a) the signs are being pulled off and not detaching themselves (which some of them are).
b) that any which ARE being pulled off are being removed by students and not:
* disgruntled members of staff
* drunken/malicious members of the public
The rebranding is unpopular amongst staff and students - and peeling signs are prime targets for drunken antics of the general public or students from other colleges, not just our own.
Even if the rebranding was universally applauded, the cheap sticky signs would come off all by themselves.
It's a complete farce - they should've spent less money on consultants (most 10 year olds could come up with a better logo) and more on proper signs.
Of course, using the rebranding money to GIVE AWAY pens, ties, shirts etc with the "proper" branding on would probably have been a much better way to spread the brand. If you have a community which is proud to be associated with the college they'll wear/carry advertising material quite happily - as long as it's free/cheap.
College is facing a loss of ?4.3 this year. They spent ?4.8m on rebranding. They have no spare money so the union is getting less money. The union spend more money on random stuff, so clubs and societies lose out, and face budget cuts of 25%.
No rebranding means a surplus would have been created by college! Surely Sir Richard and his Suite 5 GSK mafia could have worked that out!
Question for Bob, who I won't email cos I expect the email given won't work:
Where did you get the ?4.8m figure from? and is it really true?! If so, I simply cannot believe that someone sanctioned spending SOOOOO much on wasting old notepaper, and buying new. The new postgraduate prospectus, which arrived monday, are 'wrongly branded'. Will all three pallets of these now be pulped? How much longer will this lunacy prevail? AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH 4.8m would buy approx. 15 PhD students for three years plus associated research costs...
such irresponsible wastes of cash should surely be accounted for at top level, no?