There's been a lot of discussion about the new Adelaide University logo. But as a former Adelaidian, and creative who has done a lot of university work, I'd like to weigh in.
The first thing that struck me when this brand launched, was the enthusiasm coming from INSIDE the university, juxtaposed with the distain that it received from OUTSIDE the university. (AKA the people who pay for universities). I think the distain can be traced to some BS and a camel.
When creating a logo, if you can infuse it with 1 undeniable idea, that's great. (Think the FedEx logo with an arrow between the "Ex"). If you can infuse it with 2 ideas, even better. (Think the Amazon logo with an arrow that's ALSO a smile). 3 ideas is starting to get a little greedy, but if you can stick the landing.... amazing. 4 ideas and you have yourself a "horse designed by committee". You have a camel.
This brand has a couple of humps.
The amount of stakeholders universities include in these kinds of projects is always daunting. Their website says, "We engaged current staff and students, alumni, industry partners, aboriginal representatives as well as prospective students and parents in South Australia, across Australia and globally." That's a LOT of cooks in the kitchen! And it leads to things like 70 page briefs, and creatives, like me, resorting to our trusted old friend "BS" to fulfil that brief. For example this, from their brand story:
"The angles are inspired by the iconic Festival Theatre, AND symbolises our ambition to push forward". I mean... it's an A. But it's a weird A... I'm going to say, maybe only 50% BS.
"The open space in the monogram echoes our unwavering commitment to inclusivity". 100% BS. Obviously. But honestly, that's a tough one to fit into a 2 letter monogram.
"The stable foot represents the solid foundations of the two accomplished institutions on which the new university is built." Again, 100% BS.
"Our mark is completed with our state border." HEY! That's actually real! Top right! That's the state of SA! 0% BS!
Here's the thing. Creating a brandmark that does a lot of heavy lifting is a real challenge. But making a brandmark that does ALL the heavy lifting is impossible. At some point we'll end up saying, “Yeah for sure, that space between the letters represents our love of flora and fauna. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD APPROVE THIS!!!”
I have no issue with designers pumping up the importance of each little decision, to help clients understand the process and get them on the same page. But if it's OBVIOUS BS, people in the real world are going to smell it REAL quick. And at the end of the day, they're the only stakeholder that matters.
In conclusion: I suspect this re-brand would have pissed off less people in the public, if it pissed off a handful MORE people in the institution by limiting the amount of stakeholders involved. And creatives; embellish away! But no one likes it when you piss in their boots and tell them it's raining.
Co-Founder & CEO @ deployable | Prev. Founded Lightweave & District - AFR Fast Starters 18'
1yClicked that not planning to watch it all...ended up watching it all.