Here it is, from just last week:
“We walked away from the logo itself in part because we knew that our broader communications strategy and the other elements of the visual identity system could advance without it. Being able to move on with other elements of our work and the rest of the visual system is actually a tribute to the symbol’s success and our overall strategy.”
To review, this was the reaction at the time.
Anyway, since the new logo got ashcanned, its proponents have gone on the road to sing its praises. Why? I don’t know. How does this sort of thing benefit UC?
Now, here’s the reaction from the designerly community. First from CCullen:
I don’t buy the false narrative. This was a brand exercise that overreached and was as a result a complete failure. The notion that this design can be celebrated when not embraced has no understanding of the goal of branding in the university ecosphere–engagement is the sine qua non of a university brand, and in this case a university system brand. This is an Oscar nomination for a film that has never been released. The video was perfectly prescriptive–the traditional seal was doomed, and the rest is back tracking and hindsight. When it lives, celebrate it, until then just know it was an epic failure and a waste of scarce public funds.
I agree with CCullen. I attended the UC affinity session at the AIGA conference in Minneapolis and it was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I have had in the design world. What should have been a presentation about why the logo works for what their goals were turned into an hour long passive-aggressive temper tantrum that only fueled the fire of controversy. I will admit that the identity system as a whole is certainly successful. The promotional materials and such that went along with it were beautiful but I simply cannot get past the ridiculous logo.
Have the designer(s) compared that blue and yellow swirling “c” to the famous Nike Swoosh? Yes she did/they have. But I’m sorry, the new-school 2011-2012 UC logo was NOT a success.