Name Change News: July 24, 2007
The latest news on the name change implementation, a day later than usual. Also available on the Name Change Conversations weblog: http://namechange.mst.edu .
In this issue:
Reminder: view graphic concepts tomorrow through Friday
If you can’t possibly be here…
Reminder: view graphic concepts tomorrow through Friday
We want to remind everyone who is on campus to stop by the Havener Center to see the brand identity concepts under development for Missouri S&T.
We also want to remind everyone that the graphic concepts we will unveil are precisely that. They are concepts – not final logos. Even though the materials may look like finished products, we are still early in the information-gathering phase. What we’re presenting this week are not intended to be final designs.
Anyway, here’s the schedule for the “unveiling” sessions. Please try to attend one if you can. We want to ensure that as many students, faculty and staff as possible get a chance to see the concepts and share their opinions.
Here’s the schedule:
• Wednesday, July 25, 10 a.m.-noon, Carver-Turner Room, Havener Center
• Wednesday, July 25, 4-6 p.m., Carver-Turner Room, Havener Center
• Thursday, July 26, 10 a.m.-noon, Carver-Turner Room, Havener Center
• Thursday, July 26, 4-6 p.m., Carver-Turner Room, Havener center
• Friday, July 27, 9 a.m.-noon, Communications Conference Room, 105 Campus Support Facility
• Friday, July 27, 1:30-4:30 p.m., Communications Conference Room, 105 Campus Support Facility
In addition, we’re providing students and alumni in St. Louis the opportunity to view the brand concepts. On Wednesday, we’re holding two public sessions in St. Louis – one around the lunch hour in St. Louis County and another in the evening in downtown St. Louis.
Here’s the schedule for the St. Louis sessions:
• Wednesday, July 25, 11:15 a.m.-12:45 p.m. at Burns and McDonnell, 1630 Des Peres Road (at the intersection of Interstate 270 and I-44).
• Wednesday, July 25, 4:30-7 p.m., at Carmine’s, 20 S. Fourth St. (Fourth and Market streets), inside the Drury Plaza Hotel.
Any students, alumni or others in St. Louis on that date are encouraged to attend one of the sessions.
If you can’t possibly be here…
If you can’t be on campus or in St. Louis, we will also make the brand concepts available for online viewing. Concepts will be available via the Name Change Conversations weblog soon.
Please don't!
The last three logo's are just embarrasing.
The concept survey asks some very strange questions and leaves no room for comments.
Here are my opinions regarding the four initial concepts:
Concept 1: Classic, a little boring but acceptable. I think it would look nice framed by a gear. That would make the logo a little more unique, and thus more recognizable. You also have the benefit of linking it to the historic emblem.
Concept 2: With the letters ST emphasized so much, it seems like there should be an "L" at the end, as an abbreviation for St. Louis. The word "Missouri" doesn't look connected to the rest of the logo - it looks more like an afterthought.
Concept 3: The first thing I thought of when I saw this was MU's logo, but I don't think that's what we're going for. The font and rectangle surrounding the letters look unsophisticated to me. It reminds me of a speed limit sign.
Concept 4: I noticed the parts of this logo in the following order: 1) the gigantic "&", 2) the S and T, and 3) Missouri. This is the opposite of the order that my brain should have perceived the elements. The giant ampersand is not what should be emphasized. I am curious how it would look if Missouri was in large letters in the background with S&T (with normal size "&") smaller in the foreground.
These logos don't really make me FEEL anything about the future. They are all fairly generic. Also, if you want to associate the new logo with the university's history, it really needs to have some elements from the historic MSM logo.
We probably need more than one concept. Different stakeholders have different needs. Concepts 1 and 2 are attractive, but we would benefit in formal settings, such as conferences, with something incorporating the gear logo, which would be easy to integrate with the new Missouri S&T identity. We also might do very well with something including silver and gold embossing. We want to go for a distinguished look when facing corporate and government customers, as well as peer institutions. For recruiting students, a more informal, friendly image might be needed. It is much easier to try to meet these needs separately than to merge them into a compromise concept.
The justification for changing the name is fiction. If you're expecting the name and logo to convey a student's "sum total experience" then your vision for the school must be very hollow.
This blog is a great. It's an excellent way for all key stakeholders to review the concepts and provide honest and open feedback. Thanks.
Ed
I had to resist the urge to use the word crap to describe all the presented concepts. If you want to "symbolize" the core mission of the University in a logo, try at least using some of the familiar symbols such as the gear and tools.
If you can only come up with one lame substitute for the original and then put up three more pieces of . . . . crud . . . well, I really don't believe you want our opinions. Just like the muckety muck mens club curmudgeons that decided the name had to be changed in the first place. This whole affair just nauseates me every time it raises its putrid head. I pity you poor bastards that have withstand the onslaught of outrage from the students, the alumni, the university staff, and the citizens of Missouri in order to implement this betrayal and travesty.
All four are unimaginative, un-inspiring, and boring. There isn't any hint to UMR/MSM's history, mission or future. I recommend incorporating some current symbols such as the gear as a link to the past and a symbol of the university's mission to provide world class education in technical fields. The four options provided by the consultant are very disappointing. Please scrap these and start over.
It seems that others have the same opinion as myself.
My first thought when I saw the page was "How much did they pay for THIS?" Honestly, I hope it's not a lot - if so, I think the last group of incoming UMR Freshmen could probably come up with something as good if not better (and for a much smaller fee). Plus, if it came from a student - someone who would be more likely to care about the future of the University - it would be easier to garner support from other students and the alumni.
My quick thoughts on each:
1. Too thin and difficult to read from a distance.
2. I didn't think St. Louis, as Cherie wrote, but I quickly thought Missouri State.
3. This one is actually my favorite of the four, but it is VERY quirky and I can imagine would not be very popular amongst the professional crowd.
4. After reading "s AND t," I think I would have to squint to read "Missouri." But it probably has decent billboard potential.
Another point to keep in mind is that one of the main reasons the name change occurred (supposedly) is to allay confusion between UMR and Mizzou. I'm afraid putting "Missouri" on top or in front will only cause similar confusion, unless someone leans in close enough to read the full name of the University.
I believe that none of the proposed logos bring in the rich history of the school or what we stand for. The fourth looks like it was a mistake from whoever did it as the Missouri doesn't fit in. Knowing that students don't have a say at all in this situation I hope the first one is the prefered choice but its not up to us at all. Luckily I will graduate with UMR on my diploma