Tim Ekl / Rose Thorn
Bryan Taylor, Director of Communications and Marketing; Mark Lindemood, Vice President for Institutional Advancement; and Jim Goecker, Vice President of Enrollment Management, speak at the October 29 Logo Information session.
In response to the controversy generated by the proposed Rose-Hulman logo change, an informational meeting was held on Wednesday, October 29. The purpose of the meeting, hosted by Bryan Taylor and Jim Goecker, was to outline the reasons behind the proposed logo change, and answer any questions students, staff, or alumni may have had regarding the development of and purpose behind the new logo.
The purpose of the new logo stated in the presentation was to present a more unified, recognizable image to the public about Rose-Hulman. Currently, many logos are in use for different aspects of the school, which the school’s leadership believes presents a fragmented image to the public. By replacing these many logos with a single logo, the administration hopes to create an easily identifiable symbol associated with Rose-Hulman, a symbol that also represents a new marketing campaign to increase the school’s visibility and recognition not only in the Midwest, but across the country.
The style guide and marketing initiative are much-needed, but using the existing logos which have recognition value would be better. They’ve not made a case for a new logo.
—John Becker, Class of 1989
Many concepts were created by the graphic design firm hired to design the new Rose-Hulman logo, but the current proposition was selected based on input from alumni, prospective students, and 40 current students who were placed in focus groups to evaluate the designs. The ‘sine wave’ design currently being suggested is the design that was the best received of the possible selections. However, no marketing data was taken to determine how the reception of the proposed logo compares to that of the current logo.
After the completion of the presentation, the meeting was opened for discussion and questions by the attendants. Student commentary ranged from satisfaction to hatred with the design and selection process of the new logo. However, the majority of the statements made during this portion of the meeting reflected at least some degree of dissatisfaction with either the logo or the process, and most of these statements revolved around two central points: a lack of student input in the design process, and the necessity of changing the logo.
I’m pleased we had so many people show up… I’d have been disappointed if no one had showed up. It [participation] is certainly appreciated and really enjoyed. At the same time, there will have to be more give and take here. We didn’t expect everyone to be happy—we can’t lose sight of the logo in scope of the marketing, some place out there there’s a common ground.
—Jim Goecker, Vice-President of Enrollment Management
An objection to the selection process raised in the meeting was that the 40 current students surveyed during the development of the new logo could not adequately reflect the feelings of the student body as a whole, and that the appearance of the logo on the Homecoming banners brought into question if student opinions were even considered. Those in attendance who objected to the logo change itself had a variety of reasons for their objections, but one of the most prominent complaints was that it made Rose-Hulman feel more like a business trying to sell a product than an educational family. Also, students did not feel there was anything wrong with the original logo, and that the Institute should not have to change to conform to others’ expectations of what a college should be.
Although nothing is “set in stone” according to Mr. Goecker, ideally, the marketing team would move forward with the switch. However, the vocal objection on the part of the student body indicates that the controversy over the proposed switch could be far from over.