Okay, maybe not so much. But, there’s a little part of me that validates every sneaker cliche you can think of. While I’ve matured from an obsessive teenager and might not pay attention to the sneaker “scene” as closely or obsessively as I once did, I’m still very much just as passionate about my shoes as I once was. But is the culture “dead”?

Spurred by an interest in “Performance Basketball Footwear,” my sneaker obsession started by reading Kicksology, a niche site dedicated to reviewing basketball shoes for the benefit of any internet savvy basketball player. I was enamoured with the time, effort and energy it took to design a shoe that could perform and look good (Pretty sure this spurred my interest in design). The shoes I loved and wanted were ones that I loved because I loved their design – not because my whole class wanted them or Wince Carter jumped over Gary Payton in them (although, that probably did influence me just a bit). (This was sometime in the early “aughts” (2000’s).

When I got into sneakers, the subculture was showing signs of reaching its critical mass. The internet enabled those passionate sneaker hunters, intent on breaking necks to network like never before and share their obsession with millions others. The one and only NikeTalk became my daily reading destination, and it was the same for many others.

Of course, this had its advantages and disadvantages.  Shoes that we wanted were becoming more easily accessible via increased distribution and the internet. But, this also meant big corporate dudes were taking notice; they began to manufacture demand and created artificially limited products, satisfying every sneakerhead’s desire to “break necks.” Less underground sites and outlets like Sole Collector Magazine (whose purpose/effect on the culture is up for debate) began to surface and it was evident the culture was now mainstream.

Sneakers aren’t anything “special” now. Everyone reads Hypebeast and the rest of the fashion blogs and sneakers are just another element of a hypebeast’s wardrobe. Now everyone’s a sneakerhead, clamoring over the next limited edition sneaker, or whatever’s hype on the message boards – all to get props from another dude who reads the same blog he does.

Okay, okay. I read the blogs too, but I don’t buy everything I see there. And when it comes to sneakers, it’s easy to say “sneaker culture is dead.” The proliferation of blogs and manufactured demand has created literal hype beasts who don’t understand what or why they’re buying what they’re buying. Sneaker culture started from people buying shoes that they liked because they actually liked the product for whatever reason it was. Their favourite ball player would wear it, the dope boy down the street had ‘em, or it was simply a dope silhouette. “Neck breaking” was born out of a mutual interest between peers. These peer’s mutual interests is what made them break necks when they saw others’ hot kicks. A set of peers defined their own interests — not the company’s like Nike or Adidas. Limited happened more often than not because the companies just didn’t realize there was a demand, leading to messed up distribution. Now, distribution is so micromanaged, limited edition means nothing – and to a real ‘head, limited edition never meant anything, anyways. If you wanted it, you were getting it.

The culture that NikeTalk helped establish in the early 2000’s is dead. There’s no doubt about it. At that time, sneakers were just a different thing and heads were willing to help each other out and genuinely liked some dope sneakers. Now the culture is much more of an artificial, hype driven machine. That’s not to say every shoe out there is whack or that tastes/trends don’t change. But it’s clear that the true “sneaker head” is more of a rare breed than a dying one. They’re the ones who’ll buy a sneaker because they truly like it. Not because someone else does.

I’m Nicholas.  I am Canadian. I can list off and refute a bunch of Canadian stereotypes and acknowledge ones that I identify and am proud of, but I think a gross majority of the Canadian population did that for me already.

With the Winter Olympics having come and gone in Vancouver, Canadian patriotism has been at an all time high. We wore the gear gear and the Canadian Olympic Committee and media built as much hype as was humanly possible. The COC began the games with an opening ceremonies that wasn’t bad — except for that beat poet they found on YouTube  The Canadian version of Rick Rawse (Bawse!) emphatically disagreed with stereotypes and gave a great statement of what Canada really is. But, like so many others, it boiled down to “Hi, I’m Canadian, that means I’m not X, I’m Y.”

Fast forward to the last couple days of the Olympics. Legally blind Brian McKeever was to be the first athlete to compete in Olympics and Paralympics in the same year. Ski Canada/COC paraded around the feel good story, tugging on the heart strings of Canadians. A day before the competition, McKeever’s dreams were cut short – his coach decided he was not one of Canada’s four team members that would compete in the final race. It turns out McKeever had qualified for the Olympics, but each country only gets to field four competitors in the final race. A victim of his teammates’ success, McKeever was cut. Predictably, there was outrage over the decision. Unfortunately, much of the outrage was (wrongly) directed at the McKeever’s coaches and teammates. The teammates did what they were supposed to do and compete at their highest level; the coaches chose the best athletes to compete.

The blame and outrage should have been directed at Ski Canada/COC and the media for parading around the story before it was certain. Worst of all, it was somehow “un-Canadian” to not let McKeever ski. And then some thought that the teammates who competed weren’t “Canadian” if they didn’t pull a Rudy and withdraw from the race. While you can debate whether McKeever had more technical merit as a competitor, there is no debate strictly based on his disability. Since when was it Canadian to give the nod to someone else strictly on the fact that they’re disabled? McKeever earned his place on the team without special accommodation. Canadians most of all strive for the best. Giving McKeever the nod strictly because of his disability is not the best and would set a poor example going forward. Letting McKeever compete for being disabled would be the “un-Canadian” thing to do, not the other way around.

To my fellow Canadians, look inside to see what you think defines you as a Canadian.

Healthcare, cultural mosaic, how you pronounce “Z,” kilometers, igloos and manners are all associated with Canada in some way or another, but it’s more than a list of superficial (or slightly-less-than-superficial) characteristics.

Please, look deeper. What defines Canada is not what we do or what other people think of us, so please stop bringing up misconceptions. Canada has been defined by an set of circumstances that has resulted in a rich set of values and principles. These principles manifest themselves through various manners and are what truly define us. Look inside and find it. It’s different here; recognize that.

That’s who we really are. So stop worrying about what other people think about us. The True North Strong and Free.

Yes, I do Twitter.

In fact, I have two Twitter accounts. But, why?

For most of my peer group, Twitter has little usefulness (or little perceived usefulness). Essentially, it’s seen as an application strictly for status updates. What follows from that is Twitter being a tool strictly used to “stalk” or “creep” others. While that is true for some and a lot of people are just looking for follower count, Twitter is more than that.

Twitter is anything you want it to be. The restriction to 140 characters intuitively leads people to think it’s strictly status updates, but these status updates are rife with information. I can choose to share my mood for the day or what I’m doing if that’s my thing. I can also engage in commentary (not restricted to someone’s blog) about an article as well as share that article with others.

Twitter is instant. The media (ie. the less tech savvy writers, who really just don’t get it) eat this up. After every big disaster, outbreak or something, there’s inevitably going to be an article about how “Twitter broke the news first.” But, it’s true. Twitter is fast and allows you to keep up with things as they break. Of course, that’s contingent on you paying attention to trending topics or having selected the right people to follow.

Twitter is a filter. I’ve selected who I want to follow based on what I like to read. I know there are humans behind these accounts (…the accounts I follow are humans), and I have followed them because I am a fan of what they do or the insights they bring to the table. Their commentary not only gives me an insight into the minds of someone I’m interested in, but knowing who read the article and felt like sharing it gives me confidence that the article is a worthwhile read. I am somewhat of an “info” junkie – but I prefer to read things that are interesting and I’m interested in.

In short, Twitter satisfies my personal need to “stay informed” and follow areas or scenes that I would like to. I can open up connections others if need be. Everyone has their own personal use for it – it’s not just what the media says.

Erik Erikkson coined the term “identity crisis.” An identity crisis is “when a person loses a sense of personal sameness or historical continuity” (Thanks Wikipedia).  How fitting for a university that’s struggling to issue its new identity after a leak put plans on hold.

The University of Waterloo hit it’s 50th anniversary in 2007. During this year, UW set ambitious goals for its Sixth Decade. These plans were outlined in its Sixth Decade Plan. Part of this ambitious plan involved establishing a new identity for the University. Of course, this meant a new marketing identity, or visual identity for the University. It didn’t mean trying to organically change the identity of the University and the students’ who represent it through smart and well executed initiatives (like Velocity, for example); this was strictly design.

The young university’s identity had been strongly associated with their crest, which consists of a shield with a chevron and three lions. In UW’s 50-or-so years of existence, the identity’s remained largely the same. On campus signage was set in Helvetica and the University was closely associated with the Chevron, Lions and black and gold. In 1997 the logo received a minor update, but the identity remained largely the same and what you might think of for a University. Come the 50th anniversary and associated University bureaucracy, it was concluded that the University had an Identity problem. Their reputation wasn’t being conveyed truthfully or effectively around the globe. This is an obvious problem, so the University set to remedy it.

In 2008, the University’s identity received an incremental update which can still be found online. This update was the right step for an identity make over. The project made subtle changes to the crest, without sacrificing its look or integrity. The biggest changes were the changed typefaces and more muted colours. These changes were all logically made in order to establish a more technically sound visual product for the university (read: reproduces well for better recognition). This was the first right step, and it wa

The 2008 and proposed 2009 revisions of the Logo

s being faithfully implemented across campus. Campus signage began to change in a few places, and as recently as this Winter, commemorative signs involved with the 50th anniversary campaign were erected around Engineering and the SLC implementing the typeface found in the 2008 identity revision.

It was funny that the signs were erected this winter, though.  Throughout 2008/2009, under the lead of a new VP-External, Meg Beckel, the University was making inroads to implement a much more drastic identity. Typical bureaucratic consultations, studies and designs were made. And then, the in-house designed logo was leaked in 2009. Immediately, a shit storm ensued. The new logo and identity were absolutely horrible. The change was drastic. The logo was complicated and ditched the traditional school colours for a mess of six new ones (one per faculty). The logo was immediately panned by students, alumni and faculty and they banned together on Facebook in protest. The University had no choice but to listen (or feign listening) to students.They put the logo on hold and began a seemingly more thorough consultation process.

After the “consultation” process, the University put things on hold. Sort of. Their new consultation process pretty much involved one online survey, a Facebook group and a video explaining the University’s stance on the issue. It all seemed pretty hand wavy. Since the largest issue was with the logo itself, UW ditched the “laser filled W” but kept everything else. Everything was still going to be typset in Gotham (you can’t tell me they chose that for a reason OTHER than Obama’s campaign), each faculty got their own colour and those distinct lines stayed. So what’s the logo now? The logo is now a wordmark typset in Gotham. That’s about it. For something that seemed so important for the University, it now seemed like it was low priority. They falsely opened a dialogue for some PR-icing-on-the-cake and saved as much money as possible by sticking with the exact same identity except without a “W.”

As a student, I personally didn’t expect much more from the administration, but I was surprised that they would put so little effort into something that they openly acknowledged as being so important. An identity isn’t something that should drastically change in very short periods of time, as it was suggested by the VPX. An identity isn’t something that changes on a whim, it’s something that is recognizable and most of all, organic.

Unfortunately, the University hasn’t realized that.  They demonstrated how serious the consultation with students was during the high-school rush. With the consultation process not completed and the results not announced, the University began sending information packets to High Schools styled by the new identity. Given the probable volume and time it took to print, the University clearly moved ahead with the new look before even considering the results of any consultation. Lanyards and other items were for sale at Retail Services and the uwaterloo youtube site was launched with the new identity (funny enough, they used a “W” as their avatar before some students pointed it out).

This leaves the University in a mess. There are prominent remnants of various different identity revisions across campus. Even significant signage like at the North and South Ring Road entrances are using the old crest. There’s a 2008 revision crest near UW plaza and navigation signage in Eidetic. Commemorative signs continue to be erected adorned with Eidetic, and building signs are Helvetica (will they be changed to Gotham?). Promotional garbage is being produced with the 2009 revision while old business cards and stationary haven’t been depleted. The University doesn’t know who it is visually – maybe they should have focused on how to figure who they actually are.

I’ve since forgotten the website,but the lists were broken up by various categories and  it prompted me to go check out some of the acts listed on the site. In general, I’ll try and give anything a listen. I have my obviously have my musical preferences, but I try not to discriminate any genre (the keyword there is try). In fact, I was growing a bit tired of my typical hip-hop and had been dabbling in electronic and indie music (and derivates – I really don’t know the ‘boundaries’ of all of these genres) so I gave those lists a try (no downloading, I promise). I figured that the acts I chose were “Top 10″ of the year, so I couldn’t really go wrong. The outcome was great and I was pleased with what I was hearing.

Since then, I’ve been looking for similar music, largely through friends. The overall process of discovery was interesting for me. While I wasn’t actively searching for a new listening experience, these lists prompted me to give something new a try. After being satisfied with these suggestions, I went looking for a bit more. After again being satisfied with these suggestions, I looked for a bit more in places I hadn’t looked previously. The extent to my new findings was a direct consequence of how successful each of my personal listenings was. If I hadn’t liked one of the initial selections, I probably wouldn’t have have had any satisfaction at all and written off entire genres of music.

Discovery is a funny thing, especially discovery of something new that interests you. In general, I would say most people are stuck in their ways. They know their preferences and stick to them. There’s a good amount of these people who are open to finding new things, but these are generally new things within their personal boundaries. It’s not a stretch to say not a lot of people are open to broadening their interests. With that said, I also think it’s safe to say that everyone enjoys finding new information and wants to. It stimulates our mind and makes our lives more interesting. But how do people do it?

The web has been a perfect example of how this problem has been tackled by many. The advent of hypertext enabled thousands upon thousands (or millions upon millions) of web users to become information junkies overnight. For those who had to stick a virtual post-it note or a flag on their website, there was your browser’s bookmarks tool. After RSS, feed readers allowed you to aggregate feeds into a centralized point of reading. Digg, Reddit, Hacker News and other services rely on the idea that what’s popular is popular for a reason – so let’s feature it. But most of these services never tailored to the user. So what comes next? Well… Google and other services offer recommendations and customizations based on your previous viewing habits (and that’s rife with privacy issues). Some users tend to niche sites with targeted news. The biggest thing I’ve noticed is the emergence of startups whose aim is to not to simply aggregate, but act as a recommendation engine (I’m a member of a beta for one – but I forget the name right now..). These sites curate content and recommend articles and content they hope the user will like. It’s an interesting approach that users themselves have tried to do themselves. In particular, lots of Twitter users have acted as curators of their own content. They follow specific users that they like and they know will provide interesting insights and links. Based on their tweets and retweets, users can be prompted to read things from others whom they are reasonably sure will provide interesting links.

The web’s approach has articulated (in a rather mechanical fashion), various ways people try to discover. The try and go with the status quo and what’s popular, what they like, find things in niche areas, go by others’ recommendations, or try and network through various sources to get their recommendations. Discovery is something that is truly organic, and it’s extremely interesting seeing how it’s articulated as technology evolves. So many diverse approaches is reflective of the the complexity and organic nature of it all. There’s no surefire way to insure you get what you want – but do you really know what that is?

The United Front began when Matt George opened Goodfoot in 2003. Opening his store on Richmond and Spadina instead of the obvious Queen W meant that only those in the know would be frequenting the shop. The shop gained momentum by importing otherwise unobtainable shoes for Canadians. George and the crew were tracking down deadstock (real deadstock, not just mint condition shoes) and importing them for sale in Canada. Furthermore, they were laying the ground for retail trends with their strong installations and window displays that continue today.

Soon after, George expanded the empire. Ransom opened upstairs and then Nomad next door. Nomad targeted the ‘upscale’ market while Ransom established Toronto’s destination for the emerging streetwear market. They were the only place to find these brands in Toronto and in some cases in all of Canada.

Goodfoot expanded to Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, but the market was beginning to change. As sneaker culture, streetwear and general hypebeastism were becoming the mainstream, more local players were coming into the picture. Market conditions which provided Goodfoot with a competitive advantage were gradually coming to an end.  More and more “street culture” retailers were popping up, streetwear distribution was becoming more pervasive and the big shoe companies were catching on and changing their distribution techniques. Deadstock was increasingly hard to find, and online sales were eliminating any incentive to import shoes that weren’t to be released in Canada.

As their reach was expanding, the left coast wasn’t to be left out of the fun. Vancouver streetwear retailer Livestock expanded to Toronto, opening up a location literally around the corner from the home of the United Front. Distribution at Ransom promptly changed, signalling the change in direction for Ransom Holding Co. Instead of a strict retail presence, Ransom was about turn into a clothing line all of its own.

Around the same time, The United Front opened up their popup New Era Shop and essentially jumped off the fitted craze in Toronto. Soon the space would turn into the Stussy Toronto Chapter store, solidifying the United Front’s reputation as a global leader in the game.

Following the Stussy Chapter opening, Goodfoot grew again and opened up two more locations in their home city of Toronto. A warehouse style shop opened up on St. Clair W and another was built in Yorkville.

Today, the United Front is more than a Canadian retail presence with a global reputation. It is definitely a team of creatives pushing out the best product they can. They’ve contributed to Team Canada’s 2008 Beijing Olympics Uniforms, design top-notch retail buildouts, and I assume they do a hell of a lot of consulting. Matt George was the “curator” of Kanye’s Past Tells Museum (Pastelle Clothing) and associated acts include Willo Perron, St. Alfred/KickHI, inqmnd and . Some of the best creatives with varying origins (b-boys, graffiti, overall culture fiends) have stepped through as members of United Front and a handful have gone to start/work their own ventures in Toronto. You can’t deny the vague similarities the team has had to Supreme, whose influence in New York is always felt.

But, where does it leave them now? Everything but from the retail presence has been looking good. In the last 6 months or so, Goodfoot Montreal and Calgary have closed, as well as Goodfoot Yorkville. While there was word that the Montreal shop was just relocating, there’s nothing on GoodfootCanada.ca. Furthermore Yorkville’s closing (it could be for renovations – but there’s really no word) was abrupt and unannounced. Goodfoot branded apparel is no longer being distributed to retailers and their bread and butter – sneakers has been relatively lacking of late. Overall, the past year and a half has looked like a downward spiral for the United Front.

The only shining star has been Ransom Holding Co. The shop looks like it’s no longer stockin any other brands (aside from maybe very select brands) and their line improves by leaps and bounds every season (especially F/W). On top of that, their “quickstrikes” (denim jacket, varsity, pendletons) are super dope and they’re the first company to produce their own footwear line in collaboration with adidas.

A conglomerate that’s started off so strong and maintained growth extremely looks to be facing a change in their business. The retail climate has changed and it’s evident that the United Front has taken a step back to retool their formula. With the imminent amalgamation of Nike Canada and Nike America into a single Nike North American unit, I’m sure Beaverton’s control will only help the Goodfoot family. Streetwear’s been evolving and Ransom is well positioned to continually grow and gain traction in this new environment.

The United Front is really in a position where they can only improve. You can’t be the giant forever, but you can always stay in the lead. From an observers perspective, it will be definitely interesting to see if they can keep growing and bringing innovations to the table. If the engine keeps stalling though, the story will be even more interesting.

Looking forward, there’s lots of things on my plate, but most of it was stuff that’s been on my mind for quite a while. I’m not the kind for a New Year’s resolution,so here are some short term goals related to some personal projects I hope to complete (or at least get started on) within 2010.

Project 52

Project 52 is a self-imposed challenge that hundreds of lazy bloggers across the web are participating in. The goal is to post one article a week. Personally, I’m trying to write some quality content, not just something I might find in Hypebeast or popping around in my Google Reader.

I’m guilty of having too many drafts just sitting in my queue. By the time I get around to writing any of these articles, I just get plain lazy and procrastinate. It really seems like the only time I can get a whole article out is when I’m procrastinating for something else.

Let’s not get pruned.

nicholaswu.ca

I’ve got the domain, but it’s essentially a place holder. Once I figure out a little bit of direction for it, I’m hoping to make it more than just an online business card

wonderworker

This is the big project. Once I figure out a decent domain and the illustrator skills start to round the corner, oohh wee. keep an eye out.

And the of course, there’s the academics, taekwondo, the career and everything else…

Let’s get it.

Since my time here at the University of Waterloo students have seen two different Student Identification Cards,. The general concensus that I’ve heard about the initial WatCards were that they were ugly. When the new designs were issued, students I talked to generally liked them more than the first ones.

Regardless, I think both designs are pretty damn ugly

So in my free time I drafted my some of my own concepts along with some ideas for changing them/the WatCard process for the better (most are probably economically unreasonable, but who cares) (after the jump)

I have an explanation for a bunch of the elements, but just hit the comments if interested. I was gonna draft a couple more different ones, but whatever.

So in the past weeks, the University of Waterloo community has demonstrated more school spirit than I’ve witnessed in my years as a student here. Arguably it’s the biggest show of school spirit in the school’s whole history. Unfortunately for the administration, it’s not in support, but backlash against the administration for it’s new “proposed” visual identity.

The University publicly acknowledged the leak and the back lash for the first time during today’s Daily Bulletin. Imprint, UW’s Student Newspaper’s picked up on the story too.The article is here and provides a pretty good summary of the situation as of today. There has been lots of coverage and opinion. My favourite was Imprint EIC’s take on it, here. in the article, he doesn’t attack the leaked logo, nor the goals of the “rebranding.” He simply asks why UW is telling a hollow story, when they should really focus on being ‘awesome.’ FOr me, this whole fiasco has been bringing a lot of things to light a bit bigger than the process or logo itself

First though, let’s step back and realize that this isn’t just a logo we’re talking about. It’s a Visual Identity. From the University’s 2008 Visual Identity redesign:

An identity system is much more than the format and use of a symbol, such as a logo or a wordmark.

A comprehensive visual identity system is a structure for communicating and presenting information logically, clearly, and with distinction.

When you apply system guidelines, you make it easier for your audience to quickly identify that your publication is coming from the University of Waterloo, immediately putting your message in context.

This redesign is a Visual Identity System (and has been explicitly referred to as by VP External Relations, Meg Beckel). So,it isn’t just a logo. This is a new identity that will be used globally throughout the University aside from traditional uses. During the development of the logo, the committee decided to make the logo, “marketing-oriented.” Since then, the new UW logo has been referred to as the “marketing logo,” by the VPEx and many others presumably since the seal was to be kept for traditional uses. While it may be an issue of semantics, there is a distinct but subtle difference between a “marketing” and “market-oriented” logo. This is a visual identity, so, no, it’s not just a “marketing logo,” the whole look and feel of campus websites, print material, signage and anything else will change.

It’s very interesting to observe the process that led to the creation of the logo. Beckel, has been leading the visual identity process for about 18 months (Initial committee actions began around March 5, 2008). During the initial steps and after the 2008 logo refresh, the intent and purpose of the committee and administration is in the right place.

As of this time there was a planned:

There will be a review of current publications and other mediums that use the UW logo or wordmarks and suggestions on how these publications and mediums can and should be adapted to support the attributes and positioning statement.

The 2006 positioning statement can be found here, or via direct link here[.doc file]. The next update on the July 31st, 2008 Daily Bulletin subtly changed from new material supporting the positioning statement, to a “draft statement” being produced:

A draft positioning statement and other supporting materials will then be created and moved forward to the university’s Executive Council for consideration and be brought out for even wider consultation across campus.

The purpose of the logo redesign was to “better tell the Waterloo story” not to begin a brand new one or reposition the university. I am making my best (educated) guess here, and it looks like a project intended to support the University effectively prompted significant change. If UW wanted to reposition themselves and begin a new story, it should be because it was outlined in the Six Decade Plan (Was it? I haven’t read it) and not be a byproduct of a rebranding effort. In what was supposed to support and better tell the story. Instead of focusing on being/promoting ‘awesome,’ the  University tried to define a new definition of awesome.

If we examine the 2006 positioning statement, our distinguishing traits are: we’re future oriented, connected, innovative and high quality. If we shift to 2009, the rebranding is based around UW’s new traits: Innovative, Creative, Courageous, Connected, Critical Thinking, Unconventional, Risk-taking, Collaborative (every time I read collaborative, I think Web 2.0). In three years, we went from four key points to eight, with only two staying from the 2006 revision. All in all, these traits seem very drawn out, to me they seem contrived. Why do we as a University have to try and define ourselves in such a granular fashion? If we are risk-taking, are we not implicitly courageous? Is being “unconventional” *that* much different from being creative? It feels like there’s no genuine substance here. I’ll be sorely disappointed if these form the basis for our positioning statement.

Aside from this unconfirmed observation, Beckel tried to make this identity rebranding as fiscally responsible as possible (Read: she cut costs). So what happened? A volunteer committee was formed (volunteer means they were unpaid and had to tend to their other commitments) and a graphic design consultant was brought in from OVE (…don’t get me started on this). To produce the graphics, everything was kept in-house (I’m going to ask this once: when did Graphics have the illustration/design talents to conceptualize such a project? Not even an external artist was hired?). This was all overseen by the VPX while she had to keep up with her regular duties. All in all, this project seems like a giant afterthought that was rushed and executed with a half-assed effort.

In the end, the VPX got this far into the project by spending about half as much as she projected. Unfortunately she got this far and the poor commitment to this project was further magnified once the leak occured. An identity project of this proportion will never be able to satisfy everyone which is why a roll out plan is needed. So what happens? UW rushes to hang banners with our new identity (obviously for Student Life 101) when the final logo has barely been completed or chosen. Furthermore Feds VPAF, Chris Neal is quoted as saying: “We started the discussions of how to roll out the [rebranding] relatively recently.” How can you begin a roll out when the discussions probably weren’t even completed? Hey admin, you’re not demonstrating any critical thinking skills

In conclusion, this project just shows a lack of commitment to the University and shows what happens when you try and do something without a solid foundation. The University tried to save money when they shouldn’t have (I know the economy’s in the shitter, but you just raised $515 Million! If you can’t afford it now, acknowledge the project’s size and importance and put it on the back burner for another year or two). The administration showed an utter lack of commitment to this project which is simply reflects a lack of commitment to their community (which is largely the student body) and a commitment to the bottom line. They let an identity initiative turn into a marketing initiative. If you’re listening UW, now’s the time to show some real commitment and actually listen to the community. If you truly listen now (and maybe focus on being awesome) it could be the start of something – maybe a reputation that speaks for itself.

The University of Waterloo looks like they’re receiving a makeover come 2010. In the past couple days some peeks @ UW’s new visual identity have leaked. So, in Winter 2010, the University of Waterloo will debut a new Visual Identity. So that means the 2008 Visual Identity Guidelines (here) are pretty much irrelevant.

The current logo on left, and new on the right.

The most noticeable change is departure from the traditional Coat of Arms.  The shield has existed in one of it’s two forms for about 42 years with the university. The once familiar crest has now been replaced with a “W” filled with what I would describe of as a web of different colours. The webbing reminds me of laser beams and I gather each different colour represents each different faculty. This logo is complimented with “University of Waterloo” written below in a sans-serif typeface. I’ll leave my interpretation of the logo as a whole to some time else.

Each faculty also has its own version of the school logo. Instead of wordmarks in the 2008 Visual Identity Guide, each faculty receives a special makeup of the new school logo. The “W” is filled with a colour associated with the respective faculty and the webbing is left as “white”space. Instead of the verbose “University of Waterloo, Faculty of <Insert Faculty>,” The new logo simply uses “Waterloo” and the Faculty’s name. “University of,” and “Faculty of” are missing.

New faculty logos

While the shield is missing, it is not entirely absent from the University’s branding efforts. The traditional crest used in 1987 has returned, but is reserved for “traditional” use. I’m assuming the University has clear guidelines for what constitutes “traditional use” in the next Visual ID Guidelines

This rebranding effort by the University is something that will definitely be noticed a lot more than the relatively miniscule adjustments in 2008. Personally, I am not a fan of the changes that the University is about to implement. When the shield was given a makeover in 1997, then president James Downey admitted himself that there will never be unanimity on any question of taste or aesthetics (Source: Daily Bulletin). But I don’t think this time it’s going to be a case where some people don’t like it and some people can accept it. I’m pretty sure this is the most drastic change up the University has done in it’s entire history (image wise) and it has the potential to be a polarizing makeover. Actually, I take that back. It has the potential to be polarizing …if people care.

Some may question why the University feels it needs to rebrand. I don’t know the specifics behind the rebranding, but I’m sure they’ll be available in the 2010 Visual Identity Guidelines. I can take my best guess here though. The University might not need to rebrand, but it’s a perfect time to do so . Let’s take a look at what’s on the go for the University. We’re in the first steps of the Sixth Decade Plan, They’ve raised $515 Million in fundraising (remember this isn’t tuition or government grands) (Source) and have decided to set a goal to raise $100 Million a year from here on out. Come 2009, the UAE Dubai Campus (..I’d call it class) is set to open and plans for a Stratford Satellite Campus are down the pipe (or atleast in principle. Athletics is increasingly taking a bigger role in the University (recently higlighted by the upcoming Warrior Field expansion: and rumours of a new pool opening). Even more, the campus is always expanding. The new Accounting Building has recently been completed and students are awaiting the completion of the Quantam Nano Building as well as Engineering 5 (..and 6… and 7). Don’t forget about the Campus Master Plan which calls for a new South Campus Gateway. Stephen Hawking is probably making a visit to the PI too… In short, the University has a hell of a lot up it’s sleeve for the next 50-60 years and they’re about to get theirs.It’s not hard to see the logic behind creating a new visual identity to anchor this “exciting” time for the university

Personally, I like the timing of the new identity that UW is trying to put forward. But I’m a bit confused at why they’d change it up so soon after the 2008 revision, but whatever. As for the logo itself, I can’t say I’m a fan. As a standalone logo, I think it looks pretty good. But I really don’t think it works for its intended use – as an identifier for the University of Waterloo. I’ll reserve my final opinion on the logo and overall branding effort until the Visual Identity Guide comes out, but for now, here are my thoughts:

Why I don’t Like it/Why I think it won’t work.

• The whole thing seems a bit contrived. I don’t know the concept yet, but it seems like it’s just following the crowd
• Too corporate/Web 2.0; Yes. I know UW has a history of producing entrepreneurs, visionaries, significant contributors to the tech industry and whatever. I don’t care. I see the connection between the logo and our role outside academics, but I don’t feel it should be represented in the logo
• I don’t see it working well in a variety of applications. The University’s logo is used on everything from letterheads to notebooks, the website and apparel. I think it’ll be a bit tricky using this logo effectively
• The logo is a drastic departure from the logo of old. Most notably, Black and Gold seems like they’re almost no longer a part of the University’s identity.
• It loses any aspect of tradition that can be usually associated with a school. UW is a young university, but the logo seems more fitting for an even younger university like..say UOIT.
• The Sans-Serif Typeface. I’m nitpicking, but the typeface isn’t distinctive, seems very trendy. Is there gonna be a word mark? I don’t see any distinctive wordmark being made out of this.
• The drastic change and “loss of tradition.” Seriously, way too much. I really wonder what alumni who have grown accustom to the old shield are gonna think.
• “W” is not distinctive enough. I mean, really, just a letter?
• Where the hell is the black and gold (and…red?). I;m pretty sure theres a black and gold version down the pipe but if not..that’s a huge mistake.
• Where is the coordiation with Athletics? UW has a damn strong Campus Rec Program and has been working on their athletic program. School spirit is highly intertwined with Athletics and athletics mascots/teams are most often associated with the school (at least those who have elite programs and in the United States). The final logo hasn’t been unveiled, and the coordination a school and its athletics program isn’t traditionally at a high level , but if there is  no coordination with athletics whatsover, UW is going to be maintaining what seems like two drastically different identities.  A more unified one would be really beneficial.
• I have some issues with the colours used in the faculty logos

What I like

• The concept (or at least my understanding of it)
• The departure from “The University of…” and “Faculty of…”
• Simplicity. At times I think the logo is over simplistic, but the simplicity of the logo works
• The return of the shield – yea, the shield is gone, but I like the fact that the old shield has been brought back (with 3 different lions)

Additional Questions I Have

• What’s going to happen with the UW Web Look and feel. New Stylesheets from WebOps?
• With the possibility of a Stratford Campus and the establishment of a Dubai Campus – how will those campus’ identity fit into it?
• What about architecture?
• I’m gonna go ahead and assume there’s gonna be a new WatCard Design
• The current athletics and warriors identity has steadily been taking shape (see Visual Identity standards here) – is there gonna be any changes here?
• What the hell is signage going to look like?

What I’d like to have seen

• More coordination with the athletics side. They’re two separate identities, but they are heavily intertwined.
• The use of a serif typeface. That’s just personal preference, but it makes it a whole lot more interesting and fitting. I liked the old Solex/Eidetic combination.
• Black and Gold. I really think school colours are important. From what I can tell right now the Primary logo to be featured everywhere is the rainbow one. I can picture a black and gold makeup, but I think it needs a heavy feature.
• A more prominent lion. I think a red lion would work very well.
• Tradition. The University is young. Such a drastic departure from the old logos just makes it that much harder for UW to establish any sort of tradition that it may have had associated with the old logo.

Ultimately, the UW makeover reminds me of Pepsi’s recent makeover for all their brands. The final product looks like it’s going to be polished and solid, but I can’t rock with the concept. I don’t know if the design was 100% in-house or there was any consultation with a  third party on this one, but given all the money a rebranding like this commands I’m quite disappointed. I’m not expecting my opinion to change, but I’m open for anything until that final Visual Identity Guide is made public.

Excuse any grammatical or spelling errors.

I completed this post and noticed that LiveJournalers have picked up on the logo developments here. Gemerally, people really aren’t feeling it. The population obviously isn’t representative but I’m still surprised at some of the harsh reactions.