I want to offer a few comments about the logo selection and the next steps in the process that I hope will clarify a few things:
- Why is the logo in black and white? We haven't finished reviewing color possibilities or other aspects of the logo's usage, but knowing the high level of interest in this process we wanted to share the design as quickly as possible. That's why we shared the version in black and white only. The official school colors of silver and gold, as well as the color green, which we use in a lot of our marketing, are all being considered. We'll have more details about color usage soon, and will outline the official usage for the logo in a graphic identity manual.
-
What about the historic emblem? The historic emblem (shown here) -- the so-called "gear" or "cog" symbol that has been around for as long as anyone can remember -- is not going away. But its usage will be limited to very specific purposes, just as it is now. As we explain in our current graphic identity manual, "The Historic Emblem is not a 'logo' and should not be used as such." UMR's graphic designers are revising the historic emblem to incorporate the new name. - Will "Missouri S&T" ever be used by itself? Yes. There may be occasions when the "University of Science & Technology" wording at the bottom is dropped in favor of using the strong "S&T" image by itself, or using the wording to the side. All of this will be spelled out in the graphic identity manual that is to be developed soon.
I hope that addresses some of the concerns expressed by some commenters. We are updating the FAQ page with more current information and will post that later today.
While I approve, in general, of the name change (although Missouri S&T may be a good moniker, having the word "University" stuck in the middle, instead of at the end, in the official school title is a non-sequitor, literally and figuratively), what I DIS-approve of, is whatever reasoning was used to make the decision that an outside consulting firm(s) had to be hired, not only for the name and "Word Mark" graphics, but now for the MARKETING of that name and graphics as well! I object to this both as an alumnus (BS Eng. Mgt. 1981) and as a Missouri taxpayer.
With such wonderful human resources available, both on the Rolla campus (students, faculty, staff) as well as within the entire University of Missouri system, who work and have experience and education in Marketing and Communications, and who basically either work for free or are already being paid to do this kind of work for our University, why should tax- OR alumni-dollars be spent to hire outside, AND I might add, OUT OF STATE (D.C. and New York for goodness sakes!) consulting firms! Is the campus or University so unsure of the abilities of its own students, staff, and faculties that it has to go outside to get this kind of work done? If so, that is a sad testament to where we stand as a University community within our state as well as the greater US academic community.
What was the thinking? Oh, no, we can't let a bunch of engineers handle this, they'll just screw it up! Well, that kind of thinking should have gone out the window years ago. Even when I was an undergrad in 1981 we were taught that Engineers had to be multi-talented and become excellent communicators to function well in the technological industries of the future, which is exactly what I have done, earning an MBA degree at night while continuing my career. And, yes, I took several courses in marketing and communications as well as business management. But then don't we have whole DEPARTMENTS of MARKETING and COMMUNICATIONS within the auspices of the University of Missouri? Was it hubris on the part of the Rolla academic community, to shut out UMC, or UMSL or UMKC for that matter as well?
You may call this a rant, but I am really surprised by this turn of events, and not a little upset by this waste of financial and human resources. If I were a Prof. grading this "Semester Project", I would have to give it a "C minus", mainly for that fact that outside effort was apparently "required". Didn't they teach "Do your own work!" in Engineering school?
Sincerely,
Don Reader, MBA
BS Eng. Mgt.
UMR (or MS&T?) 1981
Hi,
I apparently missed out over the last year, 'cause this is the first I've heard about any of this!! I like the name change, but do hate to see the old emblem and "Joe" limited in their use. To me, the new graphic is a little plain:{ I appreciate being notified of the change. Overall, I think it's a positive change. COOL!!
Andrew, please correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't we compare this logo to the current "UMR" in block lettering?
Everyone is complaining about the so called missing gears and pick axes and how plain it is. You should be comparing it to the current equivalent.
Nathan - Good point. Maybe I need to clarify my clarification. :) The reasons for showing the historic emblem (the cog and hammers) have to do with concerns we've heard about the possibility of doing away with that mark. Although it isn't a logo or a mark used in university recruitment materials, it is used by the alumni association and in our development and fundraising marketing. Because the historic emblem has been around for so long, many alumni see it as the most distinguishing "mark" for the university. But because it is so intricate, it does not work well as a logo or a graphic identifier.
As for the current "UMR" word mark in bold Univers (sans serif) type, we haven't heard much on this forum about that.