Well, more like 15 seconds of fame.

Got interviewed by the local NBC affiliate after the game last night. They showed me the new UC system logo and asked for a reaction. I hadn't read the thread below on this topic or seen it before, so when they first showed it to me I thought they were trying to pull off a joke. Anyway, several of us had the same reaction.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/New-UC-Logo--After-144-Years/182817321

I still think we are being trolloled. That cant be real. No.


I feel like that will be the new "Rick Rolled."


I got "UC Logo'd"

University "spokesman" reaction: "some people like it, some don't" ... gawd, such an intellect, such an informed response to feedback.

A long, yellow stool being sucked down a toilet ...

Phantomfan;842038706 said:

---

I still think we are being trolloled. That cant be real. No.


I feel like that will be the new "Rick Rolled."


I got "UC Logo'd"

---

I think the logo is real, unfortunately.

If we were being trolled, they'd give us something like this:

LudwigsFountain;842038649 said:

---

Well, more like 15 seconds of fame.

Got interviewed by the local NBC affiliate after the game last night. They showed me the new UC system logo and asked for a reaction. I hadn't read the thread below on this topic or seen it before, so when they first showed it to me I thought they were trying to pull off a joke. Anyway, several of us had the same reaction.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/New-UC-Logo--After-144-Years/182817321

---

I'm the last guy to comment, concluding that the new logo "sucks". Got to tell it like it is.

Which one are you?

This thing needs to be erased from this planet, ASAP! Ugly!

GOCAL73;842038895 said:

---

Which one are you?

---

First guy. As I said, I thought they were joking and asked them a couple of times if they were trying to pull a prank. They left that part out.

I hope they're shamed into changing it back. And if they don't I hope Berkeley refuses to use it for any system wide references.

GoCal73, I was cracking up at your comment. Told it exactly like it is!

GOCAL73;842038895 said:

---

I'm the last guy to comment, concluding that the new logo "sucks".

---

Your comment was the best.

I also like the woman's comment that it looks like a toilet flushing, and the other one who compared the "C" to a "loading symbol."

It's outrageous that UC is wasting any amount of money to change a logo given the budget woes that UC has been facing since at least the 1990s. The fact that it's so stupid and ugly just makes it worse.

A great response would have been "how much money did the University pay a design firm to create this *&^%?"

OskiMD;842039077 said:

---

Your comment was the best.

I also like the woman's comment that it looks like a toilet flushing, and the other one who compared the "C" to a "loading symbol."

It's outrageous that UC is wasting any amount of money to change a logo given the budget woes that UC has been facing since at least the 1990s. The fact that it's so stupid and ugly just makes it worse.

---

I agree the new logo design is ugly, but it's not like it was necessarily a "waste of money." The intent of the new logo was part of a bigger effort to get Californians to think about and realize UC's contribution and value to the state as I understand. An understanding intended to bring about more donations/public funding/support/interest.

The money spent towards the new logo was likely earmarked for marketing and this type of outreach anyways and thus any comment about the spending being outrageous solely because of a dislike of the end product are irrelevant as the money still would've been spent in other ways and it's not like no new logo means more money elsewhere.

I think the strategy of making UC accomplishments more well known to the average citizen is a noble and smart goal it just so happens this logo isn't a good way to go about it.

StillNoStanfurdium;842039087 said:

---

I agree the new logo design is ugly, but it's not like it was necessarily a "waste of money." The intent of the new logo was part of a bigger effort to get Californians to think about and realize UC's contribution and value to the state as I understand. An understanding intended to bring about more donations/public funding/support/interest.

The money spent towards the new logo was likely earmarked for marketing and this type of outreach anyways and thus any comment about the spending being outrageous solely because of a dislike of the end product are irrelevant as the money still would've been spent in other ways and it's not like no new logo means more money elsewhere.

I think the strategy of making UC accomplishments more well known to the average citizen is a noble and smart goal it just so happens this logo isn't a good way to go about it.

---

Agreed that the idea is good. Just the logo is terrible.

Etchebeary;842038814 said:

---

I think the logo is real, unfortunately.

If we were being trolled, they'd give us something like this:

---

LOL! :rollinglaugh: