Separating athletic and academic collegiate “brands” is a dumb idea

12th May 2005

Separating athletic and academic collegiate “brands” is a dumb idea

posted in random |

I know this is politically incorrect in some circles, but I am going to blog on my opinion anyway.

Without naming many names, I would like to observe that the idea of separating athletic and academic collegiate “brands” is absurd at best, dumb at worst. And I tend to lean toward the latter end of the continuum.

Apparently some universities in the US have adopted the idea that their main logo / graphical “brand” that is associated with competitive athletics should be banned from use in academic forums. UT Austin is one example, although Beavo’s horns are still visible (though small) on the homepage’s left sidebar for “UT Direct.”

Without naming any other names, lest I be chastised and punished by persons unknown, I will say that other major universities in the midwestern United States are considering following this same path. Banning the athletic brand / logo and creating a new, here-to-fore relatively meaningless new “academic logo” that will be forced down the throats of collegiate department website authors, brochure designers, etc. seems to be the collegiate marketing trend de jure.

I think the idea of having consistent marketing and logo branding is VERY solid, and many companies in the business world provide great examples of this. Apple Computer is one that readily comes to mind.

My perception of this academic/university “dispute” is that some academicians are upset that their institution is so heavily associated with sports. Well hello, welcome to the 21st century and higher education. That’s the way it is. And that is not all bad.

Thank goodness my hometown university, Kansas State, does not appear to be moving down this path of irrational marketing action, at least yet. The same purple “power cat” logo is prominently displayed on the main website of the university, just as it is on the official homepage of K-State sports.

As a university alum of several schools, I closely identify with the traditional logos of the schools– and I think this is true for most other alums. How silly (I could choose stronger words, but for now I won’t) that some administrators with much higher salaries and many more initials after their names than I have are thinking this “branding separation” is a good thing.

It’s flat out dumb as far as I see it. Hopefully (in cases where this is an issue) others will speak out loudly, and their voices will be heard.

As a final thought and comment, isn’t it ridiculous that people at some institutions are going to expend a great deal of energy and time debating and wrangling over an issue like this one? Shouldn’t we be much more concerned about real issues facing the universities, like how to authentically improve academic excellence, prepare students with real job skills for the workforce, keep costs down for students, and expand enrollments for underrepresented populations?

Instead “those folks” are going to spend large amounts of time and energy arguing about logos and their approved uses. How sad.

On this day..

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 12th, 2005 at 12:59 am and is filed under random. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.