The UCI has today unveiled a new logo which it says is “central” to an updated brand identity, also announced today – but has immediately been accused on social media of wasting money and getting its priorities wrong.
The governing body says its new brand identity is designed “to help modernise the image of the organisation.”
The rainbow bands of world champion, says the UCI, “are a prominent feature of the new logo, reflecting the heritage of the UCI and its World Championship events” – much as they were on the previous version, shown here, then.
Here’s the version of the new logo with the UCI’s full name. There's no white spacing between the five colours that make up the rainbow bands, and the letters of the acronym have switched from lower to upper case. That bold swoosh has gone.
The UCI added: “Developed in collaboration with the renowned branding agency SomeOne, the redesigned logo is supported by a broader communications package, including iconography, graphics, photography and typography.
“The rebrand, which is being implemented across all UCI initiatives, aims to strengthen the UCI’s relationships with its stakeholders, audiences and commercial partners.”
Those stakeholders presumably include the people who took to Twitter to wonder why the UCI was investing money in refreshing its brand when many believe there are more pressing details for it to deal with.
Nathan Morris said: “Just like the UCI... Focusing on things that don't matter but not improving things that do! Get your act together ASAP!”
Another Twitter user, Scott, commented: “I guess the fight against doping has been won and that's why you've spent time coming up with a new identity. Good job!”
Others questioned the cost of the rebranding exercise, with John Turner asking: “Seriously? Please confirm this re-brand cost the Swiss Francs equivalent of f*ck all. Money best spent elsewhere.”
Meanwhile, for Gerald David James, the objection was more on aesthetic grounds. He said: “The swirl on the previous logo was better, as it was reminiscent of a wheel. This change comes across as pointless.”
Not according to UCI President Brian Cookson, who said: “The refreshed brand identity symbolises the UCI’s commitment to modernise and innovate while staying true to the organisation’s heritage and tradition.
“With the aim of maximising brand exposure in line with the UCI’s development strategy, the new logo and the wider communications package will work more effectively in collaboration with events, partners and sponsors – helping to create a stronger, more recognisable UCI brand,” he added.
Add new comment
24 comments
What a waste of money! Could've/Should've been better spent.
“I guess the fight against doping has been won and that's why you've spent time coming up with a new identity. Good job!”
=
"I guess you've finished all the DIY jobs and housework that's why you've spent time out riding your bike!"
This is what I would have done...
uci_1.jpg
Better than the old one..
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9unwgtijq4lwwca/uci_altered.png?dl=0
Yeah nice, but it's not as good, and you did it after you saw the latest version, so it kinda doesn't count!
That's why you didn't get the gig. Someone who had never heard of the UCI would see that as "UC".
Well it's a better graphic, and it will work much better online for them, particularly on mobile.
Often the value of rebranding is not in what comes out of the other end of the machine as a logo, but in the organisation actually coming together to talk about what it means, or should mean, how it serves its audience and so on. So sorry to be contrary but corporate branding *can be* a very positive exercise and you shouldn't ever equate the money spent or the actual value of the whole exercise just with 'a logo'.
Having said that I've been involved in some pretty awful rebrands where it's just an exercise in CEO or CMO vanity. I can tell you it's just about impossible to tell from the outside whether the process was a good one or bad one.
For a example of getting it really wrong the recent rebrand of Warwick University is hard to beat.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/24/warwick-students-angry-...
The UCI is a bit of an 'update', but at least they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater as Warwick did.
I like it. It's clean and punchy.
Someone explain for him. It's not like the copy makes it clear. Oh. Hang on...
What does the coloured bar actually symbolise? Does anyone know why its that weird shape?
Seems like the coloured bar (whatever it's supposed to symbolise) should have been the "I" in UCI to me.
Same old thing everytime a president or pieminister is seen playing golf or sleeping or doing anything but business. Tghe sky is falling in so we can't have a new logo? Is boring though.
For the love of jebus. It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Normally, yes. However brand consultants do believe they're critical to organizations future success. And it is important to be seen to have done some work. So they take up a lot of time at board level leading discussions on corporate values and getting feedback on their possible ideas. I think the prioritization question is entirely reasonable.
You mean to say that people who get paid to come up with "brand identity" think that investing in brand identity is critical to an organisation's success?
Ha! Yes indeed. To be fair it's the same with SEO merchants, graphic designers, digital strategists, social media experts et al... Would you employ a brand identity consultant who *didn't* think that they were critical to an organisations success
UCI Logo_0.jpg
'No we didn't do that, that was the OLD UCI'
Typical corporate tactics - don't fix issues that are too difficult to fix - rebrand and spout marketing babble instead!
zzz looks like a bank.
Follow the money signs....
Oh no, some people on Twitter moaned.
At least one of them was almost certainly really offended too
Gives them something to do before Mum gets their tea.