New corporate identity

feelgoodinc27 · 17-12-2014 5:15pm

The new logo is on tcd.ie, I think it just looks bland. Terrible decision to change it.

galwayjohn89 · 17-12-2014 6:25pm

I quite like it, feels more modern and crisp.

17-12-2014 6:54pm

Not as **** as they were originally proposing, but still worse than the original.

cloudatlas · 17-12-2014 7:52pm

So they just basically used Microsoft publisher to change the logo to intel colours. Wow cash that cheque whoever changed that, you deserve the money for persuading them to pay you for it.

bishopOfYork · 17-12-2014 8:58pm

The time to be worrying about acts of vandalism like this was in the 1960s.

It's too late now - Trinity is now the proud upkeeper of arts blocks, the East end, the University Act 2000, etc.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. No amount of "Ireland's university on the world stage" can fix the damage.

If you want a "liberal education" at the "meeting place of the retail and cultural districts" then off you go... Trinity is no longer a place for white middle class young men with good manners. Despite the intents of benefactors gone before you; you're no longer welcome.

Bears and Vodka · 18-12-2014 12:50am

bishopOfYork wrote: »

Trinity is no longer a place for white middle class young men with good manners.

One post user, I'd go with sarcasm. :pac:

Dublinensis · 18-12-2014 11:16am

What about white, middle-class young men with bad manners?

Anyway, I've been reliably informed that they're going to continue to use a full-colour version of the coat of arms on certain "prestige" printed documents, such as diploma and certificate parchments* and the menus for the annual Scholars' Dinner. Small mercies, I suppose.

*But not degree parchments: they will continue to feature the nineteenth-century University of Dublin arms which grdaHopeful posted on the first page of this thread.

Portomarino · 18-12-2014 7:12pm

The whole project was a useless disgrace that shows everything wrong with the current administration in Trinity

Grolschevik · 18-12-2014 9:15pm

Portomarino wrote: »

The whole project was a useless disgrace that shows everything wrong with the current administration in Trinity

They hired a new marketing supremo, and 'rebranding' is JF Marketing for Dummies. That's all...

andrew · 22-12-2014 12:04pm

Portomarino wrote: »

The whole project was a useless disgrace that shows everything wrong with the current administration in Trinity

They need to attract those sweet sweet non-EU fees somehow.

22-12-2014 1:39pm

andrew wrote: »

They need to attract those sweet sweet non-EU fees somehow.

And some how I doubt that the Board are going to engage in a proper, controlled study over time to determine whether the new branding per se has any significant impact on this.

I'm sure that we will see the proportion of non-EU students in Trinity rise over the next few years as college makes concerted efforts to attract them here. I'm still dubious as to the effect that this overpriced bleaching of the crest will have on the student make-up.

Raspberry Fileds · 22-12-2014 4:33pm

234 wrote: »

And some how I doubt that the Board are going to engage in a proper, controlled study over time to determine whether the new branding per se has any significant impact on this.

I'm sure that we will see the proportion of non-EU students in Trinity rise over the next few years as college makes concerted efforts to attract them here. I'm still dubious as to the effect that this overpriced bleaching of the crest will have on the student make-up.

How exactly would you propose that they do such a study? With a max. sample size of only a few hundred every year and limited resources it would be almost impossible to determine the effects.

andrew · 22-12-2014 5:05pm

234 wrote: »

And some how I doubt that the Board are going to engage in a proper, controlled study over time to determine whether the new branding per se has any significant impact on this.

I'm sure that we will see the proportion of non-EU students in Trinity rise over the next few years as college makes concerted efforts to attract them here. I'm still dubious as to the effect that this overpriced bleaching of the crest will have on the student make-up.

The logo probably doesn't make as much of a difference as ensuring that 'university' is in the title, IMO. Though I like the new logo.

22-12-2014 6:33pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

How exactly would you propose that they do such a study? With a max. sample size of only a few hundred every year and limited resources it would be almost impossible to determine the effects.

I don't think that it would be possible. Which makes it impossible to substantiate their claims that the changes to identity will have any tangible impact in terms if global brand recognition.

Raspberry Fileds · 22-12-2014 7:51pm

234 wrote: »

I don't think that it would be possible. Which makes it impossible to substantiate their claims that the changes to identity will have any tangible impact in terms if global brand recognition.

Your earlier post seemed to criticise the Board in the event that they didn't conduct a study, though. Now you say that one wouldn't be possible anyway.

Needless to say, there are times when it isn't possible to definitively (or even partly) prove that a change had the intended effect. But College has received guidance - not to say that that guidance was necessarily reliable - so it's wrong to suggest that they haven't sought to substantiate the change.

22-12-2014 8:03pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Your earlier post seemed to criticise the Board in the event that they didn't conduct a study, though. Now you say that one wouldn't be possible anyway.

Needless to say, there are times when it isn't possible to definitively (or even partly) prove that a change had the intended effect. But College has received guidance - not to say that that guidance was necessarily reliable - so it's wrong to suggest that they haven't sought to substantiate the change.

Apologies, I wasn't being very clear looking back.

I don't remember College publishing the source or content if the advice they received on the impact that changing the arms would have; as I remember it it was made as a rather bald statement. So at the time people rightly questioned it's validity. If the advice was coming from the same PR company that handled the rebranding then I think that people would be understandably sceptical since they would have been creating work for themselves.

Looking at it objectively, it's hard to see hoe simply draining the colour out if the arms improves brand recognition and impact.

Raspberry Fileds · 22-12-2014 8:33pm

234 wrote: »

Apologies, I wasn't being very clear looking back.

I don't remember College publishing the source or content if the advice they received on the impact that changing the arms would have; as I remember it it was made as a rather bald statement. So at the time people rightly questioned it's validity. If the advice was coming from the same PR company that handled the rebranding then I think that people would be understandably sceptical since they would have been creating work for themselves.

Looking at it objectively, it's hard to see hoe simply draining the colour out if the arms improves brand recognition and impact.

I'm largely neutral on the logo issue - I don't have any loyalty for the old one and am unmoved (but not put off) by the new one. I agree with you about the potential lack of objectivity in a PR company's advice.

I think there's an unacknowledged (and possibly subconscious) premise in people's arguments that it is wrong, on the basis of maintaining heritage, to change the logo. I don't know when the crest dates from, but I imagine it's not from founding. While probably designed with the best technology available at the time, the crest now looks dated. Styles change and what's artistic in one era won't be in another. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with periodically changing the branding provided it is in keeping with the image of the uni and not merely about competing with others.

New corporate identity

Comments