Quick, close your eyes and picture the UCLA logo. There have
been many UCLA logos, so I’m sure you’re all thinking
of something different.
Perhaps you are picturing those four iconic letters emblazoned
across an image of Royce Hall. Or maybe that famed athletic
cursive. How about a logo inspired by the Bauhaus design
movement?
I bet you weren’t thinking of the German design movement,
but that’s what inspired the new UCLA logo. There may be a
lot that surprises you about the new logo.
The first thing that surprised me was its ineffective
design.
Keith Bright Strategic Design created the new logo at a cost of
$98,000 ““ that was the biggest surprise of them all. The logo
is the centerpiece of the school’s new graphic identity
program, and UCLA representatives hope it will unify the
school’s image, replacing the myriad logos that different
parts of the school have used (check the logo out at
Identity.ucla.edu).
“We did about 1,500 different explorations on UCLA,”
said Keith Bright, a UCLA alumnus. “Out of that, we did
probably 20 or 30 different identities and we picked out of those.
Then we put them on various things and that got it down to six to
four (designs) and this is the one that survived.”
UCLA could have paid me $50 and I could have typed out
“UCLA” in Helvetica font, italicized it and it
would’ve been a done deal. Here, I’ll try it:
UCLA.
That looks pretty good, doesn’t it?
The logo will find its way onto the letterhead of every piece of
UCLA stationary, though the athletic department will continue to
use its famed cursive script. The logo, in conjunction with the
university’s new commercial and the redesign of the UCLA Web
site, signifies a push to re-image UCLA.
At a total cost of about $168,000.
“We are just coming up with the best communication to
describe UCLA,” said spokesman Lawrence Lokman. “A
number of universities are looking at this more because this is a
very competitive climate with (importance placed on) the retention
of great students and faculty.”
Lokman said the Web site cost approximately $30,000 and was
designed by an outside team with some in-house help. The 30-second
commercial, which cost about $40,000, stresses what students are
doing at UCLA today and, fittingly, was directed by UCLA film
student Adam Martin. Another commercial and two radio spots will
also be milled from Martin’s work.
In the commercial, UCLA students tell the viewer, “You
think the future is exciting? Wait until you see what we did
today.” The choice to hire a student, and not a fancy firm,
to direct the commercial embodies that theme.
Via the new NCAA commercial, UCLA is highlighting the role
students have in blazing the trails now ““ so couldn’t
the school have hired a design student to design the logo and save
some money along the way? Lokman said the school “looked to
an outside firm (because) it really required a lot of
experience.”
On the other hand, Martin said it was important that a student
direct the commercial.
“To really capture what UCLA is about, you need to have
someone who has lived the experience of UCLA.”
To be fair, Bright did go to UCLA, but hiring a firm that has
done work for Mandalay Pictures and NetZero is different from
hiring a student.
Then there’s the cost.
“I was shocked it was so expensive,” said Henri
Lucas, visiting professor in the Design | Media Arts department.
“There is the talent to get it done. It would have saved them
so much money and I don’t know why they would pass their own
design department.”
Recently, other major universities have gone through logo
redesigns. Seven years ago, the University of Maryland had a new
logo created by an outside firm at a cost of approximately
$100,000, said Terry Flannery, spokeswoman for Maryland.
Two years ago, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
paid an outside firm approximately $30,000 for its new logo, said
Nancy Davis, spokeswoman for North Carolina.
Lucas, who teaches a typography class, said he actually
preferred the new UCLA logo to the logos of Maryland and North
Carolina. Still, Lucas had problems with the UCLA logo, noting that
it has a “1980s” look to it.
Personally, I think the logo is dull. It appears the subtle
italicization of the logo is meant to evoke movement and progress
““ a tired cliché.
“I don’t see one clear concept about it,”
Lucas said.
The first thing I noticed about the new logo was the gap between
the “U” and the “C.” The spacing between
those two letters is inconsistent with the spacing between the
other letters and makes the logo look unbalanced.
I have encountered students who have expressed their
disappointment with the new logo, and Lokman said he is fully aware
that parts of the UCLA community may be unhappy about having to
adopt the new logo. With Maryland as the precedent ““ it
appears the dissent will pass ““ Flannery said she dealt with
some unhappy people at first, but now the logo has been adopted
with little fuss.
To be sure, the new UCLA logo will do away with the visual
fragmentation inherent in having multiple logos. The school will
have a unified logo, albeit a very expensive, boring logo.
Talented professors and students should have been given a chance
to create UCLA’s new logo.
And, like I said, I could’ve cut the school a great deal
for my services.
E-mail Miller at dmiller@media.ucla.edu.