AD Lee: New logo is 'board-approved', we're not going back

[BrentVU]

Vanderbilt vice chancellor for communications and marketing Steve Ertel and athletic director Candice Lee knew that there would be a strong reaction to the university changing its logos. If there wasn't a reaction, Lee said, she would've been concerned as it would have been a sign that people didn't care...

In the early days of the new logo, Vanderbilt has been the butt of some jokes for changing what some saw as an iconic star V logo. An online petition has circulated calling for the university to revert back to the old logos.

Despite the public backlash, Lee indicated that these logos are board-approved and the university does not plan to go back to the old ones.

More...
Tennessean: Why Vanderbilt decided to change its logos in controversial rebrand (by Aria Gerson)
https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports ... 172915001/

[FayetteDore]

I appreciate VU for explaining the thought processes. I appreciate the desire to bring uniformity to branding across the campus.

Three things stood out to me:

"Lee sad merchandise sales with the current logos lagged behind the rest of the SEC, signifying that it may be time for a change." IMHO, that is disingenuous because VU merchandise is ALWAYS going to lag behind the rest of the SEC: it has a much smaller, more national fanbase, with alumni whose personal identities and self-worth are not as wrapped up in their alma mater's sports as their SEC brethren.

"Vanderbilt wanted to provide a variety of options for logos because different coaches preferred different things. The golf programs, for instance, prefer the anchor logo. When the courts and fields are changed over to the new logos, the program will have the option of using the block V, star on top of the V, star in the V or an anchor." Having explained that one of the main reasons for change was the proliferation of various logos across the campus (not just athletics), we now learn that various programs will have the option of using alternatives.

"One of the priorities was to make sure that whether teams used a block or star V, the "V" used was the same, which was not the case before.) As for uniformity of the V, take a look at the V in the new main Vanderbilt University logo (which has a "raised" look with a subtle line running down the middle of both wings of the V, with appropriate shading) compared to the V being used in sports (which does not have the raised element).

Ah well. A foolish consistency.....

[cmontgomery]

What is more apparent to me after reading this is how out of touch the administration is. The unwillingness to listen to its largest stakeholders is a direct reflection on the lack of leadership in place.

There are many things I like about what is taking place but this is definitely not one of them.

Like the logo or not, the unwillingness to listen to the outcry and basically say “get over it” is astonishing. They should probably head over to Owen and take a leadership course or two…

[Georgiadore]

[quote=FayetteDore post_id=170875 time=1648307136 user_id=146]
I appreciate VU for explaining the thought processes. I appreciate the desire to bring uniformity to branding across the campus.

"Lee sad merchandise sales with the current logos lagged behind the rest of the SEC, signifying that it may be time for a change." IMHO, that is disingenuous because VU merchandise is ALWAYS going to lag behind the rest of the SEC: it has a much smaller, more national fanbase, with alumni whose personal identities and self-worth are not as wrapped up in their alma mater's sports as their SEC brethren.

Very true. Vanderbilt also does a horrible job marketing/making things available for purchase - for example, the "Ball In" postseason basketball t shirts were not available on Fanatics related sites - only in the bookstore (they are gone now) - while other schools' similar shirts were available. Things like that are very common.

[Captcook]

I’ve already chimed in on how bad this change was, so I won’t revisit that; however, I would point out the lag in merchandise sales has NOTHING to do with the Star V logo… it has everything to do with 1) size of the fan base and student body enrollment as has already been pointed out above), and 2) the lack of any success outside of baseball and absolutely horrible condition and poor product the administration let the large athletic programs become (football, mens and womens basketball in that order) in the last 8 years.

Look at the number of fans in our stadiums on game day. THAT is what is correlated to merchandise sales, NOT the logo!

And once again, tone deaf to those outside Kirkland… at some point, if everyone else feels differently than you, you aren’t the smartest person in the room, you’re just wrong.

[commadore]

I appreciate VU for explaining the thought processes. I appreciate the desire to bring uniformity to branding across the campus.

Three things stood out to me:

"Lee sad merchandise sales with the current logos lagged behind the rest of the SEC, signifying that it may be time for a change." IMHO, that is disingenuous because VU merchandise is ALWAYS going to lag behind the rest of the SEC: it has a much smaller, more national fanbase, with alumni whose personal identities and self-worth are not as wrapped up in their alma mater's sports as their SEC brethren.

"Vanderbilt wanted to provide a variety of options for logos because different coaches preferred different things. The golf programs, for instance, prefer the anchor logo. When the courts and fields are changed over to the new logos, the program will have the option of using the block V, star on top of the V, star in the V or an anchor." Having explained that one of the main reasons for change was the proliferation of various logos across the campus (not just athletics), we now learn that various programs will have the option of using alternatives.

"One of the priorities was to make sure that whether teams used a block or star V, the "V" used was the same, which was not the case before.) As for uniformity of the V, take a look at the V in the new main Vanderbilt University logo (which has a "raised" look with a subtle line running down the middle of both wings of the V, with appropriate shading) compared to the V being used in sports (which does not have the raised element).

Ah well. A foolish consistency.....

There are most likely fewer VU alumni living in a 300 mile radius than there are graduates from Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, or Florida in a single graduating class.

[OldDude]

What is more apparent to me after reading this is how out of touch the administration is. The unwillingness to listen to its largest stakeholders is a direct reflection on the lack of leadership in place.

There are many things I like about what is taking place but this is definitely not one of them.

Like the logo or not, the unwillingness to listen to the outcry and basically say “get over it” is astonishing. They should probably head over to Owen and take a leadership course or two…

" Astonishing", yes, but so very Vanderbilt.

[buffy]

What is more apparent to me after reading this is how out of touch the administration is. The unwillingness to listen to its largest stakeholders is a direct reflection on the lack of leadership in place.

There are many things I like about what is taking place but this is definitely not one of them.

Like the logo or not, the unwillingness to listen to the outcry and basically say “get over it” is astonishing. They should probably head over to Owen and take a leadership course or two…

Perhaps there are examples where decisions reflect a lack of leadership, but I don't think this is one. It sounds like there was a desire for consistent branding across the university and its athletic teams. Instead of picking favorites, the university created a large selection of new, image-consistent logos. Should they have reached out and solicited the fandom for input through an elaborate data campaign to identify good options that everyone would like? No, because you would have wasted a bunch of money to end up in the same place - a bunch of pissed off people that think the new logos suck. Winning will make most any logo look good.

[All n 4 Vandy]

...last 50 years...

FIFY

[vandy05]

What is more apparent to me after reading this is how out of touch the administration is. The unwillingness to listen to its largest stakeholders is a direct reflection on the lack of leadership in place.

There are many things I like about what is taking place but this is definitely not one of them.

Like the logo or not, the unwillingness to listen to the outcry and basically say “get over it” is astonishing. They should probably head over to Owen and take a leadership course or two…

Perhaps there are examples where decisions reflect a lack of leadership, but I don't think this is one. It sounds like there was a desire for consistent branding across the university and its athletic teams. Instead of picking favorites, the university created a large selection of new, image-consistent logos. Should they have reached out and solicited the fandom for input through an elaborate data campaign to identify good options that everyone would like? No, because you would have wasted a bunch of money to end up in the same place - a bunch of pissed off people that think the new logos suck. Winning will make most any logo look good.

Reflects my sentiments exactly. There is no way they were going to please people. If they thought that a change was needed then they have to make that move.

[charlestonalum]

The timing is my major beef. The day of the men's game in NIT, followed 2 days later by the women and then the baseball team on the road at SC. All of these contests required full focus and no distraction, but...

Making the change in the early summer would have been the time to do this - after the CWS.

[3rdFloorDyer]

This seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. I’m not aware of anyone complaining about our logo. I understand the athletic department is concerned about decreased apparel sales, but I don’t think this is because of the logo – more the results of the athletic teams. I don’t live in Tennessee and am hundreds of miles from the campus but is always nice to actually recognize someone with a Star V on their shirt or cap and strike up a conversation. Now if I see this new logo who are they supporting -Valdosta State? Valpo? Valvoline? Doubt we will ever see the results, but it would be interesting to see which logo sells the most merchandise. I’m staying with the Star V!

[vu2003rpl]

100% Dyer

Speaking to roughly 2 dozen friends and family members (includes lettermen and letterwomen from multiple sports)
- why the change?
- who gave feedback / insight?
- none of them were surveyed
- timing makes no sense?
- new logo sucks!!

Idiotic waste of resources.

[vandy05]

To me, the timing argument doesn't hold much weight. No matter when, someone can find a reason to argue that an announcement's timing was bad. Things like this are often planned in advance and remember, this isn't just an athletics thing. Its a broader university thing so athletics isn't the only thing that would/should drive the timing of the announcement.

I don't think you can wait until there is a problem before you make a change. If you do that, you'll always be playing from behind. You have to be proactive. Now admittedly, sometimes you'll swing and miss. And many folks thing that the university missed on this. But I don't think you sit around waiting for a problem before you act to improve your university and product. That's how organizations die.

I also don't think surveying would've been good. You would have got a mixed up mash of responses that wouldn't have served much use in helping make a decision.

If someone thinks it sucks, I won't argue with them. I don't have much problem with the new logo though. Its pretty snazzy to me, and I like the concept of having a broad set of approved branded logos that can be used. But I'm a sucker for standardization.

[3rdFloorDyer]

"I also don't think surveying would've been good. You would have got a mixed up mash of responses that wouldn't have served much use in helping make a decision."



Where a survey would have helped is if they had asked a simple question: Should the University or athletic teams change their current logos? Yes or no? If 97.5% of those sampled respond in the same way, you have your answer. Again, our logo was nationally recognized and I personally do not know anyone who wanted or supports this change.But I guess I can tolerate it until the next change in about 10 years.

[vandy05]

"I also don't think surveying would've been good. You would have got a mixed up mash of responses that wouldn't have served much use in helping make a decision."



Where a survey would have helped is if they had asked a simple question: Should the University or athletic teams change their current logos? Yes or no? If 97.5% of those sampled respond in the same way, you have your answer. Again, our logo was nationally recognized and I personally do not know anyone who wanted or supports this change.But I guess I can tolerate it until the next change in about 10 years.

Change is hard. I don't think many people would've raised their hands in a survey and said, "yes, change it". But that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't time for an update. I'll admit that I can't say either way on whether it was time. But surveying the masses on such a binary thing, completely out of context, when there is such little expertise, would've been the wrong move in my opinion. Execution is another story and the devil is always in the details.

[FayetteDore]

I'm starting to think '05 works for VU.

And since most of us have lived through more change than he can probably imagine, he can feel free to spare us his lectures. (Personally, I pre-date the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, Tesla's invention of natural gas and Edison's first flying machine at Kitty Hawk.)

[vu2003rpl]

I brought up the survey note because Vandy claimed they reviewed over 500 of them. wondering who got one since nobody I know did… group includes former athletes and some pretty large donors (5-6 figures annually)

I guess Vandy thinks changing the logo means more stuff will sell because people will need to update - euro soccer teams do this all the time.

Personally the logo has changed 3? times since I got to Vandy in the late 90s.

[vandy05]

I'm starting to think '05 works for VU.

And since most of us have lived through more change than he can probably imagine, he can feel free to spare us his lectures. (Personally, I pre-date the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, Tesla's invention of natural gas and Edison's first flying machine at Kitty Hawk.)

I don't work for the school, but I did graduate from there. I have two decades worth of ties to the school, so I love the university. I also am a former student-athlete at VU so you may have me in terms of years, but level of dedication could be debated.

In my professional life I sit in a chair where I have to make decisions similar in nature. Decisions where you're never going to please everyone and the general public/your customers never have all the information you have as the decision maker, but you have to explain your rationale for the decision. And people often want you to survey them for their opinion on your management decision. So I have an appreciation for the position they are in. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm sorry I've lectured you (and possibly others) as that was not my intention. I also don't think lecturing was the intent of those who strongly oppose the logo change. And like I have said, the devil is always in the details, particularly around execution, rollout and communication.

[BrentVU]

Lee talks about the change and gives an update on some other topics on VUcommodores.com... there's no going back.

VUCommodores.com: Growing Forward: Owning the "V" (by Candice Lee)
https://vucommodores.com/growing-forward-owning-the-v/