But the move last week appears to have accomplished just the opposite, and university officials are trying to figure out what to do next.

The venerable university system has been hit with a New Media revolt that includes insults on Twitter, e-mail memes that mock the new look, Facebook spoofs, and calls for the new representation to be tattooed on its creator’s foreheads.

Experts say the episode is a cautionary tale on the dangers of image and marketing changes.
Here’s the background: for 144 years, the 10 campuses have been collectively represented by a traditional-looking, round logo with a “Let There Be Light” motto, a drawing of an open book and a radiating star.

The new logo is essentially rectangular, with a form that approximates the old seal’s open book but which also could pass for a stylized “U.” On top of that is the top half of the letter “C” which could be, depending on whom you ask, a napkin doodle, a bidet, or a banana label.

“This is an attempt to be revolutionary, but it comes off as insensitive,” Reaz Rahman, a UC Irvine senior who started an online petition to get the university to reconsider, told the Los Angeles Times. “To me, it didn’t symbolize an institution of higher learning. It seemed like a marketing scheme to pull in money rather than represent the university.

“New UC logo is an abomination,” wrote one Twitter-user, according to the Times. “Back to the drawing board.” Another tweeted, “Whoever signed off on this UC logo should be forced to have it tattooed on their forehead for life.”

“It is everything our school is against,” wrote Berkeley’s Sheila Lam on the petition, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Might as well have slapped a McDonald’s ‘M’ on top of it. It looks so corporate and it looks cheap.

It is the lack of a clear meaning for the redesigned logo that bothers some communications experts.

“This is kind of a classic branding screw-up where people who are designing it don’t understand the web environment that they are moving into,” says Mark Tatge, a communications professor at DePauw University in Indiana. “What are they trying to say? It doesn’t do any good if people don’t know what it means.”

He says it is legendary in the ad business to list off the number of cars that have failed to succeed in foreign countries because the model name meant something else in the language.

“This is just like ignoring what the symbol might mean in another context,” says Tatge. UC officials counter that they trying to be cutting edge instead of stodgy to be attractive to students.

“We want to convey that this is an iconic place that makes a difference to California and that there is a UC system,” the UC system’s director of marketing communication, Jason Simon, told the L.A. Times.

The university is reminding everyone that the old logo will still appear on diplomas and the official letterhead, although the UC websites do now carry the new logo.

Marketing specialists say that such uprisings are typical when businesses or institutions try to change their image. Officials at the Gap clothing chain and Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice backtracked to using original logos after they made changes that triggered consumer protests.

But several say UC should just stand its ground, and allow some time for the initial shock to wear off.

“Change is hard. In a year, this will die down and the benefit will outweigh the legacy logo,” says Tom Drucker, a Marina Del Rey-based image specialist who focuses on new business models and idea management.

“All tweets are not the same – tweets about the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street obviously are of much greater import than Tweets mocking a new university logo,” says Paul Levinson, a professor of communications at Fordham University in New York and author of “New New Media.”

Objections from students to just about everything a university does is a time-honored part of university life, he notes.

“So, first, University of California officials should take a deep breath,” he says. “Twitter has magnified such objections, true, but that’s also a good thing. Students are entitled to express their opinions.”

Still other analysts feel that the UC episode is not so much a screw-up as just a sign of the times, which once again spotlights the democratization of ideas and expression.

“It’s increasingly par for the course. It’s a great example of the democratization of individual voice bestowed upon people with Internet access,” says Bernard McCoy, associate professor of mass communications at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “Internet access means more people, regardless of title, economic standing, or experience, have a voice whose reach and audience is potentially global.”

But others say the whole episode is a tempest in a teacup, for the very same reason.
“This tells us nothing about UC or the wisdom of decision making. The only story here is a tired one these days – namely that social media have changed everything,” says Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine.

“Ten years ago, the worst that would have happened with a logo change is that a couple of disgruntled alumni would have written complaint letters. Now, through crowding and viral processes, any trivial event can produce an uproar. In this case – as is often the case with social media – the uproar is as trivial as the event.”

But Professor Levinson thinks the new media environment has created a situation that is different from previous decades, in that the protests are harder to brush off. “What Twitter has done is make it impossible for the university to ignore those opinions,” says Levinson. “In the case of the logo, if the university agrees with the objections, the logo should be changed.”

By Daniel B. Wood | Christian Science Monitor

Wishing you and yours a great holiday and looking forward to 2013!

That covers a vast spectrum that most may not apply with their immediate thought of what “design” means to them. However, let’s clear up one principle thought: Design is much more than making something aesthetically “pretty”. Design involves considerable research, thought, modeling, and foresight to not only stay true to its prospective goal, but to also push the limits of design to remain an innovative entity. “Features, subtleties, and finishes spawn imitators with unprecedented speed. That means that design-led companies must innovate constantly to maintain their edge.”¹ Without fundamental design improvements, how will you prove your worth to consumers with every use? Here’s some food for thought – whom do you trust to cultivate that relationship between your product and your customer, an engineer or a designer?

Now, let’s apply this thinking to your business. What if you were to consider being a product company where you are building better solutions? For example, “Apple’s rise offers a few important lessons about today’s connection between design and business. The easiest is that design allows you to stoke consumer lust–and demand higher prices as a result. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who owns a $600 iPhone, but Apple’s model suggests some harder-to-digest lessons. One is the value of thinking of product systems rather than solely products.”¹

“Design makes all the difference. It determines a concept’s usability, interactivity, clarity and scope, and can mean the difference between a business’s success and demise.”² Refer to the new Lincoln MKZ. “The once-mighty Lincoln has struggled for 20 years. But Ford is trying to turn it around, using the power of design.” Or even Microsoft’s, “Windows 8: The boldest, biggest redesign in Microsoft’s history.”

Design adds value. If a company is going to survive in a competitive market, it will need to design its products with added value and solutions for today’s consumer, not yesterday’s customer. “Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are quite beside the point: design is inevitable. The alternative to good design is bad design, not no design at all.”³

Let’s bring design into the next logical step – your brand. So you’ve designed a great product that today’s consumers can appreciate. Now, how do you package it? Promote it? Market it? Would you keep your existing brand, slap a new logo on it and hope that consumers will be able to tell the difference in your new product or will you apply the same level of ingenuity that you used to design your new product to your brand?

Here are three key elements that you should apply to your brand from Forbes, “Why Brand Matters More Than Ever In the 21st Century” by David Cooperstein:

• Define your North Star. Take a look at the brand’s direction. For Coca Cola, their North Star is to “Share Happiness” For Mercedes, its “the best or nothing.” For Secret, it’s “empowering women to be fearless.” Is it honest and transparent? Is it inspirational? Is it strategic and concise? If the answer to any of these questions are no, you need to reinvest in what that brand North Star needs to be.
• Remap your brand. Rather than the traditional marketing model that starts with the product, and then hands over the responsibility for related actions and brand messages, marketers need to start with actions that exemplify the brand experience, then focus on the messages that draw the audience in. Nike and Apple do this by creating stores within a store, both in the physical world at partner retailers’ stores, but also online in custom branded virtual storefronts within partner dot-com properties.
• Keep on track with a brand compass. Brands that succeed in a world of empowered consumers need to focus on four elements of the new brand experience – brands need to be trusted, relevant, unmistakable and essential. If not, they will fade to the background while other brands assert their navigational strength to provide a clear set of experiences to the world.

Don’t let your product fall behind because of your brand management, or lack thereof. Take the extra effort and design your brand with your product in mind. Now apply that to your marketing materials, online presence, sponsorships and even broadcast. For a great example of brand follow-through, back in 1985, the Harley-Davidson motorcycle was at risk of disappearing from highways when it almost went bankrupt. What saved the company, says Richard F. Teerlink, the former CFO turned CEO who championed the change, was a better product to match the well-known brand. “In 1982, Harley-Davidson had no money of its own,” Teerlink told Harvard MBA students in 2003. “We were $90 million in debt, and bankers weren’t willing to loan us a penny. We had a good brand and loyal customers, but we weren’t generating a profit because we didn’t have a quality product at that point. We had to improve the quality of our product to be fair to the customer. If we hadn’t improved the reliability of Harley-Davidson products, the company wouldn’t be here today.” The Lesson: Support your brand with a high-performing product and weed out inefficient management. “Be aware of controls that are barriers to effectiveness,” said Teerlink.

Read more: 10 Most Successful Rebranding Campaigns

And if you haven’t seen any of Harley-Davidson’s marketing materials, I would be very surprised. They changed the way people think of Harley-Davidson. The logo alone conjures up feelings of pride and respect, but that’s not because of the graphic, it’s because of their product and how they have branded it. “We are fueled by the brand loyalty and trust that our customers place in us to deliver premium quality and the promise of a fulfilling lifetime ownership experience. We exemplify this commitment by embracing a culture of personal responsibility and stewardship for quality in everything we do.”⁴ They communicate loyalty, trust, quality and personal responsibility… and that’s what you think of when you see a Harley. That’s branding.

1. Fast Company, “Good Design is Good Business” by Cliff Kuang

2. Mashable, “How Much Is a Good Design Worth?” by Stephanie Buck

3. Douglas Martin, 1989

4. Harley-Davidson, Mission Statement

An example of how simplistic the humor of our society is, is the “Annoying Orange” on YouTube. To keep it short and sweet, the Annoying Orange is a talking orange that is, well, annoying. And he has lots of other fruit friends that find him somewhat annoying as well. And yet, this simple concept has garnered over 1 billion views on YouTube and over 10 million Facebook fans.

How is it possible that something so juvenile and somewhat idiotic manages to capture the attention of so many people? The answer is simple. They stand out from most because they create their own content.

The simple fact is that an original idea is what garners people’s attention, feeds their curiosity and keeps them coming back for more. It doesn’t seem to matter if the idea is top notch; it just has to be novel. That is what people want in today’s society.

Innovative, raw and pioneering ideas. That is what makes this crazy Internet world go round.

Social media monitoring company NetBase analyzed a year’s worth of online conversations — 27 billion conversations in whole, and the number one thing that women want is not love, marriage or children… It’s ice cream! But don’t get offended guys because you’re not much better! The number one thing men want are cars!

Through various sites such as Twitter and Facebook, this study was conducted and this is what people are talking about. People aren’t discussing politics or the opposite sex via social networking sites. They are talking about what their favorite ice cream is (Dairy Queen won by a landslide) or what kind of car they want (a GT Premium Mustang convertible…weird, right?)

However, the study showed that men and women aren’t that different. The top 3 social wants of men and women were exactly the same : ice cream, cars and pizza! It’s 2012 and we are in the center of the most technologically advanced age of human connectivity and this is what men and women want the most out of life?

Say what you want about our modern world, but it clearly is the simple things in life that bring people together.

What apps have you downloaded to your phone recently? If you answered, “weather related apps” you are among the majority. Surprising, right? With all the talk about Social Networking apps like Twitter, Pinterest and Facebook you would think these would be the most popular. Or at least game related apps like Angry Birds or Words with Friends would beat out…the weather.

According to a recent poll on Adweek.com, whether or not you need a rain jacket is more important to people than music, sports or finance apps. Is it that people are starting to get bored with always being so constantly connected? Are people really starting to just care about more practical, day-to-day uses for their phone? Are people angry with Angry Birds?

The weather is important for how we dress and what we plan to do with our day, so perhaps this is the smartest use for our “smart” phones. Fifty-one percent of the population says it is. What do you use your smartphone for the most?

However, viewers were most likely let down a bit this year by the commercials. In past years, it was obvious the company behind the ad campaign spent millions upon millions UPON MILLIONS of dollars to basically get a giggle or show the viewer a little skin. Instead this year, viewers were met with slightly dull, mediocre ads that, while they still got their product in front of the consumer, didn’t demand their attention like they had in past years.

Super Bowl ads of old would go huge. Be as in your face and risqué as humanly possible. If it didn’t make you think “Wow! I can’t believe they did that!” they weren’t doing their job.

However, this year it seemed that companies almost didn’t want to stand out. They didn’t want to push the envelope in fear that it might cause an uproar or make us question “Why would they waste money on that in times of such economic struggle?”

In fact, that is exactly what they were trying to do. Fly under the radar. Not upset anyone or try to make people think that their company would ever waste money. The ads were more practical and efficient as opposed to loud and precarious. In a way, that sounds good right?

Wrong. No one remembered them. They flew too low. The lack of luster in the Super Bowl ads this year shows that we are in fact still in an economic struggle. The mundane-ness of the ads proves this. Once we start seeing those risky and outlandish ads we know and love so much, we will know we are on our way to economic upturn. Until then, I guess we’ll have to settle for sensible.