Jump to content

Article on Ducks' 2007 rebrand


Bluefalcon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Very interesting read. I found the following part especially interesting seeing how they decided to "leak" logos themselves to confuse the public as to which was the true, new logo:

“We did a secure online survey with the intended ‘D-foot’ mark placed in an oval, combined with a second mark that was not in contention that we termed the ‘flying duck,' " he said. "The survey came back very favorable for the D-foot. However, there was a hitch. One of the survey participants took a cell phone photo of the D-foot logo on the computer screen and leaked it to a blog. The logo then appeared on the Mighty Ducks’ Wikipedia page stating that it was the new logo.

"We quickly edited the page and since we were still well ahead of the rebrand unveiling, we came up with a stealthy solution. We took cell phone screen shots of the ‘flying duck’ logo as well as several other designs already out of contention and posted each of those on blogs claiming that they were the actual rebrand. Within a couple of days, the confusion over what the ‘real’ rebrand was going to be had its intended effect, and we were able to plan the unveiling without being spoiled by the leak.

gYH2mW9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ducks-branding-6_venn4qjc0hnv1kkyu0dntam

This demonstrates how great the Flames' logo is and how terrible that Ducks script was as a primary. They should have committed to the standalone foot right away. I mean, man, "issues of scale and proportion," apparently that went like "Yes, we have them. To hell with it!"

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ducks-branding-6_venn4qjc0hnv1kkyu0dntam

This demonstrates how great the Flames' logo is and how terrible that Ducks script was as a primary. They should have committed to the standalone foot right away. I mean, man, "issues of scale and proportion," apparently that went like "Yes, we have them. To hell with it!"

Totally. Just look at how much better the D works against the other logos.

I think everybody said back in 07 that the duck foot should've been the primary from the start. Apparently they thought we were all a bunch of morons that couldn't figure out what team would be represented by a duck's foot in the shape of a D.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everybody said back in 07 that the duck foot should've been the primary from the start. Apparently they thought we were all a bunch of morons that couldn't figure out what team would be represented by a duck's foot in the shape of a D.

Says somewhere in the article that they decided on using the script as the primary to better establish the new name despite the scaling issues. It's like they took a gamble with that and shot themselves in the foot.

mTBXgML.png

PotD: 24/08/2017

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's crap. It wasn't a new name. They're still from Anaheim and they're still the Ducks. I don't think people would have struggled to figure it out.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everybody said back in 07 that the duck foot should've been the primary from the start. Apparently they thought we were all a bunch of morons that couldn't figure out what team would be represented by a duck's foot in the shape of a D.

Says somewhere in the article that they decided on using the script as the primary to better establish the new name despite the scaling issues. It's like they took a gamble with that and shot themselves in the foot.

That's crap. It wasn't a new name. They're still from Anaheim and they're still the Ducks. I don't think people would have struggled to figure it out.

Agreed. That's a really lame excuse.

I get why they did it, but It's that kind of overthinking that branding people love to do.

"Nobody will know we are unless we deliberately tell them." "Let's spell it out for five years and then we can transition into the actual logo" "good plan"

No. People would've know what a web-footed D meant from the drop. So what really happened was they branded themselves with that whimpy wordmark and then changed their logo a few years late which made it look like they had made a mistake. There's no reason to not start off with your strongest logo right off the bat.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the bottom right logo:

ducks05decoylogos_pcxxeigfz2k11qy4nn0zu3

The basics of it would make a nice alternate for Oregon.

Oh my. That bottom left one especially is a beauty. I'm absolutely baffled as to how what they ended up with was ever favored in comparison with these. Its almost depressing that someone looked at all of these, and still thought the crapbag script and not-much-better "D" (not to mention the regurgitated Halloween candy colors) were the best choice.

The best thing I can compare it to is like watching someone walk into a room, see a table covered in food, and be told he can choose any one food item he wants for free - the selection includes the finest quality steak, three different pasta dishes personally cooked by Emril Lagasse, a Kobe beef burger, and McNuggets - and the guy chooses the McNuggets. Sounds ridiculous, sure, but I'm not too sure after seeing these concepts that the real deal we're talking about is any less ridiculous.

CCSLC%20Signature_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the bottom right logo:

ducks05decoylogos_pcxxeigfz2k11qy4nn0zu3

The basics of it would make a nice alternate for Oregon.

Oh my. That bottom left one especially is a beauty. I'm absolutely baffled as to how what they ended up with was ever favored in comparison with these. Its almost depressing that someone looked at all of these, and still thought the crapbag script and not-much-better "D" (not to mention the regurgitated Halloween candy colors) were the best choice.

The best thing I can compare it to is like watching someone walk into a room, see a table covered in food, and be told he can choose any one food item he wants for free - the selection includes the finest quality steak, three different pasta dishes personally cooked by Emril Lagasse, a Kobe beef burger, and McNuggets - and the guy chooses the McNuggets. Sounds ridiculous, sure, but I'm not too sure after seeing these concepts that the real deal we're talking about is any less ridiculous.

That bottom left logo was made in Atlanta. True story. :P As for your comparison of someone walking into a room and picking the crappiest thing possible, now that, I agree with. Honestly, the only logo that I saw in that article that I liked was the top middle. Now that is a logo that has potential. It would need some work but I honestly think that it could be turned into a very nice logo. Same with the top right. That top right logo would make a decent shoulder patch. Besides those two, call me crazy but none of the other prototype logos catch my eye. I really don't like any of them. It's too bad the Ducks wore those awful script jerseys for such a long time. Their new set is way better, but it still isn't the greatest. Their new away jersey is far better than their home jersey. Speaking of their home jersey, it is an improvement from last year's home jersey and it is also a slight improvement from their alternate last year, but, I hope that they will eventually make some improvements to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's because I've been conditioned to the current logo, but I'd rather have the D logo than just about every other logo presented there.

Any of the logos with the full duck look weird. That shade of light blue they tried on a bunch doesn't work for me either.

I think the important thing to mention with all of those logos shown is that almost all of them were just to have options, good or not:

“The initial design explorations covered all of the style approaches we had discussed as a way to ‘get it out of our system’. It became clear that the owners and management didn’t want an angry duck, an animated duck, an aggressive duck, or an ornithologically-correct duck — no matter the illustrative style,“ Frederick said.


I really do think they made the right choice. Should they have started right away with the D logo? Absolutely. That's the one mistake they made in the process, but they've corrected it. None of those other options have any staying power, to me. Any of those other logos would be screaming out for a rebrand sooner than later. It helps that there's been success on the ice with the logo, but I really think the D logo has some staying power. This will stick around for a while.

It's simple. And as they said in the article, it represents a Duck without actually having to illustrate a Duck or spell it out (like they unfortunately did). Which is also what they were referring to when mentioning the Canadiens, Flyers, and Red Wings:

In the world of NHL jerseys — or “sweaters” — the crest logo means everything. Think of the most iconic on-ice identities in hockey and, most likely, a logo unencumbered by wording or an abundance of detail comes to mind. The Montréal Canadiens’ “CH” logo, the Philadelphia Flyers’ modern flying “P,” and the Detroit Red Wings’ winged wheel crests all fit the bill.


And even if we're not trying to throw it up to that level, look at Dallas, Colorado, Calgary, Arizona, St. Louis. All pretty simply designed and clean logos. The Ducks' D logo fits in with at least some of those.

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULBUSMNT | USWNTLAFC | OCSCMAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.