An article I wrote for Zoom-In.com about the visual identity redesign for the University of Minnesota.
The following is a general overview of a recent visual identity redesign undertaken by the College of Design at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. While the redesign is specific to that of the U of M, it’s important to note that it serves as a comprehensive and sweeping example of what can happen when perhaps the most important component of a branding campaign—the audience—is entirely ignored.
In a market that appears to be saturated with visual identity rebrands lately, it’s no surprise that an institution as prestigious and influential as the University of Minnesota would want to hop on the proverbial bandwagon. More specifically, the College of Design (the University’s smallest college), has come under severe scrutiny from the community—specifically the student body.
Back in the fall of 2006, the College of Design had just branded themselves for the first time. Their logo? A circle. At the time this seemed juvenile and irrationally conceived. However, over the course of following two years it began to grow on the community. Yes it was just a circle, but despite being designed with little branding consideration, it instilled a sense of infiniteness and curiosity that permeated throughout the college. And just as the students were growing accustomed to the visual identity, the college pulled the rug that continued to grow more and more comfortable out from underneath their nicely cushioned feet.
The redesign, while an appreciated idea at its conception, quickly became a process that would receive nothing but negative feedback from the students who were forced to sit idly by and watch as the College of Design staff members ran the visual identity into the ground. Despite multiple efforts by the students to become more involved in the process, the college continuously turned its back, suggesting that when more are involved, less will be accomplished. Even though this theory holds water in most instances, the College of Design held inconceivably firm to this belief and didn’t request student participation until several months later when the college asked for feedback on three logo iterations had been developed by the hired firm.
All three logos received overwhelming critical analysis—some constructive, some not so much. However, the bulk of the criticism was directed not at the actual visual identities themselves, but rather at the process by which they were conceived. In the end an overarching theme that developed through this critique was the lack of student involvement. Many of the comments left for the college and the designers pleaded for the college to hand over the project to the students, suggesting that they pay the firm what they owed them at that point and be done with it. Unfortunately for the students, the college was anything but receptive to these proposals.
Without the opportunity to provide initial input on the direction of the redesign, the students felt abandoned, not knowing where to go or what to do in order to increase their influence on the redesign process. Despite continuous efforts to become more involved, the students and the rest of the community didn’t hear anything back until the next fall when they returned to class.
The one thing the community noticed was that the college had not settled on one of the initially proposed brands, but deviated a bit and finalized an entirely different concept. The students found it refreshing that the college was smart enough not to settle on a design that they knew would not be well received. Unfortunately, the visual identity system the college did decide on was equally lost on the community.
The identity the college has adopted now is difficult to put into words. Ask any student and they’ll tell you it “has a bunch of lines, and it’s supposed to be the university ‘M’ just in pieces.” And the one thing they’ve all noticed is that there is no “logo,” but rather just a wordmark. This is not wholly the College of Design’s doing. In fact, it’s the result of a university-wide graphic standard implemented so that no one college would look particularly separate from the entire institution. And while many can understand the college’s attempt to have a branding system that is as “ambiguous and as difficult to describe as design itself,” most are still upset that the current system fails to address the needs of the college.
In their first meeting with the firm, the college strongly stated that their biggest problem is that they’re “hidden.” Unfortunately, working behind closed doors without any student involvement isn’t the only thing they’ve done to yield this result. The college has done nothing with the new visual identity to make themselves more visible. Despite shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for their new style guide, they have done nothing with it. The classrooms and buildings have undergone little to no transformation, and the only visual element pertaining to the new identity to be seen is a poster highlighting the college’s lecture series. The college attests that it has folders, and key chains, and pens and pencils, and banners, and signs, and brochures, all of which make use of the new visual identity. But to this day, not a single student has seen any of this collateral.
In the same meeting in which the college claimed they were “hidden,” they also mentioned who they thought were their best and worst students. Those who say they “want to be a part of this” are their best students. Their worst students? Those who sit idly by and ask “what do you want from me?” By the college’s own definition, their best students are now their worst, and this is entirely the college’s fault. By not allowing the students to be involved in the process, the final product does not connect with the intended audience and leaves them wondering “what do you want from us?”
The following is a general overview of a recent visual identity redesign undertaken by the College of Design at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. While the redesign is specific to that of the U of M, it’s important to note that it serves as a comprehensive and sweeping example of what can happen when perhaps the most important component of a branding campaign—the audience—is entirely ignored.
In a market that appears to be saturated with visual identity rebrands lately, it’s no surprise that an institution as prestigious and influential as the University of Minnesota would want to hop on the proverbial bandwagon. More specifically, the College of Design (the University’s smallest college), has come under severe scrutiny from the community—specifically the student body.
Back in the fall of 2006, the College of Design had just branded themselves for the first time. Their logo? A circle. At the time this seemed juvenile and irrationally conceived. However, over the course of following two years it began to grow on the community. Yes it was just a circle, but despite being designed with little branding consideration, it instilled a sense of infiniteness and curiosity that permeated throughout the college. And just as the students were growing accustomed to the visual identity, the college pulled the rug that continued to grow more and more comfortable out from underneath their nicely cushioned feet.
The redesign, while an appreciated idea at its conception, quickly became a process that would receive nothing but negative feedback from the students who were forced to sit idly by and watch as the College of Design staff members ran the visual identity into the ground. Despite multiple efforts by the students to become more involved in the process, the college continuously turned its back, suggesting that when more are involved, less will be accomplished. Even though this theory holds water in most instances, the College of Design held inconceivably firm to this belief and didn’t request student participation until several months later when the college asked for feedback on three logo iterations had been developed by the hired firm.
All three logos received overwhelming critical analysis—some constructive, some not so much. However, the bulk of the criticism was directed not at the actual visual identities themselves, but rather at the process by which they were conceived. In the end an overarching theme that developed through this critique was the lack of student involvement. Many of the comments left for the college and the designers pleaded for the college to hand over the project to the students, suggesting that they pay the firm what they owed them at that point and be done with it. Unfortunately for the students, the college was anything but receptive to these proposals.
Without the opportunity to provide initial input on the direction of the redesign, the students felt abandoned, not knowing where to go or what to do in order to increase their influence on the redesign process. Despite continuous efforts to become more involved, the students and the rest of the community didn’t hear anything back until the next fall when they returned to class.
The one thing the community noticed was that the college had not settled on one of the initially proposed brands, but deviated a bit and finalized an entirely different concept. The students found it refreshing that the college was smart enough not to settle on a design that they knew would not be well received. Unfortunately, the visual identity system the college did decide on was equally lost on the community.
The identity the college has adopted now is difficult to put into words. Ask any student and they’ll tell you it “has a bunch of lines, and it’s supposed to be the university ‘M’ just in pieces.” And the one thing they’ve all noticed is that there is no “logo,” but rather just a wordmark. This is not wholly the College of Design’s doing. In fact, it’s the result of a university-wide graphic standard implemented so that no one college would look particularly separate from the entire institution. And while many can understand the college’s attempt to have a branding system that is as “ambiguous and as difficult to describe as design itself,” most are still upset that the current system fails to address the needs of the college.
In their first meeting with the firm, the college strongly stated that their biggest problem is that they’re “hidden.” Unfortunately, working behind closed doors without any student involvement isn’t the only thing they’ve done to yield this result. The college has done nothing with the new visual identity to make themselves more visible. Despite shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for their new style guide, they have done nothing with it. The classrooms and buildings have undergone little to no transformation, and the only visual element pertaining to the new identity to be seen is a poster highlighting the college’s lecture series. The college attests that it has folders, and key chains, and pens and pencils, and banners, and signs, and brochures, all of which make use of the new visual identity. But to this day, not a single student has seen any of this collateral.
In the same meeting in which the college claimed they were “hidden,” they also mentioned who they thought were their best and worst students. Those who say they “want to be a part of this” are their best students. Their worst students? Those who sit idly by and ask “what do you want from me?” By the college’s own definition, their best students are now their worst, and this is entirely the college’s fault. By not allowing the students to be involved in the process, the final product does not connect with the intended audience and leaves them wondering “what do you want from us?”