First, regarding the short name of the university. I think it is apparent that the full name "Case Western Reserve University" is unwieldy for all but the most formal situations in both speech and writing. Even universities with names half the length of Case's have abbreviated forms which are used by both "insiders" (students, faculty, staff) and the general public. These tend to be formed either as initialisms (MIT, RIT, CMU, TCNJ) or by dropping the word "University" (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon). A few are more creative and are formed by combining words or the like (CalTech).

In our situation, the obvious abbreviated forms of "Case Western Reserve University" are:
- CWRU
- Case
- Case Reserve
- Case Western
- Case Western Reserve

"CWRU" was obviously the former preferred form. Some advantages of this abbreviation are that it's an unambiguous reference to our university (great for Google searches) and that it doesn't 'leave anyone out'. The disadvantage seemed to be that pronunciation is awkward. This seems to be true for any initialism containing a 'W', due to the number of syllables in the name of that letter (perhaps the best example of this phenomenon: no one verbally abbreviates "World Wide Web" as "WWW"). Of course there was (and is) the "crew" pronunciation but that is (a) non-obvious to the general public and (b) much too informal for use by university administrators, etc.

"Case" is the current choice. Obviously it's a controversial one. I don't have a problem with it at all; when I first found out about Case it was still calling itself CWRU. That didn't stop me from using "Case" as the obvious verbal and written shorthand. Of course, while I was still in high school and a prospective student I was unaware of the political implications of using "Case". I was pleasantly surprised when the official CWRU -> Case shift happened, it seemed to me that the university was simply acknowledging a naturally-used shorthand.

Another aspect of the "Case" terminology, that I sometimes hear criticized but that personally I think is actually a positive thing, is that the preemption (as it were) of "Case" by the whole university de-emphasized the Case School of Engineering as a distinct entity. Personally I see myself not as a student of CSE but as a student of the whole university, and I like it that way. I think that it is good that the university is beginning to be perceived more as a cohesive entity with people who can get along and work together than as a loose amalgamation of parts. Obviously there are some (especially older alumni) who seem to strongly disagree with this view.

Moving on, I think that while the form "Case Reserve" makes perfect sense to someone familiar with the university's history, it is confusing (especially to the general public) because linguistically the formation from "Case Western Reserve University" is non-standard and non-obvious. It doesn't roll off the tongue very nicely (IMO) and, additionally, I think that by virtue of its etymology it perpetuates the idea of CSE and the former WRU as distinct entities. Obviously this will please certain constituencies but, as mentioned above, I think it is important for the university to project a more cohesive and unified image, especially as it acts upon its aspirations to become a 'household name' national university.

"Case Western" has a lot of advantages. It's linguistically a natural abbreviation, it's relatively short, and it includes one word from each of the two former institutions (even if it's not completely historically correct). It's an unambiguous reference to our institution, and it eliminates a lot of the confusion that seems to arise as a result of the quasi-military-sounding "Reserve". In fact I use this form a lot when talking to people who may not have heard of Case. My standard answer to "where do you go to school?" is "Case Western (in Cleveland)" even though I am comfortable with (and commonly use with insiders) the "Case" form.

The chief disadvantage of "Case Western Reserve" seems to be its length, though this is less of a problem in print than in spoken language.

To some extent I think people will call the place whatever they want to call it, especially informally. I like what I understand to be the current policy promulgated by interim president Eastwood, which is that semi-formal references should be to "Case Western Reserve", and that the short forms "Case", "CWRU", and "Case Western" are all acceptable, with the choice depending on both personal preference and what is appropriate for the situation. This policy seems to be a good reflection of actual behavior, which I think is an excellent attribute in a policy.

I am going to discuss my views on the logo at similar length (sorry!) in a future post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2007:03:23:00:43:06 by Andrew Witte.

Now for my thoughts on the logo/"visual identity" of the university. To begin with the basics, there seem to be essentially three visual symbols that are used for the university as a whole (I am excluding things like the Spartans logo, etc.). These are the Case logo (blue square + typography), the seal (sunburst + "Case Western Reserve University" in a circle), and the coat of arms. Personally I think the coat of arms is ugly and, besides, I've only ever seen it used once outside of the University Archives webpage on its history. Therefore I am not going to talk about the coat of arms any longer.

I don't particularly mind the blue square logo. Obviously it's abstract, and it seems "trendy" as opposed to "timeless", but I think it is at least fresher and (IMO) more visually attractive than the previous logo. The objections to the current logo that I am aware of (I don't personally hold any of them very strongly) seem to fall into three major categories. The first objection is simply by virtue of the association of the logo with the CWRU -> Case "name change" or with the Hundert administration generally. The second objection is that the logo is visually not befitting of a highly-ranked research university. The third is that the logo is drastically different from what came before and is therefore disrespectful of the university's past.

It seems to me that the logos of other universities, especially the ones admired by Case people, seem to fall into two categories. The first are wordmarks, and the second are logos that are derived from or are simplified/stylized versions of an official seal. Logos in these two categories seem to convey the proper air of stability and gravitas appropriate for a university. The fact that Case's logo does not really fall into one of these categories is what I think people are responding to when they say things like "the logo is too corporate-looking", "too trendy", etc.

Case has, of course, used the logo-as-simplified-seal approach in the past: the previous logo was a rendition of the sunburst. In fact there seems to be a lot of popular support for simply moving back to the old logo. However, I do not agree with this view. First, I simply do not think the old logo was very attractive. Some say it symbolizes and respects the university's past, which I agree is important in a logo, but personally I think it just looked dated. It was not a very timeless design; it looked to me like the 60s or 70s relic it was. Furthermore, I did not (and still do not) think the old logo was an especially good representation of a sunburst. Personally, I saw it as either a paper fan or as some sort of variation on the theme of the NBC peacock, neither of which had or have anything to do with Case. Finally, there is a lot of concern (in my mind, and I think with the university at large) that changing the logo now will make Case appear indecisive and institutionally immature. I think that changing back to the old logo would exacerbate this perception.

I like the idea of a sunburst as an image. Fortunately, the old logo is not the only sunburst image available to the university - we have the seal itself. Those of you who are forum.case.edu regulars may remember that in a previous thread on this topic, I advocated increased use of the university seal instead of the current logo in more contexts. The response I got was that such use was actually somewhat common in the past (pre-1990, maybe?) but that it was discontinued in order to reserve the seal for use in more formal contexts and because the university name in the seal is not very legible.

However, I still like the sunburst image from the seal. It is connected to our history perhaps even more than the previous logo is, and I also think it continues to be relevant and appropriate to the future vision Case has for itself. I think it is a much more attractive and timeless design than either the old or new logos, and I also think it is distinctive and stylized enough to perhaps stand on its own or with a less-formal and more-legible typographical treatment as a university logo. The seal would continue to be used in its current form in the contexts where it is currently used. Obviously there are a lot of graphical and typographical directions this idea could go, and I am not really qualified (nor is this the time) to be specific about that. That said, I can be a visual thinker, so please forgive me for visualizing aloud:





Finally, I would like to say that the whole branding/logo "issue" bothers me a great deal. I think it is ridiculous that the university is expending so much time and energy worrying about this. I hope that when I become an alumnus, I will never be so petty or shallow as to predicate my (financial or other) support for the university on something like its abbreviation or its logo. And to be honest, I have a hard time believing that any current alumni are behaving in such a manner either. I think this "issue" is distracting the university from more important matters, and I think that if we are worried about appearing "stable" to the outside world then the worst possible way to do that is to change our abbreviation and logo yet again. I support the relaxed abbreviation policy (as I mentioned in the previous post) over any further attempts to mandate the One True Short Name of Case Western Reserve University. As for the logo, it just doesn't matter that much. I think the current one is fine but I'm open to a tasteful replacement. I just hope any potential change doesn't cause as much of an uproar as the last change did.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2007:03:22:23:26:54 by Andrew Witte.

Oh, hey. Those actually look pretty nice. The "University" on the first one is annoying, but it'd probably look worse if it were scaled up. But...



Better?

Joseph Recht:

Better?

I am not sure I think sunrise when I look at this. I like the current modern one, but this idea has some of the same problems. People may still ask what is it.

Brian Gray:

Joseph Recht:

Better?

I am not sure I think sunrise when I look at this. I like the current modern one, but this idea has some of the same problems. People may still ask what is it.

An exploding hat, duh.

Andrew Witte:

Brian Gray:

Joseph Recht:

Better?

I am not sure I think sunrise when I look at this. I like the current modern one, but this idea has some of the same problems. People may still ask what is it.

An exploding hat, duh.

Or we are offering optometrist services?

Actually, I kind of like the second one Andrew posted.

On a semi-related note, does Case have a motto? I was noticing that (in typical Ivy fashion) Harvard and UPenn both had Latin mottos in their seals, i.e. Harvard's veritas and UPenn's Leges sine moribus vanae. I think that'd be an interesting touch to add to whatever the next logo is.

Gregory Wu:

On a semi-related note, does Case have a motto?

The only one I can think of is the former WRU motto, Lux ("light").

Why does everyone keep intermingling the concept of a seal with the concept of branding? They are NOT the same thing.

A university seal has a history, it usually has the date an institution was founded, and perhaps some nice latin phrases in it. It probably rarely ever changes for the history of the university, or it is updated only slightly. Everyone has some sort seal, and it usually appears in "official" places like your diploma. This is the source of your tradition.

Branding, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept for universities which arises out of our shining market economy, and doesn't really have anything to do with academics. Although a complete branding campaign will try to establish an identity and message, one of the most important things that comes out of that is simple recognition of a logo or wordmark. That it!! Everything else is gravy.

So lets compare some. I just picked out a few from the previous posts basically at random. There are some that incorporate their seal into their branding as well, though I think they are the exception.

Carnegie Mellon


Since they don't have a logo, nothing relates to their seal. I don't see anything in their brand that even remotely relates to "academic excellence", either. But it is distinctive, and that is what matters.

Mit


Again, not really any correlation, just a logo. To me it might imply "geek", which is appropriate for MIT, but not much else. (It sort of reminds of the binary walkway.)

Olin College


I thought this was an interesting one to compare with Case. will the Olin family get mad in 20 years if they want to get rid of the "O" looking logo?

Case/CWRU/Case Western/Case Reserve/Case Western Reserve University


One thing you'll notice is that branding always looks modern. It has to in order to be competitive in the marketplace to attract students.

I'm not really defending the fat-surfer, but we spent a lot of money on that, and now that effort at recognition (which remember is the primary goal of the brand), which was quite successful, is going complete to waste.

I would like the chance to slap anyone upside the head that wants to go back to the turkey-butt logo, though! Yeah, it was loosely based on our seal, but most people don't know that. I was here for years before I had any recognition of it as a sunburst. That logo is dated and needed to go away.

Why do we need a logo? A wordmark can work just as well. If we insist on having every word in there, and can't possibly slight anyone by making either of two obsolete institution names smaller than the other, there really isn't much room for anything else.

I think my concern in this whole matter is that we will tinker TOO MUCH with the other components of the branding. The web and publication design guidelines have been very successful with new students, and disrupting any of that would be a major overhaul. Do you want to go through a complete web redesign again? If I have any strong wish at this point, is that the new logo/wordmark/whatever be a drop-in replacement for the current graphic. Let's at least try to make the change as minimally disruptive as possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2007:03:23:11:34:18 by Joel Kraft.

Joel Kraft:

Why does everyone keep intermingling the concept of a seal with the concept of branding? They are NOT the same thing.
...

I'm not trying to confuse the two (though I agree that this is sometimes done). I did point out that there is a large class of university logos that are clearly related to an official seal. It so happens that the three examples of other university logos you posted are chiefly wordmarks (OK, OK, Olin has the stylized 'O' symbol too). I can just as easily point out some counterexamples: Cornell and Emory spring quickly to mind. Caltech seems to use its seal as its logo with no modification at all; I don't really think that's a great decision but obviously it works for them.

TCNJ is not necessarily a peer institution, but it's interesting to consider their logo since it was recently redesigned following the college administration's realization that they couldn't stop people from abbreviating "The College of New Jersey" as they had previously tried to do.

Quote:

I would like the chance to slap anyone upside the head that wants to go back to the turkey-butt logo, though! Yeah, it was loosely based on our seal, but most people don't know that. I was here for years before I had any recognition of it as a sunburst. That logo is dated and needed to go away.
...

I think my concern in this whole matter is that we will tinker TOO MUCH with the other components of the branding. The web and publication design guidelines have been very successful with new students, and disrupting any of that would be a major overhaul. Do you want to go through a complete web redesign again? If I have any strong wish at this point, is that the new logo/wordmark/whatever be a drop-in replacement for the current graphic. Let's at least try to make the change as minimally disruptive as possible.

Agreement and emphasis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2007:03:23:11:56:36 by Andrew Witte.