[Mati1]

I just went on to the University of the Arts website and I must have refreshed the page 20 times thinking: "This can't be right. Where's the logo gone?"

It turns out UAL have decided to "refresh their image" by changing their logo, going on about "new identity, blah blah, inspiration, yadda yadda, expression of students creativity, cobblers, cobblers"

And what an utter piece of crap it is.

This is the old logo, with each star representing the relative position of the six of the universities' colleges within London. Each one is assigned a colour and if you click on it all the other stars turn monochrome and the name of the uni changes to the name of the college. very clever.



And here is the new logo.



In case you're wondering, yes that is it.

They spent £48,000 on THIS?! Are you people SICK? This isn't worth 48 pence! I would be ashamed to offer something like this for free!

It's worse than the 2012 olympic logo, and that takes some doing.

Bloody shameful. What a rip-off.

Discuss.

[soft]

yeah, that really is *******s

[lilibeth]

what harm is it doing you?

[soft]

Does it have to harm in order to be eligible for a moan?

[.ACS.]

It cost a lot since it's not just paying for the new logo, but also the new brand identity and any related posters, stationery, branding of documents, etc. - Image branding is an expensive business.

The old logo did look a bit 'young' or 'overly modern'. A lot of universities are trying to re-brand themselves as being 'traditional' or more academic, given the rise in fees. Southampton did the very same thing, and lost the old dolphin logo to make it seem less like a polytechnic. (Even though Southampton never was a polytechnic. It's pretty much always been in the Russell Group and received most of its income through research grants for the sciences and engineering. But with increasing fees, students want to go to universities which portray themselves in the 'right' light apparently, and so universities are changing to suit.)

[soft]

(Original post by .ACS.)
It cost a lot since it's not just paying for the new logo, but also the new brand identity and any related posters, stationery, branding of documents, etc. - Image branding is an expensive business.

The old logo did look a bit 'young' or 'overly modern'. A lot of universities are trying to re-brand themselves as being 'traditional' or more academic, given the rise in fees. Southampton did the very same thing, and lost the old dolphin logo to make it seem less like a polytechnic. (Even though Southampton never was a polytechnic. It's pretty much always been in the Russell Group and received most of its income through research grants for the sciences and engineering. But with increasing fees, students want to go to universities which portray themselves in the 'right' light apparently, and so universities are changing to suit.)

All very good points

[Mati1]

(Original post by .ACS.)
It cost a lot since it's not just paying for the new logo, but also the new brand identity and any related posters, stationery, branding of documents, etc. - Image branding is an expensive business.

The old logo did look a bit 'young' or 'overly modern'. A lot of universities are trying to re-brand themselves as being 'traditional' or more academic, given the rise in fees. Southampton did the very same thing, and lost the old dolphin logo to make it seem less like a polytechnic. (Even though Southampton never was a polytechnic. It's pretty much always been in the Russell Group and received most of its income through research grants for the sciences and engineering. But with increasing fees, students want to go to universities which portray themselves in the 'right' light apparently, and so universities are changing to suit.)

There is nothing wrong with appearing young or overly modern if you're an arts university. Sure, if you're a more academic uni a dolphin logo is rubbish really, but UAL doesn't do law or accountancy courses. When it comes to art you need to look vibrant and exciting and not have a logo less colourful than a prison.

[lonelykatana]

That's good value for money compared to what University of Salford forked out.

£170,000 for this:



I agree its a crap logo for an arts university. I don't actually think the price (or the salford price for that matter) is that bad, considering just how many things need to be changed, like the chap above said.