Missing the Point on the UC Logo

I thought we could put the UC redesigned logo story to bed - at least for awhile.  (See the previous and earlier posts.)  But, alas, KPCC this morning aired an interview with a "brand developer" who totally missed the point.  She rattled on and on in a British accent (so who could doubt what she said?) about how the whole problem was the "process" by which the new design was introduced.  If only there had been more participation in the logo design.  Etc. Etc.

Here are the problems and they have zero to do with process.

1) UC has bigger issues to deal with.  Why was anyone spending any time on redesigning the logo?  Could it be that someone thought it was important?  Why would anyone think that, if so?  What kind of priorities would such a person have?

2) What will the redesign bring about?  Will it raise the budget allocation from the state for UC?  Will donors give more money to UC thanks to the redesign?  Will more research grants be obtained by faculty?  Will courses become less crowded?  What?

You can say there is a UC "brand" if you like, but that brand has nothing to do with a new logo.  For that matter, it had nothing to do with the old logo.  UC's brand is its reputation. 

There is an old saying: A job not worth doing is not worth doing well.  Too bad that simple notion escaped the brand developer KPCC interviewed.  Let's hope no one at UC headquarters heard the program or took it seriously. Otherwise, we will all be involved in a time-wasting "process." 

You can hear the radio interview at the link below: