GFB

Members
  • Content count

    3,983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

GFB last won the day on June 29 2015

GFB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

663 Excellent

About GFB

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Detroit, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

28,824 profile views
  1. I think it's smart and wonderful. Just some thoughts: It shows that Juventus understand their own brand (essentially, they are the universally recognized black and white soccer club), and that they have a long-term vision for their brand in the future that expands beyond just being a soccer team. With the amount of clubs that share colors, the commonality and constant switching of apparel manufacturers (it feels like 90% of the big leagues are shared between Nike, Adidas, and Puma), and the random and rampant sponsor-ism of professional soccer (how many teams are sponsored by Fly Emirates), how many clubs are identifiable solely by their crest on the pitch? Yes, the kits themselves are normally the primary identifier, but ask yourself what's the real difference between a Bayern Munich kit and a Manchester United kit this year? Soccer crests are so small and players are almost always moving, so with almost every club having a shield or crest of some kind, doing something to separate yourself from the field with a logo that is incredibly simple and easy to understand is a great strategy. Everyone has been lamenting the loss of the old logo, but what is Juventus really losing in the old crest that actually made it iconic? The oval shape was unique, but Juventus has used circle and shield shapes similar to the new design in their history as well. Is it the loss of the horse/bull/zebra and the crown? Because apparently Juventus themselves can't figure out and decide on which animal to use. Is it the gold arch; because I thought this was the black/white soccer team? I'd argue that the most important part is the black and white stripes, and not only do those stay, but now they're given meaning by allowing them to give shape to the Juventus "J." Those of you saying that it looks great for an apparel or lifestyle brand but not for a soccer club, the line between those two is blurring more and more by the day. One could argue that supporting a specific club is a lifestyle brand (try asking Real Madrid fans to wear stripes or Chelsea fans to wear red). Imagine you're kicking a ball around with some friends and so the ball is constantly spinning and in motion. Then a player receives a pass, puts his foot on top of the ball, and the ball stops for an instant. You look down for a split second and you see this: Had you not known which club's logo was on the ball, your brain would still be able to register that the logo was a J made out of black and white stripes... all in a fraction of a second. If it's a club with a regular crest or shield, it probably doesn't register with you. Granted, if you're familiar with the club already like a Barcelona or Man U or Real Madrid, then you might be able to recognize it by the shape alone in a fraction of a second. However, if you're not familiar with soccer clubs, you'd probably wouldn't know. The new logo is better served to represent the club across all forms of media and print (it works better at all sizes as an avatar, profile picture, animation, etc). It's flexible and easy to use, which makes proper-use incredibly simple for third parties like TV networks, apparel companies, and soccer catalogues. It's instant recognition for a fast-moving and attention-deprived world.
  2. Go Chiefs/Falcons. You're our only hopes.
  3. I've never heard the "sitting devil" explanation before, but it sounds like something you heard somewhere and then tricked yourself into seeing.
  4. That's fine. But the point is that Morgo is calling the first design untouchable, when there are some legitimate concerns against it.
  5. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  6. In this specific case, these outlines create awkward negative space areas between sections of the logo (L and A, bolt and A) and highlight some of the potential alignment issues (with the baseline of the bolt not aligning with the baseline of the A) that are less apparent in the single color version.
  7. Andy knows his craft. If he says it's sloppy, then it's sloppy.
  8. They might not own the idea of an interlocking LA, but they sure as hell own the idea of a interlocking LA in white on a blue background
  9. It's a nice logo. It just doesn't look like the Chargers.
  10. That's a phenomenal kit. Well done adidas.
  11. Sorry, didn't see the date on the post. Figured it was recent. Nevermind then.
  12. Oh, if that's what you're arguing then I think you're getting hung up on the use of the word "modified." It should be pretty obvious to everyone how they created the BRONCOS wordmark out of BROWNS by moving their stencils around as necessary.
  13. But if they had giant stencils for each of the letters in "Browns," for "Broncos" they'd have all the letters but the "c" (which is just 3/4 of an "o") so they could create a workaround.
  14. The new one is much better. It incorporates a similar shield shape to the original in the upper corner of the "W." Great design work.