More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jessica Corry

Jessica Corry

GET UPDATES FROM Jessica Corry
 

CU's New Logo a Big No No

Posted: 01/30/11 02:31 PM ET

Wow. $780,000. That's a lot of money. Especially for a basic change to a university logo. It's downright offensive as college students foot the bill for substantial tuition increases.

As the University of Colorado tells it, it needed the new logo in a bad way. Its four campuses had a "hodgepodge of logos," leaving the institution at a branding disadvantage that led to a marketplace confusion.

"It's important for the University of Colorado to be consistent and coordinated with its messages and images," CU spokesman McConnellogue told the Boulder Daily Camera. "In a world where people are bombarded by images and messages, we can't afford to be fragmented and disconnected in how we present ourselves."

As a graduate of CU's Boulder campus, an active supporter of CU's various athletic and artistic efforts, and an appointee to a CU diversity commission, I never really saw the problem.

But even if we accept McConnellogue's explanation as gospel, there are many questions that remain. Why, for instance did the "rebranding" effort take two years? Why did the university hire an international company to design the logo when it could have utilized enterprising students from any one of the university's business, communications or design departments to get the job done?

McConnellogue maintains that the delay is the result in multiple changes in university leadership and defends the cost, saying funds came from interest earned on a university fund managed through the president's office, and that no tuition, donor or state funds were used to pay for the project.

Maybe he misses the larger point. Over the last several years, CU has sent its taxpayer-funded lobbyists to the state Capitol to plead for more state money. It has endorsed and supported significant back-to-back-to-back tuition and cost increases for students at all of its campuses.

If CU is so broke it needs to balance its books on the backs of students, it shouldn't be lavishly spending on something as silly as a logo.

On the day after CU publicly released the new logo, I posted the news on my Facebook page. The response was swift and nearly universal: this was the wrong thing for CU to do. There was even a sense of disbelief and betrayal amongst friends who, like me, bleed the school colors of gold and black.

The naysayers included a close friend who, as a CU student, actively supported efforts to increase alumni involvement. One of my favorite CU political science professors noted that the funds could have paid for seven tenure-track faculty positions for an entire year "or if you want to translate to undergraduate courses, it would pay for adjuncts to teach approximately 120 courses (assuming semester pay of between $5,500 and $6000)." Others offered to design the logo for as little as $500.

When asked how faculty might react, the Camera reported that "Boulder Faculty Assembly chairman Joseph Rosse, a business professor, expects faculty members' reactions will be fairly ambivalent. Since the logos haven't changed much, Rosse said, it won't have a huge impact on faculty members aside from switching out letterheads and business cards."

I had to read that twice. The logos "haven't changed that much." For $780,000. The Boulder Weekly summed up its disappointment as follows:

Now it's nine months [after CU's own self-imposed deadline to get the job done], and CU has finally released this long-awaited logo. We were really expecting something impressive, considering how long it took and how much money was spent. Maybe a new, intricate, interlocking CU in 3-D, embossed in real gold?

Um, no. The new logo looks pretty much like the old one. And the groundbreaking change in university nomenclature? Calling CU-Boulder the "University of Colorado Boulder." Yes, that's right, no hyphen, no "at," no comma. You would have to pay even more if you actually wanted to hire people who know how to use the English language, apparently.

CU, like most public institutions across the nation, argues that universities become beacons for local job creation. But not here. CU used Landor, an "international design and marketing firm based in California" to get the job done. McConnellogue remains committed to the idea that the investment will pay off. "We not only expect to recoup the cost of the project, but we expect to have a substantial return on our investment beyond that initial money we paid," he added.

But how exactly do we quantify this and will any such analysis include the lost benefits that could have been realized had CU spent the funds on a more worthwhile cause?

The buck should stop--or make that all 780,000 of them--should stop with CU's elected Board of Regents. Not a single one voted no, with only Regent Joe Neguse, a Boulder Democrat, abstaining from taking a position.

CU has played a role in many of my life's most lasting memories. I enjoyed football Saturdays as a kid, spent four of the most incredible years of my life in Boulder, and bought my children CU t-shirts before they were even born. The logo looked fine to me.

Upon hearing of this wasteful spending, however, I will have to think twice before sending my kids there. Not because I don't love CU, but rather because I can't trust its leaders to spend the funds it already receives responsibly.

Jessica P. Corry is a Denver attorney and writer. She serves as Special Counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, a policy analyst with the Independence Institute, and is currently completing a book titled "Victim Nation" under the Phillips Foundation's Robert Novak Fellowship.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Democommon Sense
03:32 PM on 02/03/2011
Is this cost broken down anywhere? Was the 780k just for design and marketing consultants. Was this actually the cost to rebrand the schools, replace out of date items on hand (shirts,mugs, etc), redo the posted logos(signs, banners, etc). So I am not yet convinced to cry foul without knowing the breakdown of those costs. We could take an expense column from any large organization public or private and pass out without a breakdown.
04:48 PM on 02/02/2011
I'm all over this sadly small set of posts about this, but it makes me really annoyed that people are so unwilling to conform to the national standard of marketing a university. CU is clearly so far from the standard that they announced a 780K LOGO as if it is even humanly possible to pay that much for a box w/silver. Are they talking about the costs to get new-logo signage/building titles/business cards/letter head/webdesign/merchandise/uniforms etc. etc. etc. for all 30 or however many institutions? Bc that sounds sort of reasonable. I would like some details, and all the parents/former students/people unaffiliated pooh-poohing costs that *real* businesses entertain all the time clearly DO NOT get the point. CU is a great school (I currently attend); it's gorgeous, and has AMAZING sciences and plenty of other great departments. It should have the out of state acceptance percentages of UNC Chapel Hill, and it DOESN'T. It's a business failure that it does not, and it's in everyone who ever cared about CU or attended's interest for it to improve.

When I say improve I mean: more students apply, more students attend, more money comes in. PERIOD. 780K is a drip in the barrel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cydRN
12:43 PM on 02/02/2011
As a CU alumni, this is just another reason that I hang up the phone when they call and ask for contributions. The history of ridiculous spending, charging students for every tile they walk upon, and the inflated budget of the football team, all combine to make me see my alma mater with a jaundiced eye.
05:32 PM on 02/01/2011
I might agree with you but a lot of what you say reads hyperbolic:
"...it shouldn't be lavishly spending on something as silly as a logo."
"I posted the news on my Facebook page. The response was swift and nearly universal..."

Maybe branding is priceless, look at what it's done for McDonald's and Coca-Cola! (I'm being a little facetious.)
04:30 PM on 01/31/2011
They don't have an arts or marketing department? It would have been a good project for students.
03:17 PM on 01/31/2011
more branding may be needed after all. you're bleeding black and gold, while the university's official colors and silver and gold ;)
07:59 PM on 01/30/2011
This notion that branding is tied to a CU logo that didn't change - the shading in the logo did - is absurd. It is just one more time that the school that screams "we are poor" decides to spend money on things that are not necessary during difficult budget times. Rather than calculate how many faculty lines could have been bought, maybe with the increased tuition costs students have seen, that someone could have calculated what kind of scholarship money could have been awarded over a four year period to deserving students. I think the $800,000 could have gone a long way to help students reduce their debt.
10:01 PM on 01/30/2011
800K would not go very far for student debt--it could help probably...5 students w/out of state debt, 15 for in-state? Of course that would be wonderful for those few students, but there is a wider benefit to CU improving its national marketability.

CU is a big school--they need a brand and in spite the protests of former students who are upset that the golden yellow has been changed to a color closer to gold!
05:35 PM on 01/30/2011
Branding costs money. CU needs help, and a better brand improves a company's chances of marketing themselves to a wider audience. Even though they didn't use tuition to pay for the project if you think about it, the cost would be the same amount as tuition for less than 10 out of state students.

PR is almost always worth the money--and it's time CU got with it and grew out of the provincial hodge-podge. If you look at the number of logos that are being retired, this is clearly a project that was overdue.

http://www.dailycamera.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=3537759
07:55 PM on 01/30/2011
Yes, branding costs money - but not that much. I know many marketing agencies (including mine) that could have accomplished the same thing in a week at a fraction of the price.

"Buffaloed in Boulder: University of Colorado’s New $780,000 Logo"
http://atomictango.com/2011/01/22/university-of-colorado-logo/
09:53 PM on 01/30/2011
From the local message board from last week, it sounds like the campaign did much more than come up w/a gray box to enclose the letters. Everyone is agog and outraged by the 780K, but if that is how much the vendor charged for a $500 job they would not be in business.