The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-08-2021 09:56 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:12 AM)bronco89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2021 10:45 PM)BroncoMD Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The real question this article missed exploring is why were these changes where even made? What research was done to determine WMU old W and Bronco wasn't doing a good job visually representing/supporting the WMU brand? What research was done to show how if we made these changes, they would improve and/or enhance our brand? In terms of marketing priorities, how important was it to make these changes and allocate limited WMU resources towards makes these changes?

A quick follow up. These questions are questions everyone would like to know. IMO, most really love the current set of logos but they have a variation of colors and typeface.

Here is my personal approach to the issue:

1) Determine if we are yellow gold or vegas gold through outreach to students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
2) Identify a block W to be used (with or without the bronco across it) for both the academics and athletics -- should we use yellow or vegas gold? The "Western Michigan University" typeface should be left as is as it was a custom typeface used by WMU for years.
3) Implement a strategy where we have a primary logo for WMU: 1) Block W for academics; 2) Use the SAME block W with the bronco across it for athletics; 3) Allow the "ghost bronco" to stand alone for football -- much like MSU uses the Spartan head. The bronco, btw, ALWAYS faces west or left to match our current gear.

So what's the difference from our prior brand? The athletic block W matches exactly that of our primary block W (they are very slightly different) for athletics and we use yellow gold/vegas gold -- OR my preference is to use brown for both accented with VEGAS gold.

Use black and the seal as secondary colors/marks.

This is not complicated.



Note the two top logos in the center of the graphic.

Aren’t we the only “WMU” in D1? Isn’t that a unique marketing position all on its own. A lot of “W” logos but I believe we are the only WMU.

From what I have read, this whole thing was a graphic design exercise with no consideration for the integrated, strategic brand impact.

My favorite WMU strategic marketing prof, Dr Lindquist, would have ripped them a new one if they ever presented this branding “strategy” in his class. A full bird Air Force colonel, that guy was was tough and new his what he was talking about.

OMG! You mean to tell me there is another person out there who gets it? Haha.
Unique marketing position (or some would say USP or USV). Yet one of the alterations they made was to change the direction of the Bronco, to be more like other schools?

Also, you seem to get there should be separate branding for athletics (D1-Broncos not the D1-W's).

Do you think they did any kind of competitive analysis of academic branding (W and/or WMU) and a separate one for athletic branding (Broncos)?

This whole branding effort is so F’ed up I would have to write a 5 page dissertation to answer your questions and I won’t do that to you. I have worked in corporate sales/marketing for 35 years and have a MBA from this wonderful institution but have never seen a branding effort this poorly executed. What I don’t understand is that we have some of the brightest minds in the field in our own marketing department with years of consulting experience to major corporations and private institutions. Somehow, we get an arrogant knucklehead from Ball State to screw up our brand?

Again, just go ask one of our incredible marketing department profs to fix this or bring Lindquist out of retirement.

(10-08-2021 12:38 PM)bronco89 Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 09:56 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:12 AM)bronco89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2021 10:45 PM)BroncoMD Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  The real question this article missed exploring is why were these changes where even made? What research was done to determine WMU old W and Bronco wasn't doing a good job visually representing/supporting the WMU brand? What research was done to show how if we made these changes, they would improve and/or enhance our brand? In terms of marketing priorities, how important was it to make these changes and allocate limited WMU resources towards makes these changes?

A quick follow up. These questions are questions everyone would like to know. IMO, most really love the current set of logos but they have a variation of colors and typeface.

Here is my personal approach to the issue:

1) Determine if we are yellow gold or vegas gold through outreach to students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
2) Identify a block W to be used (with or without the bronco across it) for both the academics and athletics -- should we use yellow or vegas gold? The "Western Michigan University" typeface should be left as is as it was a custom typeface used by WMU for years.
3) Implement a strategy where we have a primary logo for WMU: 1) Block W for academics; 2) Use the SAME block W with the bronco across it for athletics; 3) Allow the "ghost bronco" to stand alone for football -- much like MSU uses the Spartan head. The bronco, btw, ALWAYS faces west or left to match our current gear.

So what's the difference from our prior brand? The athletic block W matches exactly that of our primary block W (they are very slightly different) for athletics and we use yellow gold/vegas gold -- OR my preference is to use brown for both accented with VEGAS gold.

Use black and the seal as secondary colors/marks.

This is not complicated.



Note the two top logos in the center of the graphic.

Aren’t we the only “WMU” in D1? Isn’t that a unique marketing position all on its own. A lot of “W” logos but I believe we are the only WMU.

From what I have read, this whole thing was a graphic design exercise with no consideration for the integrated, strategic brand impact.

My favorite WMU strategic marketing prof, Dr Lindquist, would have ripped them a new one if they ever presented this branding “strategy” in his class. A full bird Air Force colonel, that guy was was tough and new his what he was talking about.

OMG! You mean to tell me there is another person out there who gets it? Haha.
Unique marketing position (or some would say USP or USV). Yet one of the alterations they made was to change the direction of the Bronco, to be more like other schools?

Also, you seem to get there should be separate branding for athletics (D1-Broncos not the D1-W's).

Do you think they did any kind of competitive analysis of academic branding (W and/or WMU) and a separate one for athletic branding (Broncos)?

This whole branding effort is so F’ed up I would have to write a 5 page dissertation to answer your questions and I won’t do that to you. I have worked in corporate sales/marketing for 35 years and have a MBA from this wonderful institution but have never seen a branding effort this poorly executed. What I don’t understand is that we have some of the brightest minds in the field in our own marketing department with years of consulting experience to major corporations and private institutions. Somehow, we get an arrogant knucklehead from Ball State to screw up our brand?

Again, just go ask one of our incredible marketing department profs to fix this or bring Lindquist out of retirement.

I've stated this before -- I am not a marketing professional. However, the marketing professionals I've spoken to have the same take. One of these marketing professionals happens to be a Marketing Professor at WMU. I'll leave it at that.

This entire rebrand is total garbage. Ugly, unnecessary, and poorly executed. Here is exhibit A, look familiar?

  8F72A10C-CF46-4E9E-8FD3-E78A3C0C73B4.jpeg (Size: 189.7 KB / Downloads: 202)

^^^Can someone embed the image for all to see?
Not sure why it attached instead of embedded…

(10-15-2021 10:04 AM)Bronco XXVIII Wrote:  This entire rebrand is total garbage. Ugly, unnecessary, and poorly executed. Here is exhibit A, look familiar?

Wow, almost identical. We truly are becoming “W” community college.

(10-15-2021 02:48 PM)Cocksman Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 10:04 AM)Bronco XXVIII Wrote:  This entire rebrand is total garbage. Ugly, unnecessary, and poorly executed. Here is exhibit A, look familiar?

Wow, almost identical. We truly are becoming “W” community college.

Mott at least understands the difference between academic branding and athletic branding, using different visuals.

(10-15-2021 10:23 AM)Bronco XXVIII Wrote:  ^^^Can someone embed the image for all to see?
Not sure why it attached instead of embedded…

(10-21-2021 08:48 AM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 10:23 AM)Bronco XXVIII Wrote:  ^^^Can someone embed the image for all to see?
Not sure why it attached instead of embedded…

Some could argue that the Mott CC logo looks better than ours. It's definitely on the same level -- UGH!

OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

(10-22-2021 09:25 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

Let's be honest, Whinny. There has been 4x13 pages written on the rebrand on these boards because there was almost no outreach to students, staff, faculty and alumni. If that is not enough, take a look at social media. WMU marketing can't make a post without an avalanche of negative comments in regards to the rebrand.

Can you imagine if the same thing happened at Iowa? The guy would have been ran out of town in the first week.

GO BRONCOS!!!

Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring omission-everywhere but at WMU, apparently.

(10-23-2021 09:57 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring process error.

AGREE 100%.

(10-23-2021 09:57 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring process error.

It's a much bigger issue than "Lack of input". It's a extreme misuse of limited funds on something that didn't needed to be done and will do nothing to enhance or improve our brand. Thats the fireable offense.

(10-22-2021 09:25 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

That makes 2. Can we have a 3rd? ?

(10-23-2021 03:15 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-23-2021 09:57 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring process error.

It's a much bigger issue than "Lack of input". It's a extreme misuse of limited funds on something that didn't needed to be done and will do nothing to enhance or improve our brand. Thats the fireable offense.

We need marketing folks affiliated with WMU to email the president: https://wmich.edu/president/directory/montgomery

(10-23-2021 03:17 PM)Cucumber Salad Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 09:25 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

That makes 2. Can we have a 3rd? ?

If you don't care, then why comment?

(10-23-2021 08:41 PM)BroncoMD Wrote:  

(10-23-2021 03:17 PM)Cucumber Salad Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 09:25 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

That makes 2. Can we have a 3rd? ?

If you don't care, then why comment?

The question is why do you care so much? I don’t expect those who do all the hand wringing for 13 pages regarding this topic to ask the question but from the outside it appears quite comical if it weren’t so sad.

(10-23-2021 03:15 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-23-2021 09:57 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring process error.

It's a much bigger issue than "Lack of input". It's a extreme misuse of limited funds on something that didn't needed to be done and will do nothing to enhance or improve our brand. Thats the fireable offense.

Nobody is ever fired from WMU. Yeah, coaching contracts are not renewed if performance is lacking over time-but 'fired'? That is not a tool they use. And it impacts performance metrics, certainly.

(10-22-2021 09:25 PM)Whinny1 Wrote:  OMG. Thirteen pages of posts on this subject? I'm exhausted.

PLAY BALL!! GO BRONCOS!!

Create a thread to discuss how much you like the rebrand. I imagine it wouldn’t get read much.

(10-24-2021 01:10 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  

(10-23-2021 03:15 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-23-2021 09:57 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Once again a 'committee' came to a decision without sufficient input from the people most impacted by it's decision-fans, alumni, students, athletes, parents-only to find out MOST of those can't stand the rebrand. How does Western keep on doing these things over the decades?

Whatever was spent on this rebrand was wasted money, somebody needs to be held accountable and-if not fired-their yearly compensation review should include this discussion. Not involving sufficient input from folks most impacted by a decision is a rather glaring process error.

It's a much bigger issue than "Lack of input". It's a extreme misuse of limited funds on something that didn't needed to be done and will do nothing to enhance or improve our brand. Thats the fireable offense.

Nobody is ever fired from WMU. Yeah, coaching contracts are not renewed if performance is lacking over time-but 'fired'? That is not a tool they use. And it impacts performance metrics, certainly.

Can't find it right away but I'm pretty sure Cubit, Culhane and Hawkins all had time remaining on their contracts when they were fired. Cubit did for sure.