The past year’s very public portrayal of the “UH Logo Controversy” transformed itself into the one and only graphic design reality show in existence. From afar I tuned in regularly, keeping track of the latest developments, who was in, who did what, who got fired. But unlike the other shows I follow regularly, Survivor, The Apprentice and American Idol, there was no finale. It was as if Paula, Simon and Randy explained on the last show, “the public vote was extremely close, all the finalists were fabulous...but we actually want Kelly Clarkson to be our American Idol again.”

Like a jilted fan, I was confused and disappointed with the final result.

My intense interest in this topic comes from my ongoing relationship with the Honolulu AIGA Chapter and my passion for Hawai‘i, my home state. I have many friends who both teach and practice design in Honolulu, and I felt both sympathy for them and great concern for the frustrating realities this project revealed.

Although my commentary is critical, my optimism and affection for design in Hawai‘i remains strong. For good reason, there will always be projects that only Hawai‘i designers can produce. However, in many ways, this “search for a new identity”, became a metaphor for many of the problems that the design community in Hawai‘i faces both internally and externally.

Witnessing the drama unfold over the last year, I jotted down a few thoughts and I have expanded them into these five notes concerning the UH Logo Controversy.

1. Process is just as important as outcome
A layperson in the local community may think it was the designer who failed to inspire the UH Evaluation Committee or “public” with a suitable graphic identity. Aware that I’m preaching to the converted, it is obvious that the rebranding process, initiated by former UH President Dobelle doomed the project to fail from the start. A record of this procedure, which included a branding consultant, advisory committees, 4 design firms, 8 logos, and a public vote, is easily accessible on UH’s website (http://www.hawaii.edu/news/brand/). It documents the chain of events from beginning to end with links to official press releases.

Regardless of the quality of the work produced or the method used to select designers, one thing has been proven time and again—Design by committee rarely works and design by public opinion never works. When a designer attempts to please a committee with multiple opinions/goals/tastes, anything unique about the work usually gets squashed, succumbing to the collective desires of the group. When the public gets involved who knows what to expect! In a place with extremely diverse cultures, education levels, literacy of Hawaiian imagery, not to mention a taste, there was no predicting the reaction. In the case of the UH Evaluation Committee (a group assembled to represent the local community and statewide art and graphic design industry), it seemed as if no one knew what to do with the public’s input. The fact that UH Administration neglected to appoint even one graphic design practitioner to this group reflects their lack of visual literacy and weak understanding of graphic design.

Analysis of the number of residents who voted, a total of 660 (HonoluluAdvertiser.com 11/29/04), speaks volumes about our community in general. According to the UH website there are approximately 50,046 students and 3,201 faculty statewide. That means if the voting population included only students and faculty connected to UH, only 1.2% of that community voted. This number does not account for UH administration, and the remainder of the population. Looking at the big picture, one gets a real sense of the general apathy surrounding the university’s branding. With this said, the UH Evaluation Committee based a $150,000 decision on 660 anonymous votes, hardly a substantial number to be considered a consensus.

These disturbing statistics should be a wake-up call for designers in Hawai‘i. With all the press over the course of a year, very few people took the time to voice their opinions about the UH Logo.

2. More Innovation, Less Preservation
The results of the second round logos were quite curious (http://www.hawaii.edu/news/brand/finalsix.php). As a group, they were homogeneous both iconographically and stylistically. Only the “striped H” logo didn’t use imagery common to the other five. One might suspect the design brief created by the committee may have read something like this:

Design a logo that uses elements from the original UH seal, but in a slightly different way. Don’t invent anything new or use a contemporary style, it’s got to look extremely familiar and preserve the comfort people had for the old mark.

This compulsion to preserve visual language rather than allowing it to evolve is highly conservative and short-sighted. The strategy backfired in this case. Instead of offering a number of diverse approaches, the process resulted in variations of one idea. If revamping the original UH seal didn’t resonate with the public, five of the six logos would most likely be unsuccessful. The results of the vote proved this point. The clear support for the more abstract contemporary style of the “striped H” tells me that traditional symbols and styles have lost their power to evoke a emotional response from the audience. This suggests rethinking the way images and language are used on local level.

Designers have the power to influence culture, steer communication, and create styles. Can we use meaningful Hawaiian imagery in appropriate contexts? Can designers pursue innovation that sustains or enhances local culture rather than diminishing it? Can we create culturally significant experiences without resorting to canned nostalgia, or triteness?

Asking more difficult questions may lead to more productive design strategies, and innovative solutions.

3. Pass the Torch
The torch is a powerful image used in five of the final UH logos. In that context, it symbolized the “light of knowledge”. For those not familiar with that meaning, a torch might stand for; leadership, responsibility, and optimism. Reflecting on the UH logo situation, the phrase “passing the torch” seems like most appropriate use of the symbol.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for the great designers who have molded the visual culture of Hawai‘i for decades. However, why not carve out opportunities for younger talent in the design community to contribute to a project such as this? What about utilizing the University’s graphic design faculty and top students? It would have been exciting and productive to see a variety of approaches and results from a selection of new faces alongside established firms. The next generation of local designers will be responsible for the development of the state’s visual identity; this was ripe moment to take a chance and see what could happen.

4. Local vs. Global
Reading transcripts and blogs on the internet, many wrote that they were offended that Rob Rytter & Associates, a Baltimore firm, was selected to design the initial logo. The outcome of the first round led many to believe that the set of inept marks were a result of “mainland designers” not knowing anything about Hawaiian culture. This lack of knowledge might have been be true, but I argue that it’s not because they weren’t Hawai‘i residents.

Projects of this scope require extensive research into established symbology, regional clichés, historical associations, etc…. This initial step is the foundation for the rest of design process and often goes on for months. Without it, decisions are arbitrary and uninformed. A possible conclusion for why the logos were unsuccessful might be that Rytter & Associates didn’t do enough homework locally. Or perhaps they did a fantastic job of researching, but Dobelle’s agenda was to repackage the university without referring to traditional Hawaiian imagery. No one really knows what got left on the cutting room floor in the early rounds of design.

In this case, values and priorities of all parties can be questioned. Did Dobelle believe that only a mainland firm was capable of taking on this project? Could the community embrace a UH logo designed by a mainland firm? Is the pay scale for a mainland firm vs. a local one that disparate (a $82,000 kill fee vs. $10,000)? Do we want the best designer for the job no matter where they’re from? The answers to these questions are extremely important, for they have a direct relationship to the feelings people will have for the logo regardless of what it looks like in the end.

5. Branded for life?
“We’ll continue to use the university’s seal, which is widely recognized here in Hawai‘i,… This will strengthen the UH brand while retaining the unique characteristics of each campus.”
– UH Acting President David McClain.

A brand is not a logo. A logo is only one aspect of a brand’s visual identity (along with color, typography, imagery, and style). It is a visual carrier of the most important component, a set of beliefs associated with the brand called “brand values”.

It’s pretty obvious that the UH committee’s conceptual understanding of branding ends with the singular “logo”. To them the old UH seal will always stand for the initial core values of the University of Hawai‘i. Unfortunately, a brand (including the logo) absorbs meaning through association to newsworthy events and experiences over time. The same way that Martha Stewart possibly added deception, fraud, and scandal to her existing brand associations; style, creativity, and elegance.

UH didn’t need a new logo to rebrand itself. Through the amazing power of association by which a brand functions, UH added indecisive, conservative, wasteful, and misguided to the list of values.

Design is not just a result, but a process
In the case of architecture, the public can experience a portion of the process by seeing stack of 2x4s in an empty lot transform into a house over time. However, in graphic design, the average person only comprehends results; a finished logo, book, annual report, or website. Very few are aware of the research, ideation, craft, and endless iterations and revisions that it takes to produce one memorable mark or beautiful page of typography. The re-branding of UH derailed because the project’s decision makers had a poor understanding of the graphic design process and how to facilitate a successful result.

Unfortunately, situations like this one are quite common everywhere. They are enduring problems that graphic designers must overcome as a community by creating work of quality and advocating the importance of design whenever appropriate. We must make the effort to educate our clients and the public about what we do, and how we do it. It’s in the day-to-day commitment to our profession where steady progress will occur.

…and if the University of Hawai‘i decides to open up another logo competition next year, all of us need to be there better prepared with superior work.