placed in front of prospective students and stakeholders." Please look at the brand development process properly. Research could justify a rebrand, but it doesn not justify the result. If the problem is as big as the statement implies, the university could lose significant income. If true, the university would be willing to devote resources. Statements 6 and 7 appear to be at odds. Changing the logo does not mean the marketing dilemma is solved. The content of the research completely affects if the “very bad” reaction of stakeholders is relevant. If all these technicalities of brand design fail to convince, what about the most obvious point? It looks terrible and there is no creative ingenuity.