That logo sucks.
I thought the old 1987 crown logo was more clever. I never saw UNCC when I looked at it.
I saw a good solution to a bad identity problem: Combine the UNC, somewhat distorting it and make the C slightly larger to emphasize “Charlotte” all in a decent looking font. I thought it is brilliant with what they had to work with.
One thing is for sure: I will never buy a piece of gear with the new logo on it.
My love/hate relationship with this institution continues to grow. What a piece of **** logo.
Nice work Phil!!!
Ive always hated that damn crown. Add UNC under it, and it’s just awful.
Bet Phil loves it.
If the city leaders had the same vision for the city as CHP has for our school, Charlotte would still be Mayberry.
What a waste…
while we’re at it (and I know there have been other threads about it BUT)…
our website is AWFUL. I looked at uncg, uncw, unc (I know, I know, but they are unc.edu) and several others and ours is bad.
Not impressed. It would have cost us the same to change the name to UoC.
Does anyone know exactly how much was spent on this? I’m sure it’s posted somewhere. I just want to know how much of my tuition was wasted on something as idiotic as that.
As a member of the committee that selected the 1987 logo, I flat out hate the “new” look. The original logo in no way said UNCC… in fact, the C in Charlotte was made larger so it wouldn’t. In addition, our chancellor says the symbol is a crown which is not correct. It is most often referred to as a crown because of the location in the Queen City but also was selected because it closely resembled a fountain (as in fountain of knowledge) or a person emerging or growing through a University education. I would have thought he or someone on his staff would have at least read the statement issued at the time.
[QUOTE]
"Our existing crown logo is fundamentally sound and enjoys broad internal and external support from my bosses in Raleigh. For that reason, I made the decision to retain the UNC Charlotte crown logo as our primary institutional mark since I don’t wish to do anything to upset the balance in the UNC system. Chapel Hill approves of this logo as well ,” wrote Chancellor Philip L. Dubois in a letter to all faculty and staff.
[/QUOTE]
This is some bull****.
I could have come up with a better logo in my senior level public relations class in about 10 minutes, including a full fledged marketing plan to go with it.
[QUOTE=d-roc15;338879]I could have come up with a better logo in my senior level public relations class in about 10 minutes, including a full fledged marketing plan to go with it.[/QUOTE]
I could have come up with a better logo in Microsoft Paint.:lmao:
In other news: Our front entrance will keep a carolina blue light on because we are all UNC.
What a waste...while we’re at it (and I know there have been other threads about it BUT)…
our website is AWFUL. I looked at uncg, uncw, unc (I know, I know, but they are unc.edu) and several others and ours is bad.
Quit bashing NN.N. Oh wait, there is another website for Charlotte?
Seriously, though, how many of us actually go to the University’s website (unless you have to)? NN is the true University webpage.
this is moronic.
Trying to pawn that graphic off as “new” is an insult to my intelligence. I want an expense breakdown of the $ spent to create that “new” logo.
Who profited from that?
Someone who has more time than me, please investigate this matter!!!
[QUOTE=donkeyjaws;338911]Trying to pawn that graphic off as “new” is an insult to my intelligence. I want an expense breakdown of the $ spent to create that “new” logo.
Who profited from that?
Someone who has more time than me, please investigate this matter!!![/QUOTE]
This is an article from the UTimes from May:
[COLOR=Green]http://www.nineronline.com/2.5290/1.545093[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]Olster explains that the university and the firm agreed upon a four step initiative. The first initiative, market research, targeted six audiences with surveys in order to test their perception of the university against the university’s vision to gage how the university is perceived.
The second initiative, Olster states, allowed for Stamats to take “a fine tune look at the Web site” so that there is “consistency and relevancy” to our vision for the university.
The third initiative is to modify and update the look and feel of the university logo while still keeping the crown emblem that represents the city of Charlotte, keeping the university colors of green and white still to uphold the traditional elements of the school. The logo is set to release this upcoming summer.
The fourth and last initiative is what is referred to as the Creative Campaign, which takes the surveys conducted on audiences and “move(s) the needle of the current perception of our university to our desired perception,” Olster said.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Because the university is still in search for the last firm, the cost for the entire endeavor is estimated to be $200,000 which will come from the University Relations & Community Affairs Department budget .[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=donkeyjaws;338911]Trying to pawn that graphic off as “new” is an insult to my intelligence. I want an expense breakdown of the $ spent to create that “new” logo.
Who profited from that?
Someone who has more time than me, please investigate this matter!!![/QUOTE]
Can we put in a requst for public information?
It wouldn’t cost $100 to take some surveys of the people who matter (Students, Alum, Faculty, Staff) to see that we want the UNC to get the FU(K OUT!.
for some reason this logo just makes me just furious with this school.
Its not just the logo, or the “UNC”, or even the money, its the fact that someone has the brain cell capacity to type, but not enough to realize that there is nothing new about the logo.
I am in agreement with 2002, we need to request how much was paid for this logo.