Grew up in Omaha. I was accepted into UC-Berkeley. Yay! California was playing in the College World Series in Omaha that same year. I thought it was another UC campus I just was not familiar with yet.
Citrus Bowl earl 90's, Cal shows up.....people thought we would be UCLA. They had no clue there was another UC football program.
There is definitely a name recognition issue on the national scene. Both brands are strong enough in their own, there has to be a way to complement each other.
I went to that College World Series at Johnny Rosenblatt.
6 Bears made the show, including an UDFA, and 16 total guys drafted off that roster...Matt Luke, Chris Clapinski (UDFA), Jon Zuber, Geoff Blum, Mike Cather, and Eric Ludwick...along with Troy Penix...that team was loaded.
Help me to understand and I mean this sincerely-why do you think they don't already complement each other? I'm trying to figure out why this is an issue.
The first thing to do is to smash those internal guidelines with a hammer. Let the academic side use Cal and the bear logo! I don't see the logic of disallowing this at all.
Secondly, start including "Berkeley" subscripts on sports uniforms, field/court designs, etc. The team can still be called Cal or California in an athletic context, but a second smaller wordmark with "Berkeley" on it can help people understand the two are one and the same.
It would be wise to eliminate any cross-discouragement of using Cal or a bear and UC Berkeley or an image of a tower at the same time.
In the interim, just do it, and ignore any prohibition that is almost as stupid as anyone who thought that was a good idea. This does not require a committee. That someone there thinks that one is required is a reflection of the real problem.
The Director of Corporate Partnerships is still out per Health and Safety protocols and the Product Manager for basketball had wrist surgery in August for carpal tunnel and is questionable.
I was interviewed this past Friday by one of the co-chairs of the Commission, Patrick Holmes, Executive Director of Communications and Marketing on campus. I thought he was genuine and thoughtful. I was told their meetings have been concluded but that no final decisions were made. I made it clear that there are two cultures on the campus, one associated with the University of California, and one associated with Berkeley.
I also made it clear, that resolving the campus name in a singular unified moniker would be a mistake, as Bishop Berkeley was both a racist and a slave owner. He willed his slaves to Yale University, which is one of the reasons that Yale is making reparations. If we were willing to eliminate LeConte, Kroeber, and Barrows, it would be strange to identity the campus solely with Berkeley.
I asked if he could name another public university whose original or flagship campus was named other than with the name of the state where they resided. He agreed, he could not. I also mentioned that other UC campuses have already chosen to be named by their location, including UCLA. We should be known as the University of California, with California our name in athletics, and Cal as a nickname.
I also shared some history of the campus that he was not aware of. I have no idea if my input will have any impact, I doubt it. But I wanted to get my perspective on record. I also offered some concrete recommendations on how to market the campus identity, and volunteered to be an advisor.
This is great. University of California (which inevitably will be just called "California" and eventually the two brands will merge. The academic side will straighten itself out after a few cycles of published rankings. Nobody really knows or cares where Michigan is located, but they all know it is a prestigious academic school with a great athletic program.
There is more to sports than winning. Still, winning is more fun and the most important. The winners set the standards for how the sport is played. Right now, CFB is being run by winners who don't give a fuck about the sport as an entity as long as they're on top and making the most money.
Not going to happen. You see the actual problems institutions have never get solved at universities. We only do non-problems that then can be the subject of endless back and forth for a year or so. The real problems are likely unsolvable anyways. IMO, this problem-solving theater works out well for everyone.
No one is going to like this but the easiest way is probably to just be Berkeley. The Berkeley Golden Bears.
“Berkeley” is the brand that is known all over the world and always will be. No one outside of the SF Bay Area knows what “Cal” is.
Every SoCal alum has had this same experience. You live in Berkeley for a few years and get used to calling it “Cal” then you go back home and tell someone you went to Cal:
“Cal? You mean Cal State Long Beach? Cal State Fullerton?”
I don’t think all the branding power in Haas can make “Cal” happen outside of the Bay Area. We already have a universally recognized brand, all we have to do is start using it for everything. Go Berkeley Bears!
This would be the most disappointing outcome. And frankly I disagree with your premise.
It's the University of California. That's it, it's that simple. Unfortunately, it's so simple we likely won't go that route.
I've occasionally had people ask me if I meant "Cal State" when I answer Cal. A simple, "No, University of California" solves that. No need to overthink it. It's not like California is the only state with multiple schools.
That ship sailed when Clark Kerr made all UC schools equal with no true flagship. We will never get UC Regents to brand us as the University of California
Maybe I’m missing something but we don’t need the regents to do anything as far as branding? We are the de facto flagship UC. How we manage and brand that is internal to our university system. Our issues with “Cal” vs “Berkeley” are self-inflicted.
I wonder if the academic side wants to be considered more of a global institution in branding, and the name of your state sounds less prestigious than a slightly more esoteric name would..
When Sonny Dykes was really getting behind the California thing with players running out with the state flag, it made me wonder if that could hinder our Texas recruiting..
Good point, then we tend to end up with a smaller recruiting pool of the "woke." It would be make the City happy as a tick though. California is much more complex and politically diverse than many people outside the state know. I think it's the school's mission to represent California- the whole enchilada.
Definitely on the diverse campus-- I always shock East Coast people when I tell them that the Young Republicans were on of the biggest clubs on campus when I was there (so ok, lots of other left leaning students had multiple other organizations from which to join and splinter numbers...).
Well, do not forget that many of the voices of Sproul Plaza are professional agents . How else could they afford to be babbling 7 days a week. The actually student body is tends to be moderate.
I agree with C98. Southern Californians think of some nearby Cal State school when they hear "Cal". Maybe one or two of them think of Cal Tech but they are freaks. I lived in LA and San Diego for almost 30 years. The number of non-Cal alumni I have met in Southern California who associate Cal with UC Berkeley is exactly zero.
You just proved why this effort is needed. Cal is California is University of California. That people in the southern half of the state fail to make that association is embarrassing and shows this rebranding effort is needed.
At this point it's set in stone that to outsiders, the sports teams are Cal and the school is Berkeley. I think the little reminders on the uniforms (say, 'Berkeley' on the back of the helmet just below the neck' might be the way to go.
Hopefully its not the same people who came up with that god awful new logo a couple years ago, that was going to be on all letterheads and official UC Berkeley communication, etc. If I recall, the admin announced it in a press release, like this is done and happening... but it was so horribly bad they couldnt ignore the public outcry and nixed the whole thing.
I'm always amazed at how, such a world class university, can be so incompetent in various areas. I suppose that comes with bureaucracy of all kinds and its not exclusive to UC Berkeley.
The incompetence stems from the fact that it's a bloated government bureaucracy with no consequences for wrong/bad decisions. The ratio of administrators to instructors has skyrocketed in the past couple of decades -- and continues to climb -- which only exacerbates the problem.
Well it was a very, very poor attempt. Is "Cal" even mentioned in the commercial? Nevermind the fact that it's a fucking PUN. Imagine trying to sell the best public university in the world with a PUN and riding it for twenty years.
Just give some film major a semester project to make a replacement ad that's not uber dated and in 480p. I guarantee it'll be better.
It doesn't mention "Cal." However, it does show Memorial, the football team with the Cal helmets and the Play. I think Tedford was eventually replaced by Dykes then by Wilcox.
I was interviewed this past Friday by one of the co-chairs of the Commission, Patrick Holmes, Executive Director of Communications and Marketing on campus. I thought he was genuine and thoughtful. I was told their meetings have been concluded but that no final decisions were made. I made it clear that there are two cultures on the campus, one associated with the University of California, and one associated with Berkeley.
I also made it clear, that resolving the campus name in a singular unified moniker would be a mistake, as Bishop Berkeley was both a racist and a slave owner. He willed his slaves to Yale University, which is one of the reasons that Yale is making reparations. If we were willing to eliminate LeConte, Kroeber, and Barrows, it would be strange to identity the campus solely with Berkeley.
I asked if he could name another public university whose original or flagship campus was named other than with the name of the state where they resided. He agreed, he could not. I also mentioned that other UC campuses have already chosen to be named by their location, including UCLA. We should be known as the University of California, with California our name in athletics, and Cal as a nickname.
I also shared some history of the campus that he was not aware of. I have no idea if my input will have any impact, I doubt it. But I wanted to get my perspective on record. I also offered some concrete recommendations on how to market the campus identity, and volunteered to be an advisor.
This is so funny that this remains an issue. Speaking from my experiences for 40 years, the dual names of our school have been a great asset, and here is why; I like to learn my learner!
So when I am presenting/proposing/meeting with a company like Apple or Microsoft and a person asks if I went to college? My response is, Yes, Berkeley. The answer is always met with some form of respect.
That said, when I meet with say, Nike, Gatorade or ESPN, and someone wants to learn what school I graduated from? My response is always CAL. And again, that answer is met with authentic athletic respect.
Our University was built and organically branded over 100 years ago. Trying to "REBRAND" something so old and full of lore just won't work. We are not IBM, and we have Great Names for which we are referred to. And we certainly do not want to lose what we have and take on a silly name like; Google, Twitter, or Yahoo!
What in the Oski are you talking about? Google, Twitter Yahoo! ? The topic is not "should we pick a tech company moniker", it's "how do we unify the bifurcated identities created and perpetuated by arbitrary guidelines".
Your anecdote is cute, but the amount of high school kids (re: potential students!) and otherwise well-informed adults not from the west coast that don't know the two are the same institution speaks to the necessity of this effort. The bowl graphic at the top of this article should be embarrassment enough to prove change is necessary.
No other university seems to have this split identity problem. And, as with so many other problems, this one is self-inflicted. I live in Austin, and the interchangeability of Texas (athletics) and Texas (academics) is the type of thing this task force should aim for. The two sides don't detract from each other, and when used properly just bolster each other.
#2 is the finest example of Cal bureaucracy ever. Why is there this stupid rule that everyone must follow?
If if go to Michigan I see shirts with the big M logo for sports and fields of study. “M Swimming” “M field hockey” “ M football” along with “M physics” “M sociology” “M environmental resources”.
But, no, at CALIFORNIA we cannot be Cal Physics, Cal Civil Engineering, Cal Microbiology. Nope. Verboten. Heresy.
Who came up with this stupid rule? Likely some faculty bureaucrat in an ivory tower.
I wonder if they think it would be confused with Cal Tech.
I grew up in NY/CT, and travelled out West to go to Berkeley. But growing up, I'd only vaguely heard of Berkeley and thought it was a small liberal arts school. It was only when I started looking into UCLA that I discovered UC Berkeley, and the rest was history.. I'd also vague knew about "that team with the cool "Cal" logo on their helmet" but had no clue one had anything to do with the other.
Nevertheless, I moved back East after graduating and got a job in NYC. When asked, I would tell people (also mostly from the East coast) that I went to "Cal" and they would immediately think I went to Cal Tech. Hell, same thing to this day ~20 years later in the Boston area.
I really think that outside of people from the Bay Area, or fans a Pac 12 team, or the relatively small population of people who are in a position to be applying to elite grad schools, most people in this country have no clue that Berkeley, Cal, and The University of California are all the same thing.
I'd bet it was the other campuses that did not want Berkeley to use Cal-Physics, for example, and Berkeley being Berkeley (whose Administrators are go-along, get-along types...) signed off.
maybe CALIFORNIA should stop giving a crap about what other campuses think. Do you think UC Lo$ Angele$ gave a crap when it decided to leave the Pac-12, steal our song, mascot and colors? Let Cal Tech and Cal Poly worry about their own marketing (they're not even part of UC?).
I see the "Cal" as a logo, just like the block M or the curved W or the furd S. It's a highly recognizable logo that is owned by the university and the the university should allow anyone campus organization to use it. That's how you bring togehter the athletic and academic association.
To fix this issue they should allow unencumbered use of the Cal script logo or the block C logo or the script CALIFORNIA logo etc. Again that is how you bring togheter athletic and academic association, not by creating something else that *everyone* will hate and, as a result, not use but force them to because "that's the rule".
I never knew about these rules until reading this blog post. They are indeed absurd. What happens if they are violated? Do UC police bring you to UC jail?
@azlefty I have some first-hand experience here. I’ve done design work that required branding approval for the Alumni Association. Violating the rules doesn’t result in police action. But it does result in campus political and bureaucratic problems. Any use of Cal or UC Berkeley done for marketing must be submitted to various departments for approval. If rules are broken, the project is not approved. It’s very hard to ignore this when a department’s budget for a marketing campaign could be withheld or relationships soured across departments. Additionally, if any department gets away with an exception, other departments can complain, asking “How come they got away with it?”
Don't forget, MechaniCAL Engineering... which I think we still use. Ugh. At least I appreciate the nod, keeping in mind the insane rules about not mixing.
It is obvious that we should be known only as 'California'. Just like Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, et. al. It is a simple brand. Cal can fall easily off that brand. Ditch UC Berkeley. That is nothing but lumping us in with UC system which is not important. UCLA does not do that - UCLA is not UC- LA in effect. Its one 'word' in terms of brand use. Like Cal.
As with anything, this problem originates with UCLA. It is there use of the UC name that created the brand confusion in the first place. The solution, of course, is that they should have to change their damn name. They can think it over while they're writing us a check from Bloomington Indiana.
I agree with RS here, just go with California. That is the marketing solution for both academics and athletics. Over time, folks will associate the academics with California, just as they have with the change from Boalt Hall for the law school (for example USNR will help the marketing buy referring to us as California).
And UNC is not North Carolina or Chapel Hill. I think with branding the final name is really arbitrary, it just has to become commonly known. All of these schools simply established their brands many, many years ago, when people were exposed to an consumed media differently. I remember reading about Notre Dame and the Dallas Cowboys, and how you can trace back the roots of their popularity to how they effectively expanded their brand reach on radio networks throughout the country in the early days of football, through old fashioned wheeling and dealing.. and they were simply ahead of the curve on that.
UNC also has a "Cal"-like name- Carolina. I went for grad school, and Carolina is used more frequently by students and alum than UNC, similar to Berkeley students; and alumni use of Cal. U of South Carolina tries to argue it, but they lose on name rights pretty much everywhere other than in South Carolina.
The cultural issue has absolutely nothing to do with brand name. By your definition, it's cultural. Changing names will do nothing to address that fact.
Instead, it is all about embracing student athletes on campus. Southern Branch embraces its athletes, Cal-Berkeley does not and hasn't since the late 60's. There are plenty of faculty & students in Berkeley who despise sports, and are vocal about wishing those athletic admissions would go away.
Yes, Berkely is recognized worldwide for academics. If we were competitive on the national sports stage in the two revenue sports, our nickname would be well known as well. And since we choose to not compete in football and basketball, call a committee to order and move around the deck chairs (to give some fake semblance of movement)
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, as it won't bring in any 5* recruits (nor result in the firing of Knowlton).
This nails it on the head. I would add that the name "Berkeley" is politically charged (whether fair or not). I proudly wear my Cal hat in the southeastern US with no ramifications. I am not so sure I would want to wear a Berkeley hat around certain parts of the deep south. I think this an issue that needs to be addressed if we are going to use Berkeley: people need to understand the differences between the city and the UC, and the fact that not all students at Berkeley are left wing hippies.
Exactly. The knock-off “Cali” bullshit often, I believe, robs from our “Cal” brand. They even copy the script style. Some people in the South may be used to “Cali” crap.
There is value to having a unified brand though. I commented above, but UCLA is an example. The historical success of their basketball program probably has a lot to do with that, as with the glammer of being in LA -- to people not from California, like myself. I guess that's what this task force is about though. My preference is they should embrace "Cal" across the board -- but then theres the issue with confusing Cal Tech..
A good example might be Ole Miss, where the athletics are branded separately. A lot of people dont know that's the University of Mississippi as well. Could just be the way it goes in this situation.
Yeah, it's easy to know that's the state, but there is also Mississippi State. And "Ole Miss" *could* always be the nickname for some other school in the state that doesn't even have Mississippi in the name. For people who dont know jack about what schools are in MS. Point is, a lot of people don't instantly know the academic institution.. BUT they also don't really care to know either, ha.
I dont think (without thinking too hard) there are other examples in major sports where the athletics and academics are so differently branded as Cal and Ole Miss.
I don’t have an opinion right now as this is very complex, but ‘branding’ was/is part of my job in Product Marketing, so I do know a bit about how it’s done. I worked at a company that had major brand recognition for it’s product more so than it’s company name. Also just interviewed at a company that didn’t do a good job with their new company name after they bought a smaller company. I would mention them here, but I think it’s a good example of what not to do! And knowing what not to do is equally as important as what we should do!
I do know it is never easy. In this case, since I am an alum and am very passionate about my college, I was wondering if you knew anyone I could reach out to and offer to help in this task? I would think they have small working groups looking into certain areas, and would hope they include alums as part of the process. I would love to participate. So if you have a contact, can you either point me to them or them to me? 😂 And Go Bears! 💙🐻💛
Long-term: there are more benefits with branding as “University of California” vs “UC Berkeley”. Look at Texas as an example. Some people refer to it as “UT” or “Austin”, but they’ve claimed Texas in a way that we haven’t claimed “California”
I refer to the book Simplicity Marketing: end brand complexity, clutter and confusion by former Haas and Stanford prof Pete Sealey. Hits the nail on the head
Screw "Berkeley", it's Cal or California. The "Berkeley" only came about because people from certain parts of the world that the admissions department (desperate for income) was targeting had difficulty pronouncing "Cal." So it was easy money over tradition. Once again Crist shows she doesn't have her priorities straight. She and her sidekick, Empty Suit Jim are destroying Cal athletics to the point that no one will care what the school is called because it will have no athletics identity. Fuggum, it's CAL or California, always has been, always will be!
You know, you can make a point *without* thinly-veiled racism.
Also, someone from the east coast will pay the same out-of-state tuition as someone from "certain parts of the world" so...yeah.
The "Berkeley" came about because other UC's popped up and clarification was needed. HOW we went about (the shitty guidelines described in the article for example) is another story, and has a lot more to do with ivory towery types in the Academia side not wanting to be associated with Athletics (remember the infamous CS professor who openly stated he wanted no athletics at all?)
I wasn’t replying to you, Bob. If a comment is directly below yours, and not indented further than yours, it’s replying to the same comment you replied to.
But I dont think the concept of being "the flagship" is actually a real thing recognized by the state, at least in California. The UC system is also pretty unique compared to most other states, mainly because of the sheer size of the state. I dont think any other "University of.." state systems have the number of quality, independent schools with national (even global) reach as UC does, outside of their main institution.
That doesn't really matter, though. All the other UC's have their own independent branding, and none of them this weird bifurcated system. UCLA is UCLA in all aspects, the whole "academic reputation" thing with the "Berkeley" name is a red herring. We were first, went by "University of California" for decades, then started leaning on the Berkeley thing in the Clark Kerr years. There is no valid reason we can't just adopt "University of California" (shortened to "California" in a sporting context where the "University" part is implied and often omitted) on everything, and "University of California, Berkeley" in more formal settings (which we already do anyway). If anybody wants to use UC Berkeley for shorthand, cool. No bid deal. People use UT Austin to refer to Texas and nobody throws a fit. The important thing is to establish just that: UC Berkeley is shortand (*not the main brand/name/whatever*) and maintain that the name is *University of California*.
Grew up in Omaha. I was accepted into UC-Berkeley. Yay! California was playing in the College World Series in Omaha that same year. I thought it was another UC campus I just was not familiar with yet.
Citrus Bowl earl 90's, Cal shows up.....people thought we would be UCLA. They had no clue there was another UC football program.
There is definitely a name recognition issue on the national scene. Both brands are strong enough in their own, there has to be a way to complement each other.
I went to that College World Series at Johnny Rosenblatt.
6 Bears made the show, including an UDFA, and 16 total guys drafted off that roster...Matt Luke, Chris Clapinski (UDFA), Jon Zuber, Geoff Blum, Mike Cather, and Eric Ludwick...along with Troy Penix...that team was loaded.
Eric Ludwick played for Cal? I had no idea. I remember he played for my favorite team in Japan in early 2000s.
Jon Zuber also played in Japan too.
Help me to understand and I mean this sincerely-why do you think they don't already complement each other? I'm trying to figure out why this is an issue.
Maybe people around the world are not as familiar. This is a problem we don’t see if we are so familiar with Cal/UC Berkeley
The first thing to do is to smash those internal guidelines with a hammer. Let the academic side use Cal and the bear logo! I don't see the logic of disallowing this at all.
Secondly, start including "Berkeley" subscripts on sports uniforms, field/court designs, etc. The team can still be called Cal or California in an athletic context, but a second smaller wordmark with "Berkeley" on it can help people understand the two are one and the same.
That seems way too simple and likely to succeed for them to go with this.
I'm just sitting here dreading what feels like the the inevitable: some "Cal Berkeley" abomination
It would be wise to eliminate any cross-discouragement of using Cal or a bear and UC Berkeley or an image of a tower at the same time.
In the interim, just do it, and ignore any prohibition that is almost as stupid as anyone who thought that was a good idea. This does not require a committee. That someone there thinks that one is required is a reflection of the real problem.
Excellent point. Stupid rules are made to be broken.
This. Cal is short for California. Just need for athletics to use Berkeley as well in their gear and for academics to use Cal in their gear.
But, but, but, we need a Committee to work for a year to review these common sense ideas.
Meanwhile Knowlton will cry poor when it comes time to pay the Fox buyout.
There are a couple injuries on the UCB Comms and Marketing team, Jimmy!
I heard, P!!
The Director of Corporate Partnerships is still out per Health and Safety protocols and the Product Manager for basketball had wrist surgery in August for carpal tunnel and is questionable.
Plus all these vacations. We're never at full strength.
Due to covid, we'll probably have to extend the Committee for two more years.
I was interviewed this past Friday by one of the co-chairs of the Commission, Patrick Holmes, Executive Director of Communications and Marketing on campus. I thought he was genuine and thoughtful. I was told their meetings have been concluded but that no final decisions were made. I made it clear that there are two cultures on the campus, one associated with the University of California, and one associated with Berkeley.
I also made it clear, that resolving the campus name in a singular unified moniker would be a mistake, as Bishop Berkeley was both a racist and a slave owner. He willed his slaves to Yale University, which is one of the reasons that Yale is making reparations. If we were willing to eliminate LeConte, Kroeber, and Barrows, it would be strange to identity the campus solely with Berkeley.
I asked if he could name another public university whose original or flagship campus was named other than with the name of the state where they resided. He agreed, he could not. I also mentioned that other UC campuses have already chosen to be named by their location, including UCLA. We should be known as the University of California, with California our name in athletics, and Cal as a nickname.
I also shared some history of the campus that he was not aware of. I have no idea if my input will have any impact, I doubt it. But I wanted to get my perspective on record. I also offered some concrete recommendations on how to market the campus identity, and volunteered to be an advisor.
Fantastic input.
Disappointing, but not surprised, that decision-makers are not away of the history of the University of California.
Thank you.
This is great. University of California (which inevitably will be just called "California" and eventually the two brands will merge. The academic side will straighten itself out after a few cycles of published rankings. Nobody really knows or cares where Michigan is located, but they all know it is a prestigious academic school with a great athletic program.
Nad,
Which organization "owns" the "Cal" and "California" branding that precludes academic departments from using them? Is it Athletics?
The best way to clear up the confusion nationwide is to start winning a shitload of football games.
There's more to sports than winning: Chancellor and AD.
There is more to sports than winning. Still, winning is more fun and the most important. The winners set the standards for how the sport is played. Right now, CFB is being run by winners who don't give a fuck about the sport as an entity as long as they're on top and making the most money.
Not going to happen. You see the actual problems institutions have never get solved at universities. We only do non-problems that then can be the subject of endless back and forth for a year or so. The real problems are likely unsolvable anyways. IMO, this problem-solving theater works out well for everyone.
No one is going to like this but the easiest way is probably to just be Berkeley. The Berkeley Golden Bears.
“Berkeley” is the brand that is known all over the world and always will be. No one outside of the SF Bay Area knows what “Cal” is.
Every SoCal alum has had this same experience. You live in Berkeley for a few years and get used to calling it “Cal” then you go back home and tell someone you went to Cal:
“Cal? You mean Cal State Long Beach? Cal State Fullerton?”
I don’t think all the branding power in Haas can make “Cal” happen outside of the Bay Area. We already have a universally recognized brand, all we have to do is start using it for everything. Go Berkeley Bears!
People will inevitably confuse it with Berklee College of Music…you know why?
People are inherently stupid…except Cal fans.
And confuse the university with that of the politically insane City of Berkeley? Nah, I don’t think so...
For better or worse, the two brands command respect.
But I totally get your point.
This would be the most disappointing outcome. And frankly I disagree with your premise.
It's the University of California. That's it, it's that simple. Unfortunately, it's so simple we likely won't go that route.
I've occasionally had people ask me if I meant "Cal State" when I answer Cal. A simple, "No, University of California" solves that. No need to overthink it. It's not like California is the only state with multiple schools.
That ship sailed when Clark Kerr made all UC schools equal with no true flagship. We will never get UC Regents to brand us as the University of California
Maybe I’m missing something but we don’t need the regents to do anything as far as branding? We are the de facto flagship UC. How we manage and brand that is internal to our university system. Our issues with “Cal” vs “Berkeley” are self-inflicted.
Wow, now I have a genuine reason to dislike Clark Kerr.
Freedom Under Clark Kerr.
I wonder if the academic side wants to be considered more of a global institution in branding, and the name of your state sounds less prestigious than a slightly more esoteric name would..
When Sonny Dykes was really getting behind the California thing with players running out with the state flag, it made me wonder if that could hinder our Texas recruiting..
It’s what we are though. It’s a state school. This distancing from that is bewildering.
In any case, in true academia it’s always “University of California, Berkeley” so it’s not like it’s hidden.
Good point, then we tend to end up with a smaller recruiting pool of the "woke." It would be make the City happy as a tick though. California is much more complex and politically diverse than many people outside the state know. I think it's the school's mission to represent California- the whole enchilada.
Definitely on the diverse campus-- I always shock East Coast people when I tell them that the Young Republicans were on of the biggest clubs on campus when I was there (so ok, lots of other left leaning students had multiple other organizations from which to join and splinter numbers...).
Well, do not forget that many of the voices of Sproul Plaza are professional agents . How else could they afford to be babbling 7 days a week. The actually student body is tends to be moderate.
I agree with C98. Southern Californians think of some nearby Cal State school when they hear "Cal". Maybe one or two of them think of Cal Tech but they are freaks. I lived in LA and San Diego for almost 30 years. The number of non-Cal alumni I have met in Southern California who associate Cal with UC Berkeley is exactly zero.
You just proved why this effort is needed. Cal is California is University of California. That people in the southern half of the state fail to make that association is embarrassing and shows this rebranding effort is needed.
Have to agree and just need to put UC Berkeley on uniforms/helmets and have similar branding as UCLA
At this point it's set in stone that to outsiders, the sports teams are Cal and the school is Berkeley. I think the little reminders on the uniforms (say, 'Berkeley' on the back of the helmet just below the neck' might be the way to go.
I like that idea quite a bit. Perfect opportunity for Nike to get creative...
Or even a full "University of California, Berkeley."
Gimme an E...
Gimme an "R"!
Gimme another R!
"BERR...LY"? Like, our offense berrly scored?
I have a very strong feeling that the task force will be just as incompetent as Knowlton. The only tradition they are going to keep is the commercial.
Hopefully its not the same people who came up with that god awful new logo a couple years ago, that was going to be on all letterheads and official UC Berkeley communication, etc. If I recall, the admin announced it in a press release, like this is done and happening... but it was so horribly bad they couldnt ignore the public outcry and nixed the whole thing.
I'm always amazed at how, such a world class university, can be so incompetent in various areas. I suppose that comes with bureaucracy of all kinds and its not exclusive to UC Berkeley.
The incompetence stems from the fact that it's a bloated government bureaucracy with no consequences for wrong/bad decisions. The ratio of administrators to instructors has skyrocketed in the past couple of decades -- and continues to climb -- which only exacerbates the problem.
True, although this is the case everywhere in higher ed.
That was not going to be a change to UC Berkeley logo, but the logo for the broader UC university system. But it was awful.
Rumor is that it's still loading to this day.
pqtm.
Ah.. that actually makes me feel a little better then
Oh man I'm so glad it never happened.
Haha I didn't realize there was a change.org petition against it..
https://www.change.org/p/university-of-california-stop-the-new-uc-logo
My personal favorite was the gif with the "C" swirling around, really driving home the toilet bowl aesthetic.
Seems like the Toilet Bowl is the perfect bowl game for us.
It's the Big Game! lol
Wait, that was over 10 years ago???
Yeah, I thought we were chatting about that mess on here just a couple years ago!!! Guess it was on CGB. Time flies when you're having fun!
That commercial belongs in the deepest reaches of hell
As does Jim Knowlton
Interestingly, that commercial was an attempt to convey that UC, Berkeley and Cal are one and the same!
Well it was a very, very poor attempt. Is "Cal" even mentioned in the commercial? Nevermind the fact that it's a fucking PUN. Imagine trying to sell the best public university in the world with a PUN and riding it for twenty years.
Just give some film major a semester project to make a replacement ad that's not uber dated and in 480p. I guarantee it'll be better.
It doesn't mention "Cal." However, it does show Memorial, the football team with the Cal helmets and the Play. I think Tedford was eventually replaced by Dykes then by Wilcox.
Well if that's the case, then it has failed miserably because after all these years there's still a major branding issue. Hence it's gotta go.
I honestly hope that commercial is still playing in 2123.
I was interviewed this past Friday by one of the co-chairs of the Commission, Patrick Holmes, Executive Director of Communications and Marketing on campus. I thought he was genuine and thoughtful. I was told their meetings have been concluded but that no final decisions were made. I made it clear that there are two cultures on the campus, one associated with the University of California, and one associated with Berkeley.
I also made it clear, that resolving the campus name in a singular unified moniker would be a mistake, as Bishop Berkeley was both a racist and a slave owner. He willed his slaves to Yale University, which is one of the reasons that Yale is making reparations. If we were willing to eliminate LeConte, Kroeber, and Barrows, it would be strange to identity the campus solely with Berkeley.
I asked if he could name another public university whose original or flagship campus was named other than with the name of the state where they resided. He agreed, he could not. I also mentioned that other UC campuses have already chosen to be named by their location, including UCLA. We should be known as the University of California, with California our name in athletics, and Cal as a nickname.
I also shared some history of the campus that he was not aware of. I have no idea if my input will have any impact, I doubt it. But I wanted to get my perspective on record. I also offered some concrete recommendations on how to market the campus identity, and volunteered to be an advisor.
This is so funny that this remains an issue. Speaking from my experiences for 40 years, the dual names of our school have been a great asset, and here is why; I like to learn my learner!
So when I am presenting/proposing/meeting with a company like Apple or Microsoft and a person asks if I went to college? My response is, Yes, Berkeley. The answer is always met with some form of respect.
That said, when I meet with say, Nike, Gatorade or ESPN, and someone wants to learn what school I graduated from? My response is always CAL. And again, that answer is met with authentic athletic respect.
Our University was built and organically branded over 100 years ago. Trying to "REBRAND" something so old and full of lore just won't work. We are not IBM, and we have Great Names for which we are referred to. And we certainly do not want to lose what we have and take on a silly name like; Google, Twitter, or Yahoo!
What in the Oski are you talking about? Google, Twitter Yahoo! ? The topic is not "should we pick a tech company moniker", it's "how do we unify the bifurcated identities created and perpetuated by arbitrary guidelines".
Your anecdote is cute, but the amount of high school kids (re: potential students!) and otherwise well-informed adults not from the west coast that don't know the two are the same institution speaks to the necessity of this effort. The bowl graphic at the top of this article should be embarrassment enough to prove change is necessary.
No other university seems to have this split identity problem. And, as with so many other problems, this one is self-inflicted. I live in Austin, and the interchangeability of Texas (athletics) and Texas (academics) is the type of thing this task force should aim for. The two sides don't detract from each other, and when used properly just bolster each other.
“It works for me it should work for everyone”
#2 is the finest example of Cal bureaucracy ever. Why is there this stupid rule that everyone must follow?
If if go to Michigan I see shirts with the big M logo for sports and fields of study. “M Swimming” “M field hockey” “ M football” along with “M physics” “M sociology” “M environmental resources”.
But, no, at CALIFORNIA we cannot be Cal Physics, Cal Civil Engineering, Cal Microbiology. Nope. Verboten. Heresy.
Who came up with this stupid rule? Likely some faculty bureaucrat in an ivory tower.
I wonder if they think it would be confused with Cal Tech.
I grew up in NY/CT, and travelled out West to go to Berkeley. But growing up, I'd only vaguely heard of Berkeley and thought it was a small liberal arts school. It was only when I started looking into UCLA that I discovered UC Berkeley, and the rest was history.. I'd also vague knew about "that team with the cool "Cal" logo on their helmet" but had no clue one had anything to do with the other.
Nevertheless, I moved back East after graduating and got a job in NYC. When asked, I would tell people (also mostly from the East coast) that I went to "Cal" and they would immediately think I went to Cal Tech. Hell, same thing to this day ~20 years later in the Boston area.
I really think that outside of people from the Bay Area, or fans a Pac 12 team, or the relatively small population of people who are in a position to be applying to elite grad schools, most people in this country have no clue that Berkeley, Cal, and The University of California are all the same thing.
I had a similar experience growing up in Ohio.
I think most non-northern Californians I have met either think it's Cal State, or something that has to do with USC i.e. Southern Cal. Reality bites.
Most non-California people I've run into haven't heard of Caltech. Maybe that is changing.
I'd bet it was the other campuses that did not want Berkeley to use Cal-Physics, for example, and Berkeley being Berkeley (whose Administrators are go-along, get-along types...) signed off.
maybe CALIFORNIA should stop giving a crap about what other campuses think. Do you think UC Lo$ Angele$ gave a crap when it decided to leave the Pac-12, steal our song, mascot and colors? Let Cal Tech and Cal Poly worry about their own marketing (they're not even part of UC?).
I see the "Cal" as a logo, just like the block M or the curved W or the furd S. It's a highly recognizable logo that is owned by the university and the the university should allow anyone campus organization to use it. That's how you bring togehter the athletic and academic association.
To fix this issue they should allow unencumbered use of the Cal script logo or the block C logo or the script CALIFORNIA logo etc. Again that is how you bring togheter athletic and academic association, not by creating something else that *everyone* will hate and, as a result, not use but force them to because "that's the rule".
CalTrans probably has a monopoly.
I never knew about these rules until reading this blog post. They are indeed absurd. What happens if they are violated? Do UC police bring you to UC jail?
@azlefty I have some first-hand experience here. I’ve done design work that required branding approval for the Alumni Association. Violating the rules doesn’t result in police action. But it does result in campus political and bureaucratic problems. Any use of Cal or UC Berkeley done for marketing must be submitted to various departments for approval. If rules are broken, the project is not approved. It’s very hard to ignore this when a department’s budget for a marketing campaign could be withheld or relationships soured across departments. Additionally, if any department gets away with an exception, other departments can complain, asking “How come they got away with it?”
Don't forget, MechaniCAL Engineering... which I think we still use. Ugh. At least I appreciate the nod, keeping in mind the insane rules about not mixing.
It is obvious that we should be known only as 'California'. Just like Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, et. al. It is a simple brand. Cal can fall easily off that brand. Ditch UC Berkeley. That is nothing but lumping us in with UC system which is not important. UCLA does not do that - UCLA is not UC- LA in effect. Its one 'word' in terms of brand use. Like Cal.
It's important for academics. That's the rub here. UCLA still has U-C, whether that's conjoined with LA or not. I also like owning the whole state.
As with anything, this problem originates with UCLA. It is there use of the UC name that created the brand confusion in the first place. The solution, of course, is that they should have to change their damn name. They can think it over while they're writing us a check from Bloomington Indiana.
I recommend calling them "The Powder-blue A$$holes". UC PBA$$
I agree with RS here, just go with California. That is the marketing solution for both academics and athletics. Over time, folks will associate the academics with California, just as they have with the change from Boalt Hall for the law school (for example USNR will help the marketing buy referring to us as California).
Is it, though? We're settled in enough as the top public university that people will still look for us even if we rebrand to Cal.
Yeah, but note, Virginia is also well known as UVa.....
And UNC is not North Carolina or Chapel Hill. I think with branding the final name is really arbitrary, it just has to become commonly known. All of these schools simply established their brands many, many years ago, when people were exposed to an consumed media differently. I remember reading about Notre Dame and the Dallas Cowboys, and how you can trace back the roots of their popularity to how they effectively expanded their brand reach on radio networks throughout the country in the early days of football, through old fashioned wheeling and dealing.. and they were simply ahead of the curve on that.
UNC also has a "Cal"-like name- Carolina. I went for grad school, and Carolina is used more frequently by students and alum than UNC, similar to Berkeley students; and alumni use of Cal. U of South Carolina tries to argue it, but they lose on name rights pretty much everywhere other than in South Carolina.
CALIFORNIA
So much of this is a mess of Cal’s OWN doing, namely the academic community’s complete loathing of the athletic department.
BINGO! ANd marrying the two might bring pressure to make out athletics, overall, on par with our academics.
The cultural issue has absolutely nothing to do with brand name. By your definition, it's cultural. Changing names will do nothing to address that fact.
Instead, it is all about embracing student athletes on campus. Southern Branch embraces its athletes, Cal-Berkeley does not and hasn't since the late 60's. There are plenty of faculty & students in Berkeley who despise sports, and are vocal about wishing those athletic admissions would go away.
Yes, Berkely is recognized worldwide for academics. If we were competitive on the national sports stage in the two revenue sports, our nickname would be well known as well. And since we choose to not compete in football and basketball, call a committee to order and move around the deck chairs (to give some fake semblance of movement)
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, as it won't bring in any 5* recruits (nor result in the firing of Knowlton).
This nails it on the head. I would add that the name "Berkeley" is politically charged (whether fair or not). I proudly wear my Cal hat in the southeastern US with no ramifications. I am not so sure I would want to wear a Berkeley hat around certain parts of the deep south. I think this an issue that needs to be addressed if we are going to use Berkeley: people need to understand the differences between the city and the UC, and the fact that not all students at Berkeley are left wing hippies.
Exactly. The knock-off “Cali” bullshit often, I believe, robs from our “Cal” brand. They even copy the script style. Some people in the South may be used to “Cali” crap.
Agreed! We are simply, California.
Note my comment was a reply to Andy Bark. These threads get confusing.
There is value to having a unified brand though. I commented above, but UCLA is an example. The historical success of their basketball program probably has a lot to do with that, as with the glammer of being in LA -- to people not from California, like myself. I guess that's what this task force is about though. My preference is they should embrace "Cal" across the board -- but then theres the issue with confusing Cal Tech..
A good example might be Ole Miss, where the athletics are branded separately. A lot of people dont know that's the University of Mississippi as well. Could just be the way it goes in this situation.
Most people can probably still make the leap that "Miss" stands for "Mississippi." Berkeley vs. California is a different level of confusion.
Yeah, it's easy to know that's the state, but there is also Mississippi State. And "Ole Miss" *could* always be the nickname for some other school in the state that doesn't even have Mississippi in the name. For people who dont know jack about what schools are in MS. Point is, a lot of people don't instantly know the academic institution.. BUT they also don't really care to know either, ha.
I dont think (without thinking too hard) there are other examples in major sports where the athletics and academics are so differently branded as Cal and Ole Miss.
Hi Avi,
I don’t have an opinion right now as this is very complex, but ‘branding’ was/is part of my job in Product Marketing, so I do know a bit about how it’s done. I worked at a company that had major brand recognition for it’s product more so than it’s company name. Also just interviewed at a company that didn’t do a good job with their new company name after they bought a smaller company. I would mention them here, but I think it’s a good example of what not to do! And knowing what not to do is equally as important as what we should do!
I do know it is never easy. In this case, since I am an alum and am very passionate about my college, I was wondering if you knew anyone I could reach out to and offer to help in this task? I would think they have small working groups looking into certain areas, and would hope they include alums as part of the process. I would love to participate. So if you have a contact, can you either point me to them or them to me? 😂 And Go Bears! 💙🐻💛
Long-term: there are more benefits with branding as “University of California” vs “UC Berkeley”. Look at Texas as an example. Some people refer to it as “UT” or “Austin”, but they’ve claimed Texas in a way that we haven’t claimed “California”
"California,
California,
We'll win the game or...."
...know the reason why?
Is it cause ... Stanfurd sucks?!?!
ALWAYS!
I refer to the book Simplicity Marketing: end brand complexity, clutter and confusion by former Haas and Stanford prof Pete Sealey. Hits the nail on the head
Screw "Berkeley", it's Cal or California. The "Berkeley" only came about because people from certain parts of the world that the admissions department (desperate for income) was targeting had difficulty pronouncing "Cal." So it was easy money over tradition. Once again Crist shows she doesn't have her priorities straight. She and her sidekick, Empty Suit Jim are destroying Cal athletics to the point that no one will care what the school is called because it will have no athletics identity. Fuggum, it's CAL or California, always has been, always will be!
You know, you can make a point *without* thinly-veiled racism.
Also, someone from the east coast will pay the same out-of-state tuition as someone from "certain parts of the world" so...yeah.
The "Berkeley" came about because other UC's popped up and clarification was needed. HOW we went about (the shitty guidelines described in the article for example) is another story, and has a lot more to do with ivory towery types in the Academia side not wanting to be associated with Athletics (remember the infamous CS professor who openly stated he wanted no athletics at all?)
I wasn’t replying to you, Bob. If a comment is directly below yours, and not indented further than yours, it’s replying to the same comment you replied to.
This is a debate between what should be and what is.
Cal will never be the flagship football school in California like Wisconsin, Texas, and Oklahoma are in their states.
Not true…at one time it absolutely was the flagship program for California.
It will never be again, but it absolutely used to be.
Maybe Wilcox can channel Andy Smith and build the next Wonder Team from the transfer portal. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
It might be that simple.
If Wilcox goes on a little run of success and gains some exposure, a helluva lot more people are going to know Cal is Berkeley.
Problem now is that the revenue sports are irrelevant.
Wilcox on a little run of success? That doesn't sound right. Are we talking about Cal Head Football Coach Justin Wilcox?
No, the Berkeley Football Head Coach Justin Wilcox.
But I dont think the concept of being "the flagship" is actually a real thing recognized by the state, at least in California. The UC system is also pretty unique compared to most other states, mainly because of the sheer size of the state. I dont think any other "University of.." state systems have the number of quality, independent schools with national (even global) reach as UC does, outside of their main institution.
That doesn't really matter, though. All the other UC's have their own independent branding, and none of them this weird bifurcated system. UCLA is UCLA in all aspects, the whole "academic reputation" thing with the "Berkeley" name is a red herring. We were first, went by "University of California" for decades, then started leaning on the Berkeley thing in the Clark Kerr years. There is no valid reason we can't just adopt "University of California" (shortened to "California" in a sporting context where the "University" part is implied and often omitted) on everything, and "University of California, Berkeley" in more formal settings (which we already do anyway). If anybody wants to use UC Berkeley for shorthand, cool. No bid deal. People use UT Austin to refer to Texas and nobody throws a fit. The important thing is to establish just that: UC Berkeley is shortand (*not the main brand/name/whatever*) and maintain that the name is *University of California*.
Bob, the way the responses get jumbled, it's hard to know who is responding to what.