When Brands Attack: What You Can Learn From a University’s Bad Brand Move

Brand history is full of horror stories that Steven King himself couldn’t write. There was the 1985 launch of New Coke. Or the ’70’s introduction of the Chevy Nova (no va translating to “it doesn’t go” in Spanish) to Latin America.

Brand history is full of horror stories that Steven King himself couldn’t write. There was the 1985 launch of New Coke. Or the ’70’s introduction of the Chevy Nova (no va translating to “it doesn’t go” in Spanish) to Latin America.

Last week, the University of Dayton athletic department joined the ranks for the brand-ashamed.

Following the basketball team’s Cinderella run to the Elite Eight last March, the university set out to capitalize on their recruiting opportunity by creating a new athletic logo. The new logo was meant to “embody the university’s history and its vision for the future.“

What they actually created was a social media firestorm.

You be the judge. Old  logo on the left, new on the right.

To most of the community, the new brand was introduced on Facebook … and many swore it was a poorly executed joke. Since its introduction, the logo has been the talk of the town – for all the wrong reasons.

After more than 1,000 votes to date on the A common Facebook profile picture
in southwest Ohio this week.When I look at the logo with my brand-geek hat on and through the eyes of someone close (too close) to the project, I see what they were going for. The colors are darker and more modern. The blue “wing” represents Dayton’s Wright Brothers heritage and the “Flyers” nickname. Its lines and movement have a more modern look. But in my own unscientific research the most common first impression (aside from WTF) is, “what the hell is it?” I’ve personally only seen train wrecks like this come out of committee-think sessions.

If I could jump into a Delorean and fire up the ol’ flux capacitor, I would go back in time and beg the brand team. Rather than use social media to announce the brand … use it to TEST the brand. Imagine the decisions that might be made today with feedback from the poor call center at UD who’s phone lines have exploded with angry calls … and the battered folks maintaining UD’s social media.

Last fall, The GAP introduced a new logo for their online sales. The backlash was so severe that they quietly changed back to the original logo a week later. I don’t see UD back-peddling here. I think they are going to have to ride this one out. But I also don’t see local tattoo parlors being swamped with new business to permanently ink the new “VD” logo onto any proud alumni.

Take a lesson from UD and The GAP, if you’re considering a new brand identity:

• Go into research with open eyes – do not try to get results that justify a pre-determined conclusion
• After you’ve listened, understood and done your best to represent what the target wants, test your work to make sure you hit the mark – and avoid the “brick” that UD athletics threw up.