One of the reasons for the low level of blog activity here lately has to do with the amount of time I’m spending on coordinating a rebranding effort for our university, which will become Missouri University of Science and Technology in January.
Right now, we’re about to embark on an extensive review of four concepts for our graphic identity. This will involve gathering input from students, alumni, faculty and staff through a series of presentations on campus and in St. Louis. We’re also trying to come up with a way to share the concepts online without worrying about whether someone will download or copy them. We’re having trouble making that happen, but if we don’t allow viewing of the concepts online, then some students who are away for the summer will claim we’re trying to make a decision without their input. After our three-day presentation and data-gathering binge, we’ll try to sort through all the qualitative and quantitative input (yes, we’re doing surveys at these presentations, too), and we’ll try to make sense of it all so that we can move forward with a workable concept.
Doing marketing in a college environment is a tricky task. It’s important to get input from as many stakeholders as possible, while politely reminding the stakeholders that the ultimate decision resides with the marketing team. Not everybody will be happy with the final decision, but at least they will have had the opportunity to voice their opinions through this process.
We have a committee of about 30 or so that is responsible for coordinating the name change effort, including the brand identity. That’s a pretty big group, and we’ve tried to make it as representative as possible while keeping it manageable. But because of the timing — summertime, when many students and faculty are off campus — we’re not as representative as we might be if this were happening during the academic year. But we become Missouri S&T on Jan. 1, so we have to work quickly.
Recently, I’ve been reminded of what Branding and Marketing‘s Chris Brown wrote about this in her post from last spring, Too many stakeholders:
I think that rebranding a university is much harder than rebranding a company. With a university the stakeholders feel much more ownership of the branding than the stakeholders in a company.
Think about it… how many students shell out hundreds of dollars for the privilege of advertising the university on their chest, backpack, notebooks, car plates. How about alumni?
Most employees want the company to give them branded merchandise, not have them buy it. Most retirees don’t sport the brand like alumni of a university will and do.
So, if you’re wondering what I’ve been up to when I haven’t posted for awhile, rest assured that I’m staying busy.
Andy writes! 
I find it a little odd that you’re so concerned about someone downloading or copying your visual concepts. Given the number of blogs you’re using — and your acceptance of open comments, including harsh criticism on the name change blog — your school seems to have embraced the idea that it can’t control the message at all times, and that having having warts-and-all online conversations with your stakeholders is a good thing. So then, who cares if someone copies your visuals and posts them to their own blog/site/facebook profile, etc.? Isn’t it more important that people are talking in the first place, and that more people are engaged in the process (even if they don’t get an “official” say on the finished product)?
How about sharing very low res versions (if this is a copyright thing with the agency) or even just scanned design sketches?
Just a thought.
Good thoughts, and ones we’ve wrestled with over the past several weeks as the date of this event has been approaching.
I know we’re being quite anal-retentive about unleashing logo concepts into cyberspace. That’s because we’ve had a number of bad experiences over the years with old logos that never die. They’re like zombies: the Logos of the Living Dead. (Just go to images.google.com and type in “UMR logo” to get an idea.)
We do want people to talk about the concepts, and we do want to make them available. Yet we need to balance that desire with the possibility that rough concepts — and that’s just what they are; nothing is close to final at this stage — could proliferate across the Internet with the misunderstanding that these are “final” logos.
Why not just go with a “DRAFT” watermark across the draft logos? I think you’re wasting your time trying to prevent people from downloading or copying the drafts. If I can view them then I can copy them (and I’ve already downloaded them). If someone is truly determined to use a false or draft logo then they’ll do so no matter what you try to do to prevent them. Maybe an appeal to your constituents outlining your concerns will help? Be transparent about your attempt to balance the needs of the community to view the designs and voice an informed opinion with the institution’s needs.