Our first overall impression, gleaned by a review of all the Visual Identity Systems entries, was that the category consisted of fairly standard work that we well might have anticipated. The University of Waterloo Food Services visual identity system was truly an exception from even our first review: it quickly stood out to us as exceptional. Because it was in a class by itself in terms of clear objectives, sound conceptualization and creative strategy, and high quality design and illustration, we awarded the Waterloo system a Grand Gold award.
The interpretation of this category is varied, and sometimes that makes it hard to judge. It seems that we would benefit from a better definition of a visual identity system. Some of the work, for example, included nice logos or word marks, but the identity system itself was not present. Some of the entries overlapped into integrated brand image campaigns and possibly even student recruitment publications.
Several entries seemed to sacrifice photography, typography, or design elements in the process of focusing on a system or a logo or word mark. The fundamentals of the craft of design were marginally acknowledged in too many cases. Some of the pieces over-reached, and had overblown, unattainable objectives. For example, a visual identity system cannot be responsible for re-branding an institution in a year. It just won't happen.
The production value in the category was high and there was good consistency across the entries. The top three or four entries were especially strong in production value. The Web sites that were created as part of the visual identity programs generally were well designed and seemed to implement best practices in Web site design and structure.
Several of the entries relied strongly on color as a design tool. A strong color palette, for example, boldly defined the Simmons system. The Susquehanna system, likewise, made smart use of color. It was interesting to note that two of the three winners in our judging featured orange, an unusual color to be utilized in a visual identity system.
We want to make a statement about the entry forms themselves: reading them is not fun. There is so much jargon and it seems that much of the language is there to impress; there is a very apparent effort to sound important in the entry forms. Good, clean, simple communication will go a long way toward effectively describing what an entry is expected to do, how it was produced, and whether it accomplished its objectives.
It was often difficult to judge the effectiveness of the visual guidelines, because only the guidelines were submitted. Too often, no executions were offered as samples of how well the system worked or were there "before" and "after" examples.
The standards themselves were often well thought-out, broad in scope, and highly detailed. Perhaps, in fact, a little too much detail characterized the identity standards guidelines we reviewed.
Specific comments on the Grand Gold Award winner, Waterloo University:
What delicious fun! Beautifully executed, bold. System is thorough and well thought-out. Clever approach. Outstanding and exceptionally audience-appropriate artwork. An elegant solution that is remarkable in its simplicity.
Specific comments on the Silver Award winner, Susquehanna University:
Great use of branding elements throughout the system. Beautifully crafted word mark. Nice to take advantage of the "Q" character. Sophisticated and comfortable and pleasing. Daring use of orange.
Specific comments on the Bronze Award winner, Simmons College:
Appreciate the flexibility in the system which is wedded to the larger Simmons brand. Excellent use of color. Drawback: no documented guidelines were provided.
We encourage fresher thinking in visual identity systems, and we advocate for cleaner, simpler, and more direct language in the entries themselves.
Grand Gold Medal
University of Waterloo Food Services Visual Identity System
Silver Medal
Susquehanna University Visual Identity System
Bronze Medal
Simmons College Advancement: Visual Identity System
