Good idea, Bad Execution.Where's the Research?

Research is often about finding ways to maximize ROI. Today's tale addresses the opposite: research as a mechanism for preventing the wrong decision.

You may have heard the hubbub surrounding the new UC logo, designed to represent the multi-campus collective UC system.

When NPR, The Atlantic, and Christian Science Monitor all cover the release of a logo - that’s right, a logo - it’s either brilliant or a disaster. And if you're reading the media coverage, this seems the sort of train wreck that makes you wonder if the design team grew cannibas in their office and baked it into free team lunches.

Here is the logo. Take a moment to distill your impression of what it communicates, then read on.

Spoiler alert: The above image is supposed to represent a book (top half) combined with a U (University), with an ever-evolving and flexible C for California. Did you get that out of it? Me neither. I thought maybe the C was fading under its colossal state debt, or sinking into the ocean after an earthquake. I really want to finish coloring in the C.

In the interest of fair disclosure, I am a UCLA alum and a masters swimmer.  So when I first saw this logo, my immediate reaction was, “Why is the logo an image of California drowning in a wave pool? And why is it in UCLA colors? Cal alums must be pissed.”  It turns out, the logo is flexible to varying shades of blue and yellow. And the C is neither fading nor drowning (in water or debt), but rather “evolving.” Copy that.

It turns out I was not the only one who saw the logo and thought it was some combination of awful and perplexing. Someone hated it so much they started a Change.org petition to get rid of it. Within 48 hours, the petition’s garnered more than 52,000 signatures, and a healthy dose of comments from alumni wondering what on earth the UC Board of Regents was thinking. Consensus seems to be that not only is this logo not particularly dignified (an expectation of a highly regarded university system), it looks like child’s play. Literally. Nobody seems to mind the idea of a branding exercise for the whole UC system. Everyone seems to mind that what they came up with looks like playground art, or a Toys R Us ad.

It also turns out: designers hate it too.  A design site gave an oddly favorable review to this design execution, which was then met with amusingly unfavorable feedback from the design community.

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we_all_c_for_california.php

Among my favorite responses:

•          “I didn't know that University of California was a children's television network.”

•          “I thought at first it was a rebranding for a candy store: cute and cuddly colors and shapes. Not the kind of image I would want to be portrayed if I were an institute of higher learning.”

•          “I suppose any institution could use a little "approachable" brand image, but try not to do it without losing any sense authority and/or respect. Maybe start by avoiding rounded font for your symbol?”

•          “You're kidding right? Seriously. This is a joke right? It's a whale tale [sic] with a bicycle tire. It's goofy as hell.”

To be fair, there are executions of this logo that I don’t hate. For example, it looks kind of okay if it's really small and not multi-color.

But then they had to go and turn the UC system into what your typical 6 year old will likely mistake for an ice cream truck:

Snow cone anyone?

Some may defend this entire exercise by pointing out that there’s a great story behind all of this creativity. There’s even a video on the above-linked review, explaining the root of the brand exercise. (Note: The logo made more sense once I watched the video. Unfortunately, if you need a video to explain your logo, the logo isn’t working.) Vanessa Kanan Correa, Creative Director at the University of California, comments on the branding objectives:

“Evoking California — and its innovative spirit — was a critical driving factor in the aesthetics across all the visual elements. We felt that what makes the University of California special is that, well, we’re in California. And what happens here impacts the world. So, we built something that was optimistic, experimental, pioneering, and bold… qualities that reflect California itself.”

I don’t disagree that California is innovative, even special. But while our state is certainly a hub for technology, media and entertainment, let’s not let our egos get the best of us. People change the world in other states. Find me a New Yorker who thinks Californians are more bold than New Yorkers, and I will give you a dollar.

Still, I like the idea that a logo can be “optimistic, pioneering, and bold.”  It's just that nobody seems to be taking any of that away from this logo.

Which brings me to the real question at stake here: What on earth was the UC staff thinking, and how did they come up with a logo that has been met with reactions that range from neutral to “I’ll start giving money again when they get rid of this nonsense”? Jason Simon, the University of California Director, Marketing Communications, wrote the following message to Change.org, implying that “testing” was actually done on this logo.

"The new mark was created as a part of our broader efforts to build awareness and support for all the things that UC does to make California (and by extension the world) better. What we have tried to do is to create a mark that is iconic, flexible, and solid enough that it works to represent the UC system as a whole. The mark can be used in a combination of the various UC blues and golds as well as in a multitude of applications. Seals are wonderful and carry a legacy and tradition. They also signify bureaucracy, staidness, and other not-so-great characteristics. Much of this was evident in the testing and discussion we did as part of the process."

I get the philosophy; I daresay I even like it. I also get that there is close to zero chance this logo passed through any wave of consumer testing.

Creative comrades, “testing” is not a discussion among your design team. It’s not even a “which do you like better” scenario that you bounce around the office, or throw out to your personal mailing list. “Testing” requires understanding the implications of every reaction. What do the colors evoke? What does the font or the style convey?  How do imagery impressions align with expectations of the UC system? What are the opportunities for integrating the imagery; what are the limitations? Who are the naysayers, and do they matter significantly to the UC system?

It seems apparent that most of these questions were left unanswered. If they’re saying that testing was done, then it was really subpar testing. But what I think is that they probably tested their ideas, and never actually tested their executions of those ideas.  I often tell clients, I don’t believe in concept testing unless you a) have something to show people, or b) test the ideas, develop something, and then test the executions. Otherwise it’s just ideation, and that’s not the same thing.

This logo did get one thing quite right: blue and yellow do evoke sky and sun – very California. Alas, it got most things very wrong: bubbly font doesn’t convey university, and a book that looks like a whale tail or a wave is easily confused with oceans instead of education. Not to mention, in this modern world of Kindles and iPads, choosing the symbol of a book to represent brand pillars such as “experimental” and “pioneering” is a questionable strategy. One could argue that this logo aligns with SoCal, but what about Silicon Valley, or that part of Mojave where they launch rocket ships, or that neighborhood south of LAX where they build them?

Real ad testing, when done correctly, doesn’t just tell you what to do. It tells you what not to do.  The reality is, had UC come up with something lackluster, nobody would have noticed. It’s because they came up with something bad that everyone did. Let this be a lesson. When you’re prepared to budget an 11 person design team for an initiative, allegedly commissioned over a 3 year period, you’re recklessly wasting money if you haven’t budgeted for research. Really solid, thorough, multi-phase research. 

Research isn’t just a tool for identifying how to make money, it’s a tool for preventing costly and public mistakes. I’ll wager a guess that the head UC publicist, not to mention every development director at every UC university, is currently wishing someone had set aside that investment for this endeavor.

-Kerry

ETA: As of 12/14/12, use of this UC monogram has been suspended. Let us hope that the upcoming "re-evaluation" is more thoroughly vetted this time around. 
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/12/14/uc-suspends-use-of-new-logo/