In defense of logos

Yesterday, a jury sided with the University of Kansas in its lawsuit against Joe College for selling t-shirts that infringed upon KU's trademarks. This should have been an open and shut case. Still, there are a lot of people out there who just didn't get it and viewed the case as an example of a big, bad university out for profits. How can you own the word "Kansas?" they wondered. How can you own the color blue? Simple. You can. You can within a given context. Put Kansas on a blue t-shirt and sell it in Lawrence, Kansas, then yes, common sense tells you that's a KU t-shirt.

What about letters- can you own a letter? If so, who owns the letter A? Sesame Street? Well, if you're in Oakland, selling green hats with As on them, I'm guessing Major League Baseball will have a problem with that. If you're in Tuscon, Arizona selling navy blue hats with a red letter A on them, the University of Arizona might believe they have the right to do that. In Big 10 country, how important is the letter M to Michigan? Or the word "Wisconsin" printed in white on a red shirt? Now, put Wisconsin on a green shirt and sell it in Florida- not only will no one think it's a Wisconsin University t-shirt, no one will buy it. Why? Context.

Context matters. Now I'm no attorney, but I know that sometimes the letter of the law is what matters. Other times, it's the spirit of the law. Larry Sinks, owner of Joe College sold shirts that clearly were intended to capitalize on a local affinity for the University of Kansas. He would admit as much, so the context here is obvious. But rather than obtain an official license granting him the right to sell KU merchandise, he willfully tried to skirt the system by selling shirts KU would never approve under a licensing agreement. Sure, there's a market for tasteless, inappropriate t-shirts, but this isn't a "free speech" issue. It's commercial.

It's not free speech for me to sell a basketball jersey that says "Jordan" with the number 23 on it. I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls and maybe even Nike would have something to say about that. Sinks knew what he was doing, and he foolishly believed he had every right to do it. It reminded me of the man who ran across the street when the light was red and the sign said "Don't Walk." The man argued, "well the sign didn't say anything about running!"

Context is important. The law is important. Certainly there are more important things than logos to defend in the world, but I believe there are two kinds of people. There are those who endeavor to understand and do the right thing, and there are those who will try to get away with things, using whatever justification they can. I believe yesterday's ruling was more than just a legal victory for KU. It was a victory for common sense.

Newsweek features LIVESTRONG

The ubiquitous yellow LIVESTRONG wristband- a symbol of the fight against cancer- made its way onto the cover of Newsweek last week for the magazine’s coverage of Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow’s recent recurrence. More than 10 million cancer survivors nationwide were instantly reminded of the courage it took to overcome the dreaded diagnosis, and the fear of recurrence they live with everyday.

Of course it shouldn’t take a Newsweek article to remind us that cancer is an ever-present threat (1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime), but I want to focus on the power of symbols and storytelling in driving public awareness and interest. In higher education particularly, we focus on the value of the scientific research being done in the laboratory- which is essential- but the human story can get lost. Perhaps more importantly, the relevance is not understood.

Stories that resonate deal with real people and real life- those are the most compelling. So are the ones that hit close to home (3 out of 4 families will care for a family member with cancer). Lance Armstrong has become a powerful poster boy for survivorship by not merely surviving, but by living life to the fullest, and staying dedicated to the fight that affects so many Americans. People naturally draw inspiration from his story. I also draw inspiration from the way he’s managed to leverage that attention. After all, it wasn't Lance's picture that appeared on the cover of Newsweek.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) celebrates its 10-year anniversary this year, but the yellow wristband is just 3 years old. Not since Lou Gehrig has a major athlete or celebrity been so linked to a cause. Still, Armstrong’s foundation has benefited even more by nurturing and leveraging the LIVESTRONG brand. Following Armstrong's retirement from cycling in 2005, the foundation is stronger than ever, thanks to its successful branding. The Newsweek cover just underscores the relevance of the LIVESTRONG brand today. It is at once a message, a cause, a color and a symbol- seamlessly tied to Lance’s story of survival and triumph- bringing hope and raising awareness millions of times a day. This powerful combination gives the LAF what I consider to be a “Best Brand.”

Thoughts on branding

For centuries, man has relied on symbols to tell stories, represent ownership and invoke emotion. In the modern business world, this concept has become known as branding, taken from the common practice of ranchers who branded their livestock to denote ownership.

Over time, businesses learned to develop brands as a means to differentiate themselves from one another. This practice has become so ubiquitous, it can now conjure an entire experience, sensation or story from a simple color (What can brown do for you?), letterform (the golden arches) or graphic element (the swoosh). As a result, a brand is not merely a symbol or logo, but a complete set of perceptions held by consumers that define their expectations of the brand, and in the best cases, their relationship with it.

Though brands were embraced by the corporate world, higher education viewed itself as a public service, practically immune to the pressures of commerce and public scrutiny. That all changed in the last 20 years, as competition for the best and brightest students intensified, funding sources tightened and calls for accountability soared. The colleges and universities that thrived were the ones that had compelling stories to tell, and could make a singular, lasting impression with their audiences.

Unfortunately, the natural decentralization within institutions of higher education has led to a dizzying array of disparate logos and messages as departments have succeeded in differentiating themselves from one another instead of uniting behind the institution’s mission. In many cases, the success of a unit’s brand identity has come at the expense of the institution’s image and reputation.

For this reason, the most progressive institutions- including the University of Kansas- have sought to unify their identities by strategically positioning themselves and defining their brands. Although this requires discipline from all participants and the support of institutional leadership, the result will enhance the university’s long-term image and reputation, while improving the bottom line.

Ultimately, an institution and all of its departments will function more cohesively given the proper communication tools and the context within which they can tell their compelling stories. When audiences can make an immediate and lasting association with a brand, it is the first step toward building a long-term relationship that is based on trust and the shared values a brand communicates.