Wednesday, March 29, 2017 // The Statement
4B
Wednesday, March 29, 2017 // The Statement 
5B

Behind the Block ‘M’

the buisness of branding the University

b y T i m C o h n, Daily News Editor

For more than a century, the University of Michi-

gan’s logo — the block ‘M’ — has been an Ann Arbor 

staple, emblazoned on everything from the Big 

House scoreboard to the graduation-party cakes of 

high-school seniors.

Despite slight modifications over the years, the 

simple, maize-colored ‘M’ set on a blue field has 

symbolized the University’s historically dominant 

Athletic Department for more than 100 years. And 

in recent years, the famous ‘M’ has been branded to 

represent the entire institution.

The block ‘M’ dates back to the late 1800s, but not 

until 1907 did it become a fixture at major athletic 

events. In 1907, students attending a football game at 

Ferry Field — the predecessor to Michigan Stadium 

— first raised maize and blue flags to form the now-

iconic logo.

Brian Williams, the lead bicentennial archivist at 

the Bentley Historical Library, added that the Uni-

versity’s athletic teams also unofficially adopted the 

block ‘M’ in the 1900s.

“There were a number of versions of the ‘M’ used 

by early football and baseball teams,” Williams said. 

He explained that modern versions of the logo were 

used by the University’s football team in about 1900. 

Baseball teams, however, used variations of the ‘M’ 

— such as Old English or Gothic style — on uniforms, 

caps and warm-up coats into the 1910s.

In the decades that followed, the block ‘M’ was 

fully embraced by the University, and the commer-

cialization of the logo followed. A 1975 Sports Illus-

trated feature by Frank Deford about Don Canham, 

the University’s former athletic director, described 

this level of brand management as unprecedented in 

the world of college sports.

“We’ve (the University Athletic Department) got 

to promote what we have,” Canham said in 1975. 

“We’ve got to ballyhoo the pageantry, the weekend 

on the campus, the kids, the cheerleaders, the bands. 

And the same thing with basketball. We’ve got to sell 

the spectacle.”

The Sports Illustrated feature painstakingly 

details the extent to which Canham had commer-

cialized the school’s brand, which was modest by 

the modern standards of NCAA merchandising, but 

extraordinary in 1975.

“Canham’s brochures have been compared … to 

Florida land-development brochures,” Deford wrote. 

“The Michigan mailing goes to 1.2 million homes … 

(peddling) through mail orders all manner of Wol-

verine bric-a-brac: doormats, playing cards, books, 

ashtrays, lamps shaped like football helmets and 

pocketbooks shaped like footballs and basketballs.”

During Canham’s 20-year tenure from 1968 to 

1988, the University’s athletic brand grew in popu-

larity. The football program underwent a renais-

sance led by head coach Glenn “Bo” Schembechler, 

who coached the team from 1969 to 1989 and would 

become the winningest football coach in University 

history. The basketball team simultaneously enjoyed 

a sustained period of success under head coach John-

ny Orr, who coached the team from 1968 to 1980, 

going all the way to the national championship game 

in 1976.

But since the 1960s, the block ‘M’ has undergone 

rebranding to represent the University’s academic 

institutions in addition to its athletic powerhouse — 

supplanting its less famous cousin, the academic seal 

of the University, which is now reserved solely for 

official purposes involving the University’s elected 

Board of Regents.

Consequently, this growth in brand awareness 

translated to big business for the University that 

brings in millions of dollars in licensing fees each 

year. 

The University realized the commercial potential 

of its brand before many other public universities, 

according to Steve Busch, the University’s brand 

manager.

“The University of Michigan was one of the first 

universities to recognize the value of its mark from 

a fan-affinity perspective, and then trademark that 

and utilize it to generate revenue for its athletic pro-

grams,” Busch said. “And that is how that mark (the 

block ‘M’) is used. It goes to fund the Athletic Depart-

ment and their campus as well as fund 930-plus stu-

dent athletes that utilize the athletic campus.”

But the issue of the University’s brand extends 

beyond business interests, encompassing the ques-

tion of the University’s dual identity as a public uni-

versity and multi-million-dollar business enterprise.

******

LSA junior Jack Googasian is the president of the 

Michigan Ultras, the soccer fan section equivalent of 

the University’s Maize Rage or Children of Yost. In 

2016, his organization attempted to gain permission 

from the University to use the block ‘M’ as a part of its 

logo. However, because Michigan Ultras is a volun-

tary student organization — a student organization 

that receives no funding from the University — the 

request was denied.

According to the University’s guidelines for logo 

usage by student groups, only sponsored student 

organizations — ones that are supervised by an exec-

utive officer, dean or University director — can gain 

access to the coveted block ‘M.’

But even sponsored student organizations must 

adhere to strict logo-usage rules that are considered 

by some to be archaic. For instance, they’re prohib-

ited from using the block ‘M’ as part of their own 

logos. Instead, they can use it on promotional materi-

als such as flyers and posters.

To Googasian, these regulations are understand-

able, even if they are cumbersome.

“While inconvenient, I totally recognize the Uni-

versity’s restraint from allowing every student orga-

nization to use these trademarks,” Googasian said. 

“We have every intention of following the guidelines 

… so we do not cause any problems for the adminis-

tration. Ultimately they are not trying to be critical or 

unsupportive of student groups but defensive of their 

own trademarks and who uses them.”

In 2013, the University standardized the design of 

the block ‘M’ to ensure consistency in its display.

A style-and-usage guide released by the Univer-

sity dictates strict provisions on the sizing, color, 

aspect ratios and fonts that are allowed when dis-

playing the block ‘M.’ 

“From a design perspective, it’s clean, classic, and 

understated,” the website reads. “Yet the new sig-

nature mark is a quick communicator of our nearly 

200-year heritage, communicating authority and 

tradition. In its simplicity, there’s authority. In its 

understatement, a refusal to bow to passing design 

fads. Which earns it one additional adjective: excep-

tional.”

At the time, then-University President Mary Sue 

Coleman issued a statement articulating that the 

decision to embrace the block ‘M’ was made largely 

because of the logo’s instant recognizability.

“As we embrace a new look for the University’s 

graphic identity — building on the globally recog-

nized Block M — we are carrying Michigan for-

ward,” Coleman wrote in 2013. “Adopting this 

common identity reinforces the academic excellence 

that is synonymous with the University of Michigan. 

It pays tribute to our collective heritage, allows us to 

speak in one voice, and helps us move into our third 

century as one of the world’s greatest universities.”

From these messages, it is clear the University 

seeks to brand itself as a globally prestigious and 

forward-thinking institution that is rooted in his-

tory, with the famous ‘M’ as a standard-bearer of 

that image. But in this massive branding effort, does 

the University also compromise its values as a public 

institution meant to serve the nearly 10 million citi-

zens of Michigan?

Busch — the official tasked with handling con-

cerns related to the non-commercial use of the block 

‘M’ logo — thinks not. According to him, the Univer-

sity has resisted adopting a corporate-style approach 

to the licensing of its brand, even after years of 

increasing brand recognition.

“We think it is important to handle all requests 

to use the University’s logo on a case-by-case basis 

because we are not a corporation, we are a public 

institution of higher learning,” Busch said. “We have 

over 550,000 living alumni, and many of them are 

very proud to be affiliated with the University, and 

we want them to be able to demonstrate their affinity 

for symbols associated with the University.”

Busch’s office receives hundreds of requests 

annually for the use of the block ‘M,’ primarily for 

small-scale commercial purposes. This includes 

people requesting permission to place the block ‘M’ 

on customizable celebratory graduation cakes to 

requests by local high schools to use similarly styled 

logos and uniform designs for athletic teams.

Typically, Busch says, this poses no problem to the 

University so long as it meets two major criteria: Is 

the purpose for the logo’s use for sentimental reasons 

instead of commercial purposes, and does the use of 

the logo harm the University?

If the intent of its use is to enrich oneself or a given 

business, which is often the case, then the request 

must go through the licensing office where business 

arrangements must be made before the University 

will lend its image to a product. Additionally, when 

assessing if the use of the logo could potentially harm 

the University’s brand, Busch says his office looks for 

a particular set of red flags.

“If a company or a person wants to use the Uni-

versity’s logo for business purposes, they would have 

to go through our licensing and trademarks depart-

ment where they would be instructed to obtain 

a CLC (Collegiate Licensing Company) license — 

which is our partner that manages the licensing of 

our block ‘M.’ ” Busch said. “But then they would also 

have to get approval from the University where they 

would outline what that item is. And we stay away 

from things that we would call the ‘sin items’: We 

don’t do anything affiliated with items like alcohol, 

tobacco, drugs or pornography.”

Beth Paul, the University’s director of strate-

gic partnerships at the Trademarks and Licens-

ing Program, which is housed within the Athletic 

Department, helps oversee and manage many of the 

contracts the CLC makes with prospective busi-

ness partners seeking to use the University’s logo. 

According to her, there are a wide variety of compa-

nies, large and small, that are authorized to use the 

block ‘M.’

“Our licensing team manages the use of our marks 

and logos on merchandise, and has been navigating 

this environment for many, many years,” Paul said. 

“Michigan currently has approximately 400 compa-

nies who are licensed to produce items bearing the 

University name and/or trademarks.”

The process to gain University permission to use 

the block ‘M’ logo — despite being processed mainly 

through the CLC — must meet certain requirements 

as a part of a business litmus test, Paul noted.

“There are many criteria we use to evaluate 

whether a company would make a good licensing 

partner, including business history of (the) company; 

whether they have any experience in sports licens-

ing; whether they have strong retailer relationships 

already established; whether we need additional 

companies in a particular product category or dis-

tribution channel; quality or product and application 

of logos; compliance history; and corporate social 

responsibility program are just some of the hard fac-

tors that we consider,” Paul said.

*****

The use of the block ‘M’ logo for private business 

is something that has been a source of significant 

funds for the University in recent decades. The Uni-

versity’s royalties from licensed merchandise bear-

ing the block ‘M’ amounted to $6 million between 

June 2011 and July 2012, according to an Associated 

Press report published by the Oakland Press News 

in January 2013.

This, the article claims, is indicative of a grow-

ing culture of collegiate licensing — during each of 

those years the University handled just more than 

80 licensing requests, granting access to more than 

70 percent of applicants.

“Collegiate licensing is a $4.6 billion enterprise 

and the University of Michigan generated the fifth-

highest licensing earnings of any university in 

fiscal 2012, according to Collegiate Licensing Com-

pany rankings,” the article reads. “The University 

of Michigan’s licensing revenue climbed 22 percent 

in fiscal 2012, rising $1.1 million from the previous 

year’s revenue of $4.9 million.”

While many of the license holders do not yield 

significant revenue for the institution, others can net 

the University hundreds of millions.

In April 2016, the University finalized a splashy 

apparel deal with Nike, and the financial details of 

this business agreement are staggering.

Nike agreed to pay the University a guaranteed 

sum of at least $173.8 million in exchange for the 

contracts with the University Athletic Department, 

and the rights to merchandise apparel to the general 

public through at least 2027 with an option to extend 

the contract through 2031. 

This mega-deal put the University in elite compa-

ny. According to ESPN, the University’s deal, which 

was believed to be the largest collegiate-apparel 

deal ever at the time it was signed, has only recently 

been surpassed by the University of California at Los 

Angeles, the University of Texas and Ohio State Uni-

veristy.

Given the financial stakes, the University seeks 

to maintain tight control over its brand image. And, 

thus far, the University has done so scrupulously.

The University’s logo — like almost those of every 

other university — annually maintains its trademark 

and federal registration, according to Busch.

“The modern iteration of the block ‘M’ … is fed-

erally registered and trademarked by the Athletic 

Department on an annual basis,” Busch said. “And 

they ensure that the trademark is protected by work-

ing with the counsel’s office. The University will 

pursue people or companies that try to use the logo 

without our permission.”

******

The University’s protectiveness of its brand is not 

new. Nor is it uncommon among U.S. universities, 

especially those with such large athletic depart-

ments and alumni bases. So why does it matter?

Simply put, because the block ‘M’ logo carries 

a significant meaning. And if we are to believe the 

opinions of Canham, Coleman and Busch, it is one 

that is emblematic of athletic dominance and aca-

demic prestige.

When dealing with business interests that tally 

earnings in the millions, it seems reasonable the 

institution would like to keep tight control and pro-

tect its brand from third parties misusing and abus-

ing its reputation.

For students like Googasian and his soccer club, 

this means that the block ‘M’ is not available. Accord-

ing to Busch, it is not that the University wants to 

exclude organizations like the Michigan Ultras from 

using the block ‘M,’ but rather this prohibition on 

voluntary student organizations’ use of the logo is 

meant to serve as a precedent to insulate the Uni-

versity from being caught between a rock and a hard 

place.

Because of decades of calculated processes to 

build its brand’s credibility, the block ‘M’ lends legiti-

macy to whatever object to which it is attached.

If all student clubs, regardless of their Univer-

sity sponsorship status, had unfettered access to the 

block ‘M,’ then the University would have little to no 

control over what the public perceived as University-

sponsored.

Not only would this pose problems for the Univer-

sity if the block ‘M’ were used in the logo of a political 

organization, but, if taken to its logical end, the Uni-

versity could potentially have difficulty controlling 

their logos usage by organizations that violate the 

“sin items.”

“Volunteer organizations do not have access to 

the block ‘M’ as a measure to protect itself,” Busch 

said. “It’s one of those things where if someone set 

up a drinking club or a beer-pong club and they used 

the block ‘M’ and something dubious or unfortunate 

happened where some student’s safety was endan-

gered, we would want it to be clear that those activi-

ties were not sanctioned by the University.”

*****

The block ‘M’ presents other questions about the 

nature of the institution. Given the symbol’s his-

tory as a mark of the University’s athletic tradition, 

is the University’s formal adoption of the logo for the 

entirety of the institution implicitly a sign that the 

University wants to promote its athletic brand before 

its academic one?

Furthermore, considering the significant 

revenue generated by the Athletic Department 

because of the efforts of more than 930 stu-

dent-athletes, are the University’s profits justly 

earned?

The University administration has offered 

answers to both these questions through the 

years. Coleman, when announcing the block ‘M’s 

adoption, spoke only of the implications of unify-

ing the academic institution under the logo. And 

critics of the NCAA prohibition on paying players 

under the guise of amateurism cannot reasonably 

blame the University for adhering to the rules of 

collegiate sports’ governing body.

Such questions go to a larger debate about 

the identity of the University. As the institution 

enters its third century, and is in the throes of a 

year-long bicentennial celebration of its past and 

present, the University has been calling upon its 

extensive network of affiliates to consider the 

future. What will the University stand for going 

forward? What values and causes will the Uni-

versity champion?

As for Busch, who is both a graduate and cur-

rent employee of the University, the protection 

of the block ‘M’ and the image of the University 

ensures the longevity of the institution’s good 

reputation while also keeping the logo available 

to all who bleed blue.

“I have a great degree of pride and esteem 

for the brand,” Busch said. “My approach to the 

identity of the University is first and foremost to 

ensure the preservation of the brand and I take a 

great degree of pride in that and our fair and rea-

sonable approach. We are a brand that has a high 

affinity for more than just athletic achievements, 

and we want to celebrate that.”

c. 1965 
 
 PHOTO COURTESY OF BENTLEY HISTORICAL LIBRARY

 
 PHOTO COURTSEY OF BENTLEY HISTORICAL LIBRARY

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ALEXIS RANKIN/DAILY

