gosioux76

Members
  • Content count

    2,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About gosioux76

  • Rank
    blah
  • Birthday 09/13/1976

Recent Profile Visitors

5,948 profile views
  1. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I actually think the addition of black to the Jets uniform was one of the few BFBS situations that worked. I really liked those uniforms.
  2. I'd put this one on par with the Vikings redesign, at least in terms of what it accomplished. Both redesigns brought the franchise back to a more traditional look, albeit with modern touches. Both redesigns have irksome minor flaws. Both served as adequate replacements to bad design choices. I'd call it a win.
  3. It should be encouraging, though, that the leaked ads feature green so prominently.
  4. I remember attending a game in Dallas on a whim in 1999. Though it was a regular season game, both teams wore plain mesh jerseys -- like practice jerseys with a logo pinned or stitched on. My memory isn't so great, but I remember it looking like a league on its last wheels, so to speak.
  5. Agreed. The only thing that could make that jersey worse is if the word "mini" appeared above it in tiny letters.
  6. I also wonder whether the Chargers' move isn't part of the reason why the Rams aren't being more transparent about their plans for 2019. It would seem reasonable that the Rams don't like the idea of having two teams in the same market with the same or similar color schemes. And they can't control another franchise's branding decisions. So with the Chargers moving north, the Rams switch to blue and white as a differentiator for now. Meanwhile, they remain noncommital to a color scheme for 2019 in the unlikely event the Chargers rebrand, freeing up blue and yellow. It's just a theory.
  7. Yeah, I can imagine that might be a beast when it comes to getting the appropriate approvals. Great idea, though. Really useful.
  8. I get that — I really do. But when it's a public institution, there shouldn't be anything hidden from the general public.
  9. You're right. But keeping them hidden also makes it look like you have something to hide. It's a real can of worms.
  10. Fair enough. I just don't share such a disdain for public transparency.
  11. Just so it's not confusing, UND — the institution — seems completely satisfied with the process. The preliminary designs were sought by the city's daily newspaper, a request that was rejected on the grounds that the designs are trade secrets. I'm arguing that those designs shouldn't be protected. And I'm arguing that SME's reasoning for doing so, that those designs have value that they may want to realize with another client in the future, opens the question as to whether UND was presented with original work. Just wanted to make that point clear.
  12. In his written opinion, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem wrote: "It is SME’s position that the preliminary designs not chosen by UND still have economic value because they will be used by SME in future projects and it would damage its competitive position to allow its competitors to have access to and be able to utilize those images." Now, I agree this isn't SME saying they'll sell, as you wrote, "those stages as-is to a future client." But it's an acknowledgement that designs supposedly created for UND will be recycled in some form for another client. On the whole, I don't disagree with you. If I'm a private client, I don't care what the process was so long as I like the result. But UND, in this case, isn't a private client. It's a public institution. SME might get its approval from a single person at that public institution — in this case, a stand-in temporary university president — but its work should be open to broader public scrutiny. While SME can retain ownership of its preliminary designs, its design process — including those preliminary designs — should be made public when the public requests it, as was the case in this scenario. Again, interesting discussion. I'm learning a lot about the work you all do.
  13. Again, guys, thanks for your input. I agree, it's an interesting topic. I should be clear on this: my issue isn't with the designer, at least not solely. I don't know how design firms work, which is why I'm asking these questions. My issue (if you could call it that) is with this was how the logo-creation process was promoted. The university and SME executives described a time-intensive process that included a sort-of listening tour in which the firm gathered input from stakeholders. It was all in the spirit of creating a logo unique to and representative of the values of the University of North Dakota. Yet SME's tacit acknowledgement that it remarkets unused concepts opens the question as to whether UND ended up choosing a logo created not through stakeholder input but from SME's stockpile of unused Hawk designs. I mean, if what SME took from those stakeholder interactions was a certain shade of green, and that's ALL that comes of it, so be it. But the description of the process implied the results would be so much more. The whole stakeholder input gambit ends up feeling like a dog-and-pony show. Then again, UND only paid $49,500 for the logo, according to news reports. It's likely they put a public shine on what was already a ridiculously controversial situation. (Also, for what it's worth, UND at the time said that included in that cost of drafting that logo was "multiple iterations of the logo." To me, that would imply secondaries, maybe a ligature. What they got was a primary mark in various shades of green, black and white.)
  14. This is all really interesting. So, I understand the value of a designer retaining the rights to their unused work. I also understand why a designer would want to attempt to re-sell unused work. That's all pretty intuitive. Can't dispute that logic. I'm more curious about how this plays out within an agency, particularly one working with a public institution. In UND's case, SME visited Grand Forks to gather input from the campus and community as part of the design process. ""SME spent time on campus and on the phone at the beginning of the semester, listening to what a lot of people ... had to say about our university, our athletics programs, our region and our state. They did an excellent job of translating what they heard ... and using that input to shape the newest logo and wordmark for the future of UND Athletics," then-interim President Ed Schafer said when the logo was designed in June . But how, exactly, was that input applied? It's not exactly apparent from the logo, which I happen to like. Now that we know SME likes to remarket its rejected designs, how are stakeholders — which, in this case, would be students, alumni, donors, taxpayers etc. — to know that the firm didn't ignore that public input and just pluck from its "H" file of unused hawk designs? Seeing the preliminary designs would at least give a sense of how the design process evolved.