Old Main is getting a makeover – at least in terms of how it represents the university in graphic form to global audiences.
A new University of Arkansas logo was unveiled Tuesday, March 3, by the office of university relations, which has led a nine-month redesign effort. The logo serves as the graphic identity for the university, and for the past 20 years has consisted of an image of the north tower of Old Main with the university’s name inscribed upon it.
The new mark, which officially will be adopted by the university on July 1, 2009, continues use of the familiar north tower, but separates out the words “University of Arkansas” and places more emphasis on “Arkansas,” along with other elements that refer to university traditions.
“When the current logo was created in the late 1980s, video applications were limited and the Internet wasn’t even a remote consideration,” said Tysen Kendig, associate vice chancellor for university relations. “The horizontal line treatment of the old logo, which worked in some print applications, was problematic with some electronic media. Our logo had ceased to be functional and no longer represented us as the nationally competitive flagship university we’ve become.”
In an effort to be sustainable and cost-efficient, the time leading up to official adoption will be used to phase-out existing materials bearing the old logo, including letterhead, business cards, publications and other printed documents.
The new logo will not replace the university seal, which is used on official documents such as diplomas, or the Razorback, the official spirit logo intended exclusively for athletic purposes.
Chancellor G. David Gearhart asked university relations to manage the design change in-house, noting that estimates from outside firms ran as high as $200,000 with no guarantee that the campus community’s opinions would be fully considered.
“Changing a logo is an enormous undertaking,” said Roy Cordell, director of visual and creative services for university relations, whose team led the redesign process. “People have an emotional tie to the university’s logo, so we took great care to make sure we considered as many viewpoints as possible in creating the new look.”
Looks great! I love the Ivy League theme to it. It is vey clean and crisp that will age well and not looked dated.
The first word that came to mind: “prissy”
The 2nd thought: The name ARKANSAS is too large. The eye cannot take in all of it readily while also looking at the tower.
The 3rd thought: The administration has been conned into paying a lot of money for
nothing. At least this is not true. Logos have value and should not often be changed ; familiarity helps identify with the business/university. This logo is a mistake
but will survive the mis-step.
although I like the new logo, love I don’t–reminds me of Rhodes College logo
It looks great. You guys done good!
The University where I worked went through the same exercise and spent big $$$ changing signs, letterheads, business cards etc. Final result…not measureable. Usually these projects originate with Alum staff who have too much time on their hands
Oh, how does it looks. Looks just fine, not all that different from the old one, I doubt most people will even notice. As we say when texting NBD.
Looks good. It puts more emphasis on the university name without loosing the symbol of legacy.
The logo is a bit cartoon-y, but the font and look of the university name is great. A little tweaking and it’ll be perfect.
Good job. It looks tuned to the computer age.
Nice and simple.
Good job. It looks tuned to the computer age.
Nice and simple.
I don’t care for it. It looks amateurish.
There isn’t major difference between the old and the new logo. Personally, I like the old logo though and hope the university officials consider keep using it.
The old logo was much better. What is the idea of the “shield” behind the tower? It reminds me of a blank coat of arms. I hope the old logo will be retained, but if we must, for some unknown reason, have a new one, please try again.
My reaction was, “and”, until reading the comments. Then my response was that if this symbol reminds most people of an Ivy League theme it should immediately be rejected for use. If the symbol just has to be altered begin anew.
My reaction was, “and”, until reading the comments. Then my response was that if this symbol reminds most people of an Ivy League theme it should immediately be rejected for use. If the symbol just has to be altered begin anew.
looks ok, where’s the HOG?
Possible?? I looked at 4 existing logos. The annual report has one version. Vistor guide has another. Arkansas Alumni another. Alumni Ambassadors another. I agree with keeping Old Main on it, but maybe the same design with different wording for all. Three arches better fit the design when showing this part of the tower. Arkansas Alumni has a circle.
My first thought are it looks kind of plain. I do not see the full tradition. My second thought is that it is simple, yet bold in statement of my University and a small window into the tradititoin. All in all I like it a lot!
gross.
I hate it…and do not know why we need a change in the first place!!!
I like it. At first, I didn’t like the new logo that the USAF adopted several years ago, but I also recognize that we have to change to be more in line with what others are doing and to present a clear, up-to-date image of our beloved institution.
Too simple; not sophisticated. Could be better. Please try again.
The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse.
My first thoughts are “Why?” and “Why this one?”.
Well, I am relieved that you did not pour $ 200,000 down a rat hole to get this new gee-whiz logo. Unfortuantely, $ 5 was probably too much.
The old logo was fine. The new logo needs to lose the shield. We are not a glee club.
One comment noted that it makes us look ivy league. I think it makes us look like we have a bad case of Ivy League Envy.
I don’t.
New does not mean recycled. A fresh concept was expected. We have more images that blend traditon with progress than just “the old bell tower”.
The Razorback, Old Main, and Senior Walk are three icons that students, alumni and donors recognize. Why utilize a shield or coat of arms to project our university?
Mr. Cordell, HOW COULD YOU?? Where are the old traditions? And where is the HOG? I think it is a big bust and would hope it could be restored to the old logo.
New logo isn’t very good.
The old one was much nicer.
Although I like the use of the Old Main tower and the lettering, the shield doesn’t really do it for me. Perhaps some other backdrop design, using the Razorback Red color, of course! Thanks!
Now is a fine time to ask me what I think about the new logo. Why didn’t you ask before it became official? You want my opinion? Ok, my opinion is I don’t like it. It is bland, unexciting, and won’t attract attention. Finally, the official logo should contain a razorback.
So you really don’t want to know what I think about the new logo. Have it your way. Don’t post it. You must be looking for 100% positive comments. Reminds me of a a third world nation where the “leader” receives 100% of the votes.
Kudos to the talented designer(s)…I think it’s awesome!
Liked the old logo better.
Sorry, not impressed. Should be better. Especially don’t like the shield.
What was wrong with the old logo? In today’s era where everyone is cutting back on costs, it seems a bit excessive to spend 9 months designing this as well as all the costs associated with replacing the old version.
I look forward to 2028 when someone can decide it is time to DITCH THIS DESIGN. It is pretentious, haughty, and unimaginative. Why didn’t the U of A sponsor a competition within the Arts Department with the winning student receiving a tuition waiver for their remaining years until graduation? This is part of what they are being trained to do. The waiver would be a minimal investment relative to the potential return and the winning student would have a great selling point on their resume.
NOT a fan…….I understand the idea of updating the old logo, but this is not impressive. Spending that much money for this was a complete waste and disappointment. As an alumnus and current student, I wish more input would have been collected.
don’t care for it……
get it better or leave what we have alone…..
respectfully,
David Stone
The university is old, storied, living and breathing in the mountains. The logo tells none of that.
“University” and “Arkansas” must be the same size. Are we presenting the state or the university?
The shield is out of place. A red rectangle for the background would be better.
It’s time to evaluate the likely success of the project and change the strategy.
I would like to see the U of A develop a “Sign”. Texas, Texas A & M , & Texas Tech have a “Sign”….We need one.
Sterility and lifeless, much like corporate America logos. Tell me, did someone consult with InBev because they did the same hatchet job to the world famous Anheuser-Busch logo.
A retireee of Sherwin-Williams once shared a story with me about logo changes. Several years ago someone intelligent in the company decided that the logo, which was developed in the late 1800s, was not environmentally friendly so they convinced the management that it should be changed. So they embarked on a multi-year muti-million dollar venture to change the logo. Finally, after much ado the logo was finished and rolled out to the affiliate stores.
What was the result? The result was a 30% drop in sales at local stores and millions in lost revenue because customers no longer identified the qualities of Sherwin-Williams with the new logo. They had thrown away their history, reliability, credibility, and trust.
What is the moral of this story? Tread lightly when you decide to change a readily recognized icon of a well-established institution, even if you do have the best intentions in mind.
This logo change is a clear and utter mistake and I hope the people in charge recognize that before it is too late.
The old logo was much more distinguished and you could see the tradition. It made the University look like a serious, respected institution of higher learning. The new logo is cartoonlike and looks like a joke — the last thing we need. Furthermore, it is a waste of money to re-logo everything at this critical point in our economy. Why not use that money for need-based scholarships, since there are more people in need right now?
Looks cheap and amateurish. No depth. Sorry but that’s how I feel.
Yet, once again the university has changed the public image of the university without any consideration of the wants and desires of the alumni. A few years ago they changed the look of the Razorback and added “Black” as an official part of our color scheme, which had never been a part of our tradition, going back to the days when our mascot was the Cardinal. Do they ever think about consulting us? I suppose that we need to pay bureacrats to keep busy and make decisions for us. Here, Here! Let’s give them some more of our money to change our traditions without our say so.
Hope you will listen to the people who took the time to respond! Old Main reminds me of the “Mary Poppins” movie. Not at all like the like the tradition of the University of Arkansas! Sorry guys…….please start over!
The shield approach is blah.
I don’t understand the reason for change. I like the old one better.
It’s OK, but not that much better than the old one which I am sitting here looking at. And I ask with David Newbern, what’s with the shield?
I agree with most people who don’t care for the new logo. I repeat the fact that it looks like a cartoon with a shield (what’s that about?) behind it. Let’s apply the old adage, “if it aint’ broke, don’t fix it”!
I live in Texas. There is only one item known outside of Arkansas and alumni. I agree with Dorsey Jones, the most important and in order are the Razorback, Old Main and Senior Walk. I did not hear or see any requests from Alumni or the public for comments and I think you got exactually what you paid for. Nothing better than before and maybe worse. I am not in the field of relations but I do know what sells the University of Arkansas to outsiders – The Razorback, The Razorback, The Razorback. I hope that we are not too committed to this as I read the 47 comments before me. Thanks for our request even late as it is.
My feeling is “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”!
And I don’t think the old logo was broken.
The new logo looks too much like Madison Avenue got ahold of it.
I do not like the new logo at all! I also think that it looks like a cartoon. Not a fan! Some things just shouldn’t change!
TERRIBLE JUDGEMENT BY SUPPOSEDLY SMART PEOPLE.
The old logo depicts the values of the University better than any logo of any other University I have ever seen.
Why cant my grandsons enjoy the same logo that my son and I enjoyed.
I think this might be the opinion of a great percentage of former students and alumni
I’m a proud alum and an Associate Creative Director for a Dallas ad agency. From my professional perspective, I’d have to say “well done” to the inhouse design team.
To all of those that claim that it is too simple, I must differ. The entire purpose of a logo is to make the simplest possible visual stamp for a brand. This logo does a nice job of that.
To all those that claim the logo should contain a razorback, I must tell you that you are wrong. The University of Arkansas brand is much bigger than the Razorbacks. For too long, the school was defined only by its sports teams. Now, that there’s an actual focus on academics, you want to drag the whole university back into the locker room? Don’t get me wrong – there’s no bigger Hog fan than me. But the Razorback belongs to the university’s athletic department, and that’s where it should stay.
My only concern is the practical, day-to-day usage. When sized for business cards, letterhead, websites, etc., the detail (particularly around the windows of the tower) may be lost. But I assume that you’ve done your due diligence and experimented with smaller sizes.
Well done.
As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The previous logo was traditional. This new logo is tacky. Looks like the logo for a private high school.
Having gone through this same process a couple of years ago with the nonprofit arts organization I work for, I know how hard it is to read these comments. But, I have to admit the shield bothers me. It looks little 80’s but the rest of the logo I like. Many of the comments seem to revolve around the shield. Perhaps that part should be rethought. Good luck and don’t let the insensitivity of some of the comments get to you.
If the old logo wasn’t well suited for electronic media, as was noted as a reason to change, then someone should explain how and why this new one is. I find the new logo a bit amateurish. I think the Old Main tower should be rendered in “perspective”, with an angular projection of the tower. Lose the shield, it look like a lapel pin. The letters of the University of Arkansas should be all the same size. Thanks for asking for opinions!!!
I graduated in 1964. The old logo served me well lo these 45 years. I do not like the new one.
Enough said.
I like it a lot better than the old one. I did not like the old one at all. I do wish, however, that you would incorporate the Razorback onto the logo. Sports at Arkansas is so important, why leave that out. I think that the Razorback represents the University more than Old Main.
I am totally under impressed. Please don’t change or do better, much better!
A few items for clarification-
The shield is in the same shape of the one from the official seal of the University of Arkansas.
The font of the University of Arkansas lettering is identical to the font of the names enscribed on Senior Walk.
Focus groups to obtain feedback and comments were conducted with students, alumni, faculty, and staff during the entire process.
It is not clear to me why our University’s image and identity has to have a make over. Someone please post the issues that have tarnished our image. The existing logo is better than the one proposed revision. Do us all a favor and keep the “old” logo.
I would have thought some consideration would have been given to an on-campus student design competition with our talented Art and Architecture Students providing creative input following the new print and media guidelines that must be considered. The shield on the new design detracts from the traditional appearance that you will find most alumni would prefer. Please reconsider.
I don’t care for the one-demensional look. It has zero “pazzaz”. Why is the North tower always used?
Booo!!!
Don’t change it, the other logo looked great and looked more professional.
VERY DISAPPOINTED — I’m glad you didn’t spend much on it. I think you got what you paid for. It looks like you took some other school’s logo, changed the text, and added a shield (what’s with that?). It looks very generic. Pull it from circulation now before it ends up on too many things.
Yuck.
Okay, it is growing on me, and gratefully it is not as horrible as the new Hendrix Warrior mascot!
Please do not use this Logo.
Don’t like it. It is too simplistic and out of proportion. The Shield thing looks like a gimmick.
Too simplistic and bland. Very generic. Does not look unique or interesting at all.
I would like to see the U of A investigate a Hand Sign that Razorbacks could adopt….Texas has “Hook ’em Horns”, Texas A & M has “Gig ’em Aggies”, and Texas Tech has the “Pistol”.
What could intelligent people like us come up with for The U of A?
Looks like a beetle.
While I would like to say I like the new logo, I do not. The shield is okay with the tower, but the lettering of the “University of Arkansas” is offensive to me. Why? Because it looks like it is diminishing the importance of the school in relation to the state with the smaller and thinner font – it looks like the school is fading from view. As an optometrist I see that when you come onto the logo you see ARKANSAS first and then it dawns on you that there is the word University, too. When one is promoting the school (and it is an institution of higher learning that has through the years led the state in many of its successes in many fields) one shouldn’t be ashamed to state that it is in existence. The wisp of the presence of the word “university” disappoints me; in fact, it strikes me as weak. Sure wouldn’t put that bumper sticker on my car. And if I saw that logo in the mail on the return address of an appeal envelope, it sure would make me think twice about whether I’d want to send a check to a school that didn’t want to stand up and proudly state that it was the UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS. If it’s a done deal, then so am I. I remember when we had bumper stickers on our cars that said simply “THE UNIVERSITY” and that spoke volumes. T. T. Tyler Thompson ’72
While I would like to say I like the new logo, I do not. The shield is okay with the tower, but the lettering of the “University of Arkansas” is offensive to me. Why? Because it looks like it is diminishing the importance of the school in relation to the state with the smaller and thinner font – it looks like the school is fading from view. As an optometrist I see that when you come onto the logo you see ARKANSAS first and then it dawns on you that there is the word University, too. When one is promoting the school (and it is an institution of higher learning that has through the years led the state in many of its successes in many fields) one shouldn't be ashamed to state that it is in existence. The wisp of the presence of the word “university” disappoints me; in fact, it strikes me as weak. Sure wouldn't put that bumper sticker on my car. And if I saw that logo in the mail on the return address of an appeal envelope, it sure would make me think twice about whether I'd want to send a check to a school that didn't want to stand up and proudly state that it was the UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS. If it's a done deal, then so am I. I remember when we had bumper stickers on our cars that said simply “THE UNIVERSITY” and that spoke volumes. T. T. Tyler Thompson '72
The new UA logo looks non-professional and amateurish. Please change it back to the previous logo.
F. D. Kisor
BSCE- 1961
The new UA logo looks non-professional and amateurish. Please change it back to the previous logo.F. D. KisorBSCE- 1961
Can’t say that I “like” it. I was rather fond of the old one.
If you MUST “change for the sake of change”, at least add the clock to the tower. It’s been 100 years in coming…shouldn’t we show it off?
I, too, would like for the U of A to have some “hand recognition”…just don’t ask the IFC to develop it! 🙂
Can't say that I “like” it. I was rather fond of the old one.If you MUST “change for the sake of change”, at least add the clock to the tower. It's been 100 years in coming…shouldn't we show it off?I, too, would like for the U of A to have some “hand recognition”…just don't ask the IFC to develop it! 🙂
Also…in addition to the clock face, perhaps use a red or maroon “Running Razorback” behind the tower vs. the shield?
Also…in addition to the clock face, perhaps use a red or maroon “Running Razorback” behind the tower vs. the shield?
For all those that might have missed it the New Logo for the University of Arkansas is in use. Starting as of July 1st, 2009 the new logo is to be used by official departments, centers and units of the University of Arkansas. You can learn more about it at http://logo.uark.edu today.
For all those that might have missed it the New Logo for the University of Arkansas is in use. Starting as of July 1st, 2009 the new logo is to be used by official departments, centers and units of the University of Arkansas. You can learn more about it at http://logo.uark.edu today.
Wow. Another University of Arkanss Black and Red Logo. Why don’t we just change our name to Arkansas State. This logo might be acceptable if it were Cardinal and White only.
Wow. Another University of Arkanss Black and Red Logo. Why don't we just change our name to Arkansas State. This logo might be acceptable if it were Cardinal and White only.
I have not much time, but I've got many useful things here, love it!
I have not much time, but I've got many useful things here, love it!
I didn’t realize there were so many graphic artists out there? Any time a new “design” is involved you are going to get negative comments from the naysayers. When the design for Vietnam Memorial in Washington was selected, it was lambasted by the naysayers….yet today is considered one of our best war memorials. The new logo design is just fine.
I didn’t realize there were so many graphic artists out there? Any time a new “design” is involved you are going to get negative comments from the naysayers. When the design for Vietnam Memorial in Washington was selected, it was lambasted by the naysayers….yet today is considered one of our best war memorials. The new logo design is just fine.