MIT's New Identity

[impulsive106]

http://mitathletics.cstv.com/genrel/051806aad.html

MIT Athletics Launches Brand Identity Program

Two-Year Brand-On Process Yields Institute's First Identity Program for Athletics

May 18, 2006

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - In an effort to strengthen the department's image and energize one of the most recognizable brands in the collegiate world, MIT's Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (DAPER) unveiled its new visual identity during an extremely successful Visting Committee last week. On Thursday, the brand was unveiled to the student body as part of a promotional giveaway.

In 2001, the department successfully created the DAPER acronym. Through the current branding initiative, the athletic department hopes to achieve uniformity within its programs in terms of image, style, meaning and essence, while fostering campus pride and a competitive spirit that supports MIT's reputation as one of the nation's most expansive and unique athletic programs.

Partnering with the MIT Publishing Services Bureau, DAPER identified SME Branding of New York to lead the project. SME Branding is the nation's leader in developing athletic brands, and their work is internationally renowned on the intercollegiate, professional and corporate level.

"This is a new age for the sports programs at MIT," commented DAPER Department Head and Director of Athletics Candace Royer. "Students are more serious than ever about their quest for excellence in sport. We believe this is an important time to engage our students and community in a project that will produce an identity for athletics at MIT that is compatible with this drive for excellence."

DAPER hosted six different focus groups of varying sizes and reviewed over one hundred potential designs, while all of its constituents were able to be active in the process. The department consulted alums, parents, coaches, faculty and administrators. But most importantly, it was the student voice that drove the direction of the program.

"The marks that have been developed were with the input of many campus constituents," added Royer. "We are very pleased with the results from SME and, if our distribution of the mark to our students is any indication, we are pleased that we have created a lot of excitement about the brand! The new mark, bearing both the MIT mascot beaver along with the our traditional ligature identity "engineers," is symbolic of movement toward what is new about out programs yet rich in our athletic traditions."

During the Brand-On report, DAPER learned that nearly all of the participating students responded well to incorporating a beaver into the final solution. The beaver was adopted as the Institute's official mascot at the annual dinner of the Technology Club of New York on January 17, 1914. Just as critical, the study concluded that there was very little equity in the serif-font based collegiate T, which had been unofficially adopted near the turn of the 20th century as MIT sports teams were seeking a mark to differentiate itself from rival colleges. At the time, most intercollegiate programs used the classic collegiate font as its logo. The letter T was used at MIT because at the time of the mark's creation, the Institute was simply known as Technology.

SME's client list resembles a "Who's Who" in sports and the firm is widely considered the industry authority in sports branding. With over 2000 brand-building solutions to clients worldwide, the firm has developed an unparalleled understanding of how sports are consumed and how brand strategies and communications programs must be approached differently than with any other types of consumer brands. Clients include the U.S. Military Academy, University of North Carolina, University of Florida and Boston College on the collegiate front and the Boston Celtics, Jacksonville Jaguars, Seattle Mariners and New Jersey Nets in the professional ranks.

SME CEO & Partner Fred Popp noted, "As a medallion institution on par with Oxford, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, MIT constantly challenges itself to advance the way things are done. As such, their approach to the re-branding of MIT Athletics has resulted in a dynamic new program that is a true representation of this esteemed institution, expressing it's never-ending pursuit of innovation and marks a new standard by which collegiate athletics are represented."

__________________________________________________________________

Here's the graphic standards sheet with all of the new marks:

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/school...Guide_final.pdf

The beaver marks don't look too appealing, but the curved wordmark is class.

[whchoclte]

I like the idea of a Beaver as an Engineer but dont like the logos at all.

The one swimming isnt bad but when the white outline is added on a dark background it appears so large and doesnt fit.

The head on beaver looks more like a panther and teh side one looks all contourted.

I would expect so much more from SME especially with how long the process took.

Nice name, very avg logos

[sc49erfan15]

I love the beaver/engineer connection.

Unfortunately, my computer is wiggin' out over me opening a PDF, so I can't see the rest of the logos...but judging by that one, I think they could have done a lot better.

I'd love to see the "curved wordmark."

[VC//]

Nice..

[Fred T. Jane]

the logo with the full image of the beaver looks like a squirrel...

Nifty idea, but it gets a "Meh" from me.

[totc]

Beaver. Heh-heh, heh-heh.

[meetthemets]

It's okay. Hard to tell what it is. I don't think the quality of work SME has put out in the last few years matches what they used to put out 7-8 years ago.

[logodawg]

The wordmark looks like it belongs to an engineering firm, not a school sports team. The beaver in the water is the only one that I like, but I don't think that would look good on a jersey.

[BJ Sands]

I know that when I think MIT, I think athletics...

Not bad but not great.

[andrewharrington]

The swimming beaver is acceptable, but the other two are off. They just look amateurish to me. The MIT and Engineers wordmarks are really nice, but when they altered the letters to fit in certain places, like in the DAPER logo and the curved Engineers script, they just scaled the letters horizontally, resluting in skinnier verticals than horizontals, and it looks terrible. That is rule #1 in any typography book or class.

[2mr41h]

SME phoned it in for this one. Not their best effort. The idea is there, but the execution is pretty generic. We see better stuff on these boards all the time.

[machpost]

Was this thing designed by an engineer?

[walkdesign]

THAT BEAVER STINKS!!!!

hahaha... someone had to say it.

[pheer]

I figured they'd be something meaner.... Like the Fighting Calculators.

[DEAD!]

I figured they'd be something meaner.... Like the Fighting Calculators.

fighting robots might be more appropriate...

[brooksdiamond]

Is it me or does SME come across as the snob of the logo design world? Even more snobbish

than Tom O'Grady. Whenever I've read about them describing their own work they always use ten words when one will do. So it goes with their work. I think a lot of their work is overdone and overpriced. When they try to be understated it doesn't seem to work as well. I think Joe Bosack, Studio Simon, Silverman Group, etc., do a much better job. A lot of other smaller firms do a better job as well.

[ZBoyer]

There's a section in that PDF about clear space rules and regulations involving resizing the logos and wordmarks and such - I'd assume this is a standard practice with all sports logos, no? And to what does that usage apply?

[andrewharrington]

You have to give the logo a certain amount of space on all sides when using it in print, on a website, etc. Some logos have a minimum size so to maintain recognition.

[brinkeguthrie]

why does it look like an open manhole cover with the lid off to the side?

[meetthemets]

Is it me or does SME come across as the snob of the logo design world? Even more snobbish

than Tom O'Grady. Whenever I've read about them describing their own work they always use ten words when one will do. So it goes with their work. I think a lot of their work is overdone and overpriced. When they try to be understated it doesn't seem to work as well. I think Joe Bosack, Studio Simon, Silverman Group, etc., do a much better job. A lot of other smaller firms do a better job as well.

Totally agree. They definitely come off like their doesn't stink. A lot of the talented designers that once worked there and did a majority of their good work (NYR mark, etc.) have all left. They are definitely over priced and overrated. It seems that SME and Phoenix are getting jobs through their client lists these days rather than the quality of work they are putting out for the pirce they are getting. Bosack's work is much better IMO.