I was a member of our college’s Sesquicentennial Steering Committee, which included outreach to various campus entities to get them to become active participants in events celebrating our 150 years. We hoped to cultivate things like lectures, performances, research, readings and other activities that engage people with this grand occasion.
And yet here are some actual responses to the question of how folks actively worked the sesquicentennial into their activities:
– “We put the logo on our website!”
– “We’re putting the logo onto some T-shirts!”
– “We’ve included the logo on some of our printed materials.”
My general reaction is “wha-huh?” A logo can build awareness, but it’s passive. By saying you’re slapping the logo on something, you’re essentially participating by not really participating. It’s low-investment activity, sort of like bringing a canned good to gain free admission to a sporting event, then believing you’ve done your part to make the world a better place.
On another note, this exchange, for an emerging program on campus, also took place:
Me: “What are you doing to promote the program?”
Them: “We’ve been working with a student for the past couple months to design a logo.”
Again … what? So often I see people put all kinds of time and energy into creating a logo when they should be using that instead to develop real content. Such as: What this program is. How it benefits participants. How you can take action. A logo tells you none of those things. We don’t make major purchases because of logos. We buy things because they provide various benefits, tangible and intangible, to us.
I don’t know how to break the obsession with logos over real content or actual action. I guess people decide logos represent low-hanging fruit that can postpone making difficult core decisions. That so many of these logos have very little institutional tie-in is yet another complication, as if it fulfills a need to claim some kind of separate turf. Except it’s like staking claim to some property then designing a national flag in lieu of developing the land or coming up with a governance plan.
InsideTimsHead 
Got to agree with you here Tim. A logo is important in the branding process and creates a vehicle by which someone can associate a message. Without the message (content), it is just some pretty shapes and colors. Good post!
If I’m reading this correctly, your sesquicentennial group already has an official (or endorsed/sanctioned) logo, correct? But some department has a student designing another logo? This sounds about par for the course. The only thing missing is the requisite logo contest.
Great post, and hits me right where I live right now as we prepare for a capital campaign, which actually has several logos (don’t ask).
I think the obsession with the logo has to do with the turf-claiming that you describe. To be crude for a second, when you create a new logo for something you’re basically lifting your leg and proclaiming “this is mine.” There is also that very new-ness of it. It is always more fun to create something new than to fix something that already exists.
Primarily though, I think the appeal of the logo is that it is something that everyone can have an opinion about but that most people don’t have to actually do. Your graphic designer or your student or your contest winner does the logo; *everyone* has to work on content. I am never greeted with more blank stares and buck-passing than I am when I ask someone to actually write something for the Web.
LOU: Good point as relates to branding. So many times people say “let’s make a logo!” and never stop to ask what it has to do with brand. Or aesthetics, for that matter. And yes, without correlating content, it’s nothing.
ANDREW: I probably didn’t explain well enough that example #2 isn’t related to the Sesquicentennial. It’s a neat project that could mean a lot long-term, and has some really good people on it, so that they’ve focused on the logo is misplaced since they have many benefits to sell. And don’t get me started on logo contests …
LORI: You comment is spot on, from the territorial markings to avoidance of content. It’s all part of the general “I want a shiny object!” mentality, as opposed to rolling the sleeves up and working on what’s really needed to accomplish any task. People aren’t going to attend my college or make a donation to your institution because of a logo, but they might be moved to action by actual compelling content. Which is harder to get resources for than logo development!
So, I just get back from a meeting and in my email is a request to review a departmental logo. Sheesh. I really wish I had a big rubber stamp with the word “DENIED” to use on these requests.
Great post and very true.
Nothing says “due diligence” like slapping a logo on everything in site. While I agree with you on this point, what else is being done to help these folks who don’t have a lot of access to the strategy or tactics? Are they given a list of possible tactics to use in conjunction? Or a internal blog or forum for exchanging ideas on getting more involved. I think many people at the departmental/unit level are waiting for word from the central unit for how to implement and get involved. Lazy on them, but having some of these things may get more involvement from others.
On a slight note, Lori – this blog Bob Brock just wrote may shed some light for capital campaigns – http://talk.emgonline.com/Blog/Pages/Notebook/Brand-Manager-s-Notebook/July-2011/Branding-and-Capital-Campaigns
TRAVIS: Good points there. Early in the process, one of our committee members held a number of focus groups with various stakeholders, then we came up with a poll of potential events and asked people to let us know a) what they’d like to see us do, and b) if they’d like to volunteer to help us. One could say we could have pushed harder on getting follow-up, but I’ve also seen people use the logo as their safety valve. And when institutions are decentralized, it’s harder to move the various parts to action. Maybe we’ll figure this out by the bicentennial. ; )
Reblogged this on refreshing oswego.