[aresant]

Simplistic logos are so easy to pan mercilessly & dismiss, and as a UC grad that was my first instinct too.

But a quote on one of the subsequent sites in the comments (from UC's creative director) makes their case:

"Previously, the UC system only used its seal as its primary visual identifier, where it was abused with impunity. . . this is less of a rebranding exercise, but instead the creation of a coherent, consistent, and relevant brand identity where before there was none."

This actually makes sense to me.

The UC system has always been intimately connected in name, but disconnected in culture and practice.

So visual execution of the logo aside, pushing to have a unified brand in front of the millions of eyeballs that are exposed to the UC system every year is a pretty damn smart move from a branding perspective.

[seanlinehan]

The strategic thinking behind the move is brilliant. Even if the logo cost $100,000 there is an argument to be made that more people will be able to connect with the brand and hopefully will donate. I'm quite certain that this type of move could be majorly profitable. But as hackers we know that a solid idea is not enough... the execution is what truly matters. The UC system's idea is awesome; the execution is pretty bad.

[Turing_Machine]

"Even if the logo cost $100,000 "

It's likely going to cost millions. All the letterhead. Every web site. Physical signage.

"Connecting with the brand"? You're suggesting that people weren't familiar with the "brand" before?