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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
#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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
The best way to clear up the confusion nationwide is to start winning a shitload of football games.
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!
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.
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!
#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.
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.
So much of this is a mess of Cal’s OWN doing, namely the academic community’s complete loathing of the athletic department.
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).
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! 💙🐻💛
California as our official name. Cal as the athletic name.
Done.
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