An expert’s take on the Warwick rebranding

Tom Banks is a strategy consultant with more than 30 years’ experience in advertising, marketing communications, design and branding. He is a Warwick alumni having studied Law back in 1978-81 and contacted The Boar after his son, now a Warwick undegrad, told him about the furore regarding the recent re-branding. In this interview, we asked his thoughts on the new logo and what this could mean for students past and present: 

What was my first impression of the brand?

I was expecting to see something bold, brave and inspiring – something that you could immediately see why it would provoke a strong reaction, whether that was a positive or negative one. Having spent a bit more time looking at the new identity, I am left with the feeling that it could have been so much better – more dynamic, more inspiring, more suggestive of stature, authority and reputation which I think are attributes you could associate with Warwick.

I can see that by creating the “W” device the identity appropriates that letter and consequently makes any communications distinctively Warwick – no other university will be able to do this now without looking like a copycat – but personally I find it a little clunky and not very classy, stylish or elegant.

I have read a few comments about it looking like an identity for an outdoor activity retail warehouse or Madonna’s bra and I can certainly see why people might think that and why it might upset them. After all, Warwick is a top university and I think people – students, alumni and lecturers – become very invested in their place of study or work, even long after they may have left.

How important is the logo?

Despite all of my thoughts above, I don’t think the university should be criticised for wanting to appear more “of the moment” through its identity. What they are doing seems to have divided opinion but I think the old identity was a bit too conservative and old-fashioned in the sense that it does not really reflect Warwick as a dynamic, modern, top-performing university. Although I believe having a really good visual identity – and the logo is part of that – is very important it can only be as good as the brand it supports.

So, the logo and identity should reflect what the university stands for – its big idea – and having read a few things online it seems that the university is talking about the idea of Infinite Possibilities. Having thought more deeply about it, I can see it could mean that “the world is your oyster”, that Warwick can deliver great opportunities, which encourages freedom of thinking and curious minds. It’s also quite a big statement, quite rousing too but it’s not immediately obvious or easy to know what it means, beyond my first impression.

Why is a re-brand important?

This question I find really interesting, because often a re-brand suggests there is something wrong with what the brand is already. A re-brand might happen as a consequence of a specific event such as a merger. It might be because of a real issue, such as a damaged reputation. Or it might be because of an opportunity – perhaps to capitalise on a significant landmark such as the 50^th anniversary; to tap into new markets; or simply to be much clearer about the brand’s positioning.

From the outside looking in, there does not seem to me to be much wrong with the brand (as opposed to the visual identity) as it is right now. It seems to me that Warwick has been hugely successful in establishing a brilliant reputation in a relatively short space of time. It’s only fifty years old and yet ranks alongside some of the best universities that have built a position over hundreds of years.

What’s important is that in making the decision to rebrand you bring people along with you as much as is sensibly possible because otherwise you run the risk of disenfranchised people who might be able to exert a really negative influence.

Is £80,000 expensive?

This really is a “How long is a piece of string?” kind of question. It depends on so many different factors: the reputation of the branding agency involved; the number of people in the team and their seniority; the amount of background research and consultation required; the complexity of the analysis and also the scope of creative work. On balance, I would say that £80,000 is not expensive – it could easily have been £120,000 or even twice that amount if the scope of work was greater. Likewise, the job could have cost less than that.

For me, the real question is whether people feel that £80,000 represents good value. Does this work inspire people, unite and galvanise them behind a unifying idea that everyone can see is believable, that they can believe in and they can be it (or want to be part of it)?

What do you think Warwick should be promoting?

To a certain extent it seems like the horse has already bolted. The new visual identity has gone live, the concept of Infinite Possibilities is in the public domain (even if only in its infancy and for internal audiences) and the What if? line is already being used. It would be rather embarrassing to drop all of this work unless, with hindsight, the decision makers felt they had made a big mistake.

There has been consultation with key audiences. There will have been a whole raft of research documents that the branding agency will have had access to. They probably will have done a lot of analysis and interpretation of this work to guide their recommendations. Unless there is something fundamentally flawed in their thinking, or it simply is not good enough then the challenge is to work hard to really make the branding strategy a success.

But in answer to your question, and just thinking back now to my time at Warwick from 1978 to 1981, one of the reasons I chose the university was because it felt like a pioneering university. In 1978, it was only thirteen years old and yet it had an aspiration to take on the established universities and become one of the best in the UK, if not world class. It felt like it didn’t just want to be as good as them but better – even if the definition of better might be something different than purely academic criteria.

What do you think is the reason behind the uproar?

Having read what has been reported in the press and heard a bit from you and my son, I think three things most probably triggered the uproar.

First, I think the team in charge of the re-brand process may have underestimated how strongly people – particularly students and possibly alumni as well – would feel about the change. It’s a place in which you are all very invested and if people feel there is no obvious reason for change it is always going to be a hard battle to convince them to accept something that is seen by some to be second-rate.

Linked to this would be a sense that the students were not properly consulted. I think I read somewhere that 160 students were involved in focus groups. 160 people in focus groups, given that this is a qualitative technique, is actually quite a lot but it also depends on what was being discussed. It may have been rather cursory but it could equally have been quite in-depth. My son was unaware of the survey, so I suspect that not a lot of people knew about it, in which case it was a rather pointless exercise and a missed opportunity.

The third thing would be that maybe, with hindsight, the “launch” should have been in two parts. The first would be about the strategy – an internal process to share with you all what the Warwick brand is all about with no discussions at this stage about what a new identity might look like other than a recognition that it would probably change. The second stage would then be to introduce and discuss the new visual identity, the rationale and the next stages.

What can you do now?

Well, I think I may have already touched on this in previous questions but mainly it would be to work as hard as possible to make the idea of Infinite Possibilities as clear, simple, relevant and compelling as possible – both as a message and as a behaviour. Keep it really focused and try and avoid throwing everything into the messaging mix. If I were being asked to consider Warwick over say Bristol, Durham or Oxford, I would really want to hear a single-minded story where each and every statement of fact added further meaning to Infinite Possibilities.

I would also go so far as to suggest that the management team drop the What if? copy line/messaging device. You can just imagine some clever clogs pinching the line to be mischievous: What if no one likes the logo? What if no one understands what the brand means? What if it offers me infinite possibilities but not the course I want to do? What if it doesn’t live up to the promise? What if it will be a waste £27,000? What if it’s not as good as Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/York/Exeter?

[divider]

Tom has advised on all aspects of brand strategy (creation, refresh and repositioning), brand architecture and portfolios, brand identity, engagement, communications and implementation, as well as brand guardianship and management. For more information and to see his work: http://quiteearlyonemorning.com/