Boy, those SDSU logo choices must have really stunk

I see from Argusleader.com tonight that my alma mater, SDSU, has opened up the logo contest to everyone in the world after three choices offered by a design firm flopped miserably:
The SDSU web site has several designs posted by Phoenix Design Works of New York City. Now the university is opening the design process to anyone interested in submitting a logo. The winner gets $1,000.

Deadline: June 30, through the SDSU Web site, www.sdstate.edu, and click on the button “Jackrabbit Design Challenge.”
Read it all here. And actually go here for the direct link to the challenge.

Comments

Anonymous said…
That is exactly why we show at least 20 designs when we get a branding assignment. And why we never fail to sell one.

But we don't do them for $1,000.

(ps. pp, if this works, you get 5%
of the gross, homeboy.)

Bill Fleming.
Hot Pink Ink,
605-341-7043
Anonymous said…
Same thing happened in our city. The masterminds of the city council or whatever paid a firm X amount to develop a slogan for our city. After paying them X amount, no one liked any of their suggestions. Then they opened it up to local people, and what do you know, the locals came up with a great slogan. Maybe this is a lesson well learned - check with your local talent first, they aren't as dumb as some may think!
Anonymous said…
Good call SDSU - Those finalists that were published in the Argus ALL STUNK !!!

Hopefully, someone will go back to the drawing board, and find something better. I still don't know what's wrong with the current logo. But, if it's got to go, those strange things weren't the answer.
SDSU Grad said…
How much of our money did the geniuses at SDSU waste hiring these "professionals"? Didn't they realize there are dozens of artists or wannabees right in Brookings?
Anonymous said…
Okay I have not read the below post. HOWEVER let's see!!!

We have a college of graphic arts at SDSU and they are good at what they do and people like the grads.

So can someone tell me why we spent all this money on New Yorkers to come up with designs that NO ONE likes when o my gosh we have the ability right here in SD. I am offened that maybe an outside source could have came up with something new and not a mind set of how something should look. But why and remember didn't the canaries have have trouble with one of their logos for "Cagie" (sp) looking to mena and scary?????

Hummmmmmmm brain running in reverse here!
Anonymous said…
I was told it had something do to being in D1 and copy laws of the now design of the rabbit?????
Anonymous said…
11:47 here again, what i was trying to say i am not offended that they left the state but this is for the college and we have this department right at SDSU.
I hear the department is very good and people want the grads so they must be doing good work so why didn't SDSU ask some of the grads to compete for design????
Seemed like a no brainer. Unless they thought it would help in other areas which i will not speculate on.
Anonymous said…
Nobody ever said the Board of Regents had the ability to think outside the box.
nonnie said…
Anon 11:50. If true, just another reason that going to D1 or whatever was an expensive idea that was not necessary except for the sports jocks. College is for getting an education. Sports shouldn't be an added expense dumped on students, which it is now at every college.
Anonymous said…
Check the school's newspaper, www.sdsucollegian.com, and type logo in the search box. It seems this whole situation has been a mess from the beginning -- back in October. They even had to take the NY design firm reps out to a field to show them what a jackrabbit looked like!

As a proud SDSU grad, I think somebody should be asking who should get fired because of this disgrace.
Douglas said…
I looked at the suggested designs. The "jackrabbit" looked more like a dog body with long ears in one design and an old car logo in another. Unless the NY designer had escaped SD "going anywhere from here", they wouldn't know a jackrabbit from a jackass.

Of course, a uni-sex jackrabbit makes little sense. They can make this interesting by having a "jack" rabbit and a "Bunny" rabbit and inject a little sex into this to go with the violence on the football field. No sense having just one kind of rabbit these days.

Of course, if the NY designers were all gay, they might have drawn a "Jackoff" Rabbit so they could have three kinds of mascots.

Nonnie is on the right track. Why should students be forced to subsidize jocks? Athletics has nothing to do with education. I would guess 80% of the students given the choice of paying athletic fees or not would select to not pay them.
Anonymous said…
As a proud SDSU grad, I also must say that this is just a mess. There is not one good reason to change our logo.

Apparently as a Div-I school we need a new logo....

I do not see that as a valid reason.

And really is this where our childrens' tuition dollars are going-- to pay for somebody else to come up with a new logo we do not need.
Anonymous said…
like i said before i was told it had to do with copy right infridgements now that we are D1 or something to that nature.

As for going D1 notice now SDSU also has a new fitness center because students other than the sports people "jocks" can not get in the hyper. I do remember that the weight room would be closed off during hours for the teams. Just because sports brings in the bucks education is supposed to be the main goal of high schools and higher ed.
makes you go hummmmmmm doesn't it. DOn't get me wrong i am NOT opposed to sports there just needs to be a balance. Theb alance whould not come off the students nor the taxyers in either case. Where is the BALANCE and fairness.
Does nay body want to talk what non trads have to apy when they go back to college! How about an exempt for paying activities fees. Or how about activities fees in high school this was just another way for schools to demand money from the families.

I know i covered more than a few topics here but lets get real on some of this.
no i did not proof this
Anonymous said…
The poor grammar and rampant misspellings in the preceding posts are embarrassing for all SDSU alumni (myself included). They are also quite atypical for this blog. Please take care to review your posts before submitting them.


Regarding the logo, I might agree with 9:30 that someone at State should be let go because of this. I’m not upset with the designs from Phoenix Design, however—I think they were probably a bargain for $5,000. The saying “you get what you pay for” has prevailed once again. Brand development is an expensive venture—and if you are going to go that route, I believe you need to be ready to pay for the best (not the mediocre).
gatewayrabbit said…
The reason SDSU is changing the logo is that they want a more realistic looking rabbit. Yes, they made a mistake with hiring this firm, but they have re-written the way to move from D-2 to D-1. I don't think that a $5000 mistake should cost someone their job. For you athletic haters SDSU has not raised student fees since moving D-1. D-1 has energized the out of state alumni (the alumni with money) and giving has increased. The new wellness center is long overdue and is for general students not athletes. Come on PP, there are so many positive things going on at SDSU, why do you have to post the one negative thing going one. Why don't you State Haters go back to your trailer house in Vermtown and complain about evil SDSU there.
PP said…
1:47, I happen to like SDSU (so much so I moved back to Brookings, although the Lucky Lady isn't here anymore).

If there's a political or newsy story involving the State's premiere institute of learning, I will usually write on it.

Outside of the logo and Prof. Aguiar, It's just been kind of slow lately.
Anonymous said…
In response to 1:47, I might suggest that the reason for the new logo is not so simple. I believe the “company line” is threefold: 1) that our current logo carries with it a risk of a copyright infringement lawsuit (ala Warner Brothers); 2) that our current logo does not befit a university of Division 1 status; and 3) that our logo is simply not intimidating to opposing teams.

I visited with a friend about this a month back, when the University first sent out Phoenix Designs three logo options to alumni for feedback. The concerns over copyright infringement are laughable—if they were real, we would certainly have heard from our friends in Hollywood by now. I believe the Board of Regents audited the intellectual property status of logos at all the state universities a few years ago. In response to that audit, SDSU brought their trademark registrations up to date—trademark registrations that cover all of its logos, including the jackrabbit. Implying imminent litigation is a great scare tactic to compel support from others, but it’s a completely preposterous proposition given that SDSU has been using that jackrabbit logo for over 30 years.

And it doesn’t look anything like Bugs Bunny.

Saying that our current logo somehow does not meet the “standard of a division one school” is preposterous. Here is a link to the Mid-Continent Conference site. Have a look, and I think you’ll find our current logo looks quite at home.

http://www.mid-con.com/gallery/logos/

Finally, I think all sports fans would rather have an intimidating team over an intimidating logo. I’m not aware that our mascot imagery is even used at football games. If the rabbit isn’t suitable for every situation, the school can always fall back on the interlocking SD.

This logo matter is trivial at best—but to the thousands of alumni who care, it is a sore subject. If nothing else, the university leadership responsible for the logo redesign process should realize that in their zeal to come up with something “new,” they’ve undoubtedly offended some of the “old.” Thank goodness someone is finally paying attention—here’s hoping for smooth sailing from here on out.
Anonymous said…
Well, considering this is a blog and "some" people like to blog and those who have to work for a living may NOT have the time needed to post proper and thus some of the posing are brain storm posts SO WHAT.
In as much as you are correct about the post you are refering to, I might suggest that you ALSO ream and cry to the Argus Leader who is such a professional paper which has many mispellings and other grammatical errors. hummmmmm, makes you go hummmmmm doesn't it you uppies!!!!

One more thing I think the poster also stated they DID NOT proof the post! O, my gosh, they admitted there most likely were mistakes. Slap em up... jezzzz
Anonymous said…
THe finanicial backers/supporters tend to give to the sports dept. that does not help with the cost of building.
I say just wait the non sports students most likely will be displaced within the new building complex. Just up those fees one more time NON Stop....
nonnie said…
For those of you who think this poster is a state hater, not true. I had one kid go to SDSU and one to Vermillion, and the activity fees are equally outrageous at both. Eduation costs enough; kids should NOT have to support the sports on top of paying for their actual education. Will that ever change? Of course not; sports rules in high school and college to the detriment of education many times. What I do have against going to D1 is that it undoubtedly is costing kids more money. Maybe the costs are hidden like in high school athletics, but be sure they are there. And it does nothing to better a student's education.
Anonymous said…
$5,000. is a bargain?? Are you kidding? Would graphic arts students charge that much??
Anonymous said…
I think the budget for our university system is slightly more than half a billion dollars. The problem is not that $5k is alot to spend on logo development. The problem is that $5k is alot to spend for aweful designs.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th