Home Blog Page 329

Why Oregon State’s “Angry Beaver” Logo Fails

104

In this post, I hope to explain why Oregon State's "Angry Beaver" logo is an eyesore and ultimately a failed brand. Let me preface this by saying I know nothing about logos or marketing. In fact, I have never taken a single course in anything remotely related to business, marketing, or branding. However, I do have a working set of eyes and know which traits they gravitate toward–simplicity, elegance, power.

With that idea in mind, I perused the web this morning trying to better understand why some brands succeed and others fail. Mainly, I looked at corporations. What I found was not surprising. Some of the objectively ranked "best" logos were simple, elegant, and powerful. See if you can spot common traits in these brands, ranked both the best logos and top brands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but what I see in common is simplicity, mostly warm colors (or simple b/w), curves, elegance, minimalism, etc. Let's compare these traits with OSU's logo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simplicity: Fail

Warm Colors: Orange is a warm color, but any positive effect is negated by the brown and black. If you notice the logos above, when they use warm colors they don't use blacks, and if they use black it's paired with white.

Curves: No clean curves on this logo. In fact, it is quite jagged.

Elegance: Fail, quite the opposite, in fact.

Minimalism: Fail.

A company called PSFK conducted a survey looking for common traits of good brands. There were several findings, but the most applicable to OSU is this:

Design – Premium aesthetics coupled with consistent delivery wins every time. A premium experience can be applied to any product or service, no matter where it sits on the price spectrum. Make your audience feel valued, encouraging them to include you as part of their identity.

While that's cheesy marketing jargon, the main point is applicable and valid.

In summary, Oregon State's logo fails because it lacks all traits found in pleasing images. Steps toward improving the University's image should be (a) accept that the current image is in fact a failure (b) understand why the status quo has failed, and (c) invest resources into creating a pleasing and powerful brand.

I encourage those with design, art, and marketing backgrounds to chime in on this topic. Also, email this post to Bob De Carolis (bob.decarolis@oregonstate.edu). Bombard him. We need this fixed ASAP.

Baseball: Cal @ Oregon State

206

The Cal Bears are the last difficult team on the Beavers schedule. Of course, I can write that and we all can know it, but the Beavers can't believe it. The past two games, we saw what happens when they disrespect the opponent and go through the motions.

No official word yet, but below are the matchups I'm thinking: 

Date Opponent Pitchers Time
05/06 California Sam Gaviglio (8-1, 2.00) vs Erik Johnson (5-1) 5:35 p.m.
05/07 California Josh Osich (6-1, 2.77) vs Justin Jones (6-3) 1:05 p.m.
05/08 California James Nygren (7-2, 3.61) vs Kevin Miller (5-2, 2.11) 1:05 p.m.

Osich is now 3-1 with a 2.78 in conference play. He's proving me wrong. Perhaps rediscovering his curveball will make all the difference. It's hard to win with just two pitches. Until I see consistency from him, I'll continue to believe our season ends with Josh on the mound. That can change over the next few weeks, so I'm writing it in pencil, not pen.

With Osich settling in, the focus now shifts to Sam Gaviglio and the team as a whole. Gaviglio has given up 5 runs in each of his last two outings, versus weak offensive clubs in WSU and UCLA no less. You have to wonder if he's wearing down due to heavy usage (i.e. high pitch counts) early in the year. Hopefully it's just the natural ebb and flow of a baseball season, and he gets back on track this weekend.

The team as a whole has been lackluster. I don't sense any entitlement. I think what happened is this: the Beavs were dissed in the polls early on, so they wanted to prove everyone wrong. Now that they have, they're probably thinking "where do we go from here?"

That's the feeling I get. It just seems like they're flat, and this makes sense: it's hard to stay emotionally high once you attain a goal (i.e. #3 in the nation, respect, etc). It will be interesting to see if they can get over the hump of getting over the hump, so to speak. They must find a new voice from within now that they've silenced all critics.

Should I Ban OS_Beaver?

29

Slow day, so let's take focus off the Beavs and shift it onto an internal affair.

OS_Beaver is getting on my nerves, is a broken record, talks about new uniforms or expanding the stadium in every post, responds to comments with unrelated "build it and they will come" Reser propaganda, etc.

I've been patient, but can't take it anymore. If it were up to me he'd be gone, but I want to be democratic here. Tell me why this guy is okay and shouldn't get the internet version of a good sock in the eye.

So, should I ban him?

Comment "yes" or "no".

…majority will rule.

New Verbal

52

Beavers received a verbal from Tight End Dustin Stanton out of Washington.

His only other offer is from Air Force, but Washington, Stanford, UCLA, and some other Pac-12 schools are showing interest.

He looks pretty good…he'll probably be a high 3-star prospect.

Here's his film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llNd_CGX0Dw

PAC-12 TV Deal

95

Here are the bullet points courtesy of Jon Wilner:

* ESPN and Fox will be co-rightsholders.

* Games will be shown on Fox, ABC, FX, Fox Sports Net, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU.

* The contract includes the Pac-12 football championship game, which will be shown alternately on Fox and ABC.

* The deal is worth approx $3 billion … or approx $250 million per year … or approx $21 million per school per year.

* The deal starts in 2012-13 and covers 12 years.

* The league will form its own network — and be the sole owner (unlike Big Ten Network partnership with Fox).

* The conference will also create a digital channel, like ESPN3.

* The conference is expected to formally announce the deal Wednesday in Phoenix, where it’s holding its annual spring meetings.

What I heard is that Utah and Colorado will both (rightfully) be vested over the first few years. So expect the original 10 members to get a little more in the beginning. My math has OSU at around 22.5 mil the first year.

The downside is that Fox is still involved. As we all know, their production is horrible. Even Versus is better–they at least broadcast in HD, and Ted Robinson is an underrated sportscaster (the guy always does his research). The other thing I don't like is that games will be shown on Fox, ABC, FX, Fox Sports Net, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. For the most part they're just replacing Versus with FX, but that's still seven networks, which means we're going to be wasting a lot of our time hunting down games. Finally, I am curious to see how much of a hit the consumer will take. Right now I pay $5 for Comcast's Sports Package, which includes FSNW and FCS. The Beaver's games were always on one of those channels. I'd be willing to pay $10 per month, but I don't think I'd go higher than that.

Thoughts?