Buffalo Sabres Early Conceptual Work

[kpbl_design]

@ nash61

I have it as a vector image so could make it any size.

Any use of this should be directed towards Baze for permission. It is his logo. I just coloured.

That sketch wasn't mine... I spoke on that one earlier... can't recall where the sketches came from.

[rosstaylor24]

@ nash61

I have it as a vector image so could make it any size.

Any use of this should be directed towards Baze for permission. It is his logo. I just coloured.

That sketch wasn't mine... I spoke on that one earlier... can't recall where the sketches came from.

my apologies Baze and to whomever did the sketches

[daschuck77]

These sketeches originally were posted on a portfolio made by Sabres Director of Creative Services Frank Cravotta which later was taken down by Cravotta at the request of Kris. So they are likely a mashup of MAYBE some of the Sabres creative team's art in combination with other members of RBK's creative team?

http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2011/2/22/a-look-back-at-the-infamous-slug.html

[kpbl_design]

These sketeches originally were posted on a portfolio made by Sabres Director of Creative Services Frank Cravotta which later was taken down by Cravotta at the request of Kris. So they are likely a mashup of MAYBE some of the Sabres creative team's art in combination with other members of RBK's creative team?

http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2011/2/22/a-look-back-at-the-infamous-slug.html

Yes, Daschuck, that is correct. It was a little awkward, because some of this work was posted previously, and I felt the need to clarify that Mr. Cravotta was not the only designer involved in this particular re-brand. No offense to him, but I didn't want people to feel misled in any way..

I also want to make sure people know that I was NOT the only designer on this project... I think I've stated that already, but just wanted to re-iterate.

[GFB]

These sketeches originally were posted on a portfolio made by Sabres Director of Creative Services Frank Cravotta which later was taken down by Cravotta at the request of Kris. So they are likely a mashup of MAYBE some of the Sabres creative team's art in combination with other members of RBK's creative team?

http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2011/2/22/a-look-back-at-the-infamous-slug.html

Yes, Daschuck, that is correct. It was a little awkward, because some of this work was posted previously, and I felt the need to clarify that Mr. Cravotta was not the only designer involved in this particular re-brand. No offense to him, but I didn't want people to feel misled in any way..

I also want to make sure people know that I was NOT the only designer on this project... I think I've stated that already, but just wanted to re-iterate.

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

[_RH_]

Any chance at seeing a larger version of the "standing" version contained in your first link?

[andrewharrington]

4- Why don't designers use a board like this to get feedback on concepts?

The recent Winnipeg Jets process was a great example of how their final product could have been much better (IMO)

had they used the resources found on these boards.

The end-all of this question is confidentiality. As much as it might sound like a good idea, the last thing you want is to have the entire logo design process occur in public. Talk about design by committee, not to mention you might not want everything leaked. I agree there's value in getting public opinion, and then maybe going back and making a final revision (sort of like what the Lightning did), but the fact is, if you let the public art direct the logo design process on a message board, you're not in a better place than you were before. You can never please everyone, and the rule of thumb is the more people involved in the process, the worse the final product is. The best identity design would come from a process involving one outstanding identity designer and a person within the team who has an open mind toward creativity and an eye for aesthetics (this situation will probably never happen).

The Jets was actually an interesting case. There were so many fan concepts out on the internet for the Jets that it was much more difficult to come up with original ideas that weren't already out there. Think about if they had unveiled their logo and it was strikingly similar to someone's fan concept. You have another Baltimore Ravens fiasco on your hands. If input had been taken from here in designing the Jets' identity, what would come of all the board members who provided input or design work? How would they be paid, and how would you determine the value of each person's contribution(s)?

[andrewharrington]

These sketeches originally were posted on a portfolio made by Sabres Director of Creative Services Frank Cravotta which later was taken down by Cravotta at the request of Kris. So they are likely a mashup of MAYBE some of the Sabres creative team's art in combination with other members of RBK's creative team?

http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2011/2/22/a-look-back-at-the-infamous-slug.html

Yes, Daschuck, that is correct. It was a little awkward, because some of this work was posted previously, and I felt the need to clarify that Mr. Cravotta was not the only designer involved in this particular re-brand. No offense to him, but I didn't want people to feel misled in any way..

I also want to make sure people know that I was NOT the only designer on this project... I think I've stated that already, but just wanted to re-iterate.

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

See my above post. If there's more than one cook in the kitchen, or, I suppose, two (one designer and one person giving feedback and calling the shots on the other end), there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's not to say it can't work, but multiple designers working on the same thing always feels like a pubescent kid whose voice keeps switching from high to deep, and I'm sure you know the pitfalls of dealing with more than one person who thinks they know what's best/thinks they call the shots.

[GFB]

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

See my above post. If there's more than one cook in the kitchen, or, I suppose, two (one designer and one person giving feedback and calling the shots on the other end), there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's not to say it can't work, but multiple designers working on the same thing always feels like a pubescent kid whose voice keeps switching from high to deep, and I'm sure you know the pitfalls of dealing with more than one person who thinks they know what's best/thinks they call the shots.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "one and one" is always the optimal scenario. Sure, there may be some cases where it would be best, but you could also make the case that if you have one designer working on the same project for too long the results can become stale, mistakes can be made, or tunnel vision can set in. Sometimes an outside perspective is not only welcome, but very much needed. Besides, you look at a company like Brandiose and the multiple designer set up works great because they can bounce ideas off one another. Even a team of 3-4 designers can be can have its advantages.

I believe the most important thing is the leadership factor. There should be someone who has a clear understanding on where the project needs to go and what changes need to be made along the way. Ideally, this should be the designer, but it can also work if the franchise has a high-ranking official who has a vision as well.

If you have too many separate entities working on a project without that sense of leadership or direction, no progress will be made and soon enough you'll find yourself right back where you started. If you have too many leaders, the project gets pulled in every direction and then ultimately fails.

[kpbl_design]

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

See my above post. If there's more than one cook in the kitchen, or, I suppose, two (one designer and one person giving feedback and calling the shots on the other end), there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's not to say it can't work, but multiple designers working on the same thing always feels like a pubescent kid whose voice keeps switching from high to deep, and I'm sure you know the pitfalls of dealing with more than one person who thinks they know what's best/thinks they call the shots.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "one and one" is always the optimal scenario. Sure, there may be some cases where it would be best, but you could also make the case that if you have one designer working on the same project for too long the results can become stale, mistakes can be made, or tunnel vision can set in. Sometimes an outside perspective is not only welcome, but very much needed. Besides, you look at a company like Brandiose and the multiple designer set up works great because they can bounce ideas off one another. Even a team of 3-4 designers can be can have its advantages.

I believe the most important thing is the leadership factor. There should be someone who has a clear understanding on where the project needs to go and what changes need to be made along the way. Ideally, this should be the designer, but it can also work if the franchise has a high-ranking official who has a vision as well.

If you have too many separate entities working on a project without that sense of leadership or direction, no progress will be made and soon enough you'll find yourself right back where you started. If you have too many leaders, the project gets pulled in every direction and then ultimately fails.

Within the setting of an art department, I think the best results come when everyone, regardless of the quantity of staff, on board is confident, competent, and willing to check their ego at the door for the greater good of the team. I believe creativity comes from being surrounded by other creatives, and major progress is made when everyone understands their role and how they are significant in the grand scheme of things. It's important to establish some form of graphic direction early, and I think it's beneficial if there is a leader who knows when it's time to push forward, step back, speak, listen, abort mission and take a different path, etc. When defining graphic direction(s), there's nothing wrong with being opinionated in brainstorms, critique sessions and the like, but remember to maintain a high level of tact, because these sessions are opportunities for growth in addition to moving the project along. Team members have to understand that you can't get married to an idea, and that not everything you suggest, no matter how great the idea, may not be implemented. That's life, deal with it.

As far as dealing with other departments, clients, etc., communication, flexibility, and a respect for others is key, at least I believe, in achieving optimum results. You may not necessarily understand where others are coming from, but if everyone goes into a project with a sense of appreciation for what others in the group do, you're more likely to cooperate and work together than you would be if you're only concerned with your own personal agendas. You'd be surprised to see how many people are willing to meet you halfway on projects if you provide sound logic and reason, and don't act like a pain in the ass in the process. To some, these ideas may be hard to grasp because my views may seem rather utopian,and to an extent, they are... but it doesn't negate the fact that what I'm saying isn't something we shouldn't strive for.

[andrewharrington]

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

See my above post. If there's more than one cook in the kitchen, or, I suppose, two (one designer and one person giving feedback and calling the shots on the other end), there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's not to say it can't work, but multiple designers working on the same thing always feels like a pubescent kid whose voice keeps switching from high to deep, and I'm sure you know the pitfalls of dealing with more than one person who thinks they know what's best/thinks they call the shots.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "one and one" is always the optimal scenario. Sure, there may be some cases where it would be best, but you could also make the case that if you have one designer working on the same project for too long the results can become stale, mistakes can be made, or tunnel vision can set in. Sometimes an outside perspective is not only welcome, but very much needed. Besides, you look at a company like Brandiose and the multiple designer set up works great because they can bounce ideas off one another. Even a team of 3-4 designers can be can have its advantages.

I believe the most important thing is the leadership factor. There should be someone who has a clear understanding on where the project needs to go and what changes need to be made along the way. Ideally, this should be the designer, but it can also work if the franchise has a high-ranking official who has a vision as well.

If you have too many separate entities working on a project without that sense of leadership or direction, no progress will be made and soon enough you'll find yourself right back where you started. If you have too many leaders, the project gets pulled in every direction and then ultimately fails.

I think I worded that wrong. Soliciting feedback is extremely important, and there's nothing better than having other designers around and bouncing ideas off each other. What I dislike is the situation where one group develops a primary mark, for example, and then sends it off to another person or department and says, "Okay, I need you to develop a secondary mark and wordmark based on this primary logo." I much prefer the whole of the look is created by one entity from start to finish, which I think is what your last paragraph is alluding to. The identities rarely look cohesive when they are puzzled together with a primary from this guy, a secondary from this guy, a wordmark from this guy, etc. and believe me, it happens.

In short, I think the process and ideation needs to be collaborative, and that outside perspective is invaluable, but I think the execution is better off done by one hand, for consistency purposes. Even the tiniest variation in execution through the parts of an identity can spell disaster. I'm always a proponent of dealing with a single client as opposed to a group or committee, though.

Imagine Monet, in the middle of a piece, saying, "I have the water and backdrop all done, and I've talked with some colleagues to nail down the concept and direction, but could you try painting these lily pads in here for me? I'm looking for a fresh take." That's what it feels like to me sometimes. Obviously the results wouldn't be optimum.

[kpbl_design]

Did you get a "too many cooks in the kitchen" sense with this project?

See my above post. If there's more than one cook in the kitchen, or, I suppose, two (one designer and one person giving feedback and calling the shots on the other end), there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

That's not to say it can't work, but multiple designers working on the same thing always feels like a pubescent kid whose voice keeps switching from high to deep, and I'm sure you know the pitfalls of dealing with more than one person who thinks they know what's best/thinks they call the shots.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "one and one" is always the optimal scenario. Sure, there may be some cases where it would be best, but you could also make the case that if you have one designer working on the same project for too long the results can become stale, mistakes can be made, or tunnel vision can set in. Sometimes an outside perspective is not only welcome, but very much needed. Besides, you look at a company like Brandiose and the multiple designer set up works great because they can bounce ideas off one another. Even a team of 3-4 designers can be can have its advantages.

I believe the most important thing is the leadership factor. There should be someone who has a clear understanding on where the project needs to go and what changes need to be made along the way. Ideally, this should be the designer, but it can also work if the franchise has a high-ranking official who has a vision as well.

If you have too many separate entities working on a project without that sense of leadership or direction, no progress will be made and soon enough you'll find yourself right back where you started. If you have too many leaders, the project gets pulled in every direction and then ultimately fails.

I think I worded that wrong. Soliciting feedback is extremely important, and there's nothing better than having other designers around and bouncing ideas off each other. What I dislike is the situation where one group develops a primary mark, for example, and then sends it off to another person or department and says, "Okay, I need you to develop a secondary mark and wordmark based on this primary logo." I much prefer the whole of the look is created by one entity from start to finish, which I think is what your last paragraph is alluding to. The identities rarely look cohesive when they are puzzled together with a primary from this guy, a secondary from this guy, a wordmark from this guy, etc. and believe me, it happens.

In short, I think the process and ideation needs to be collaborative, and that outside perspective is invaluable, but I think the execution is better off done by one hand, for consistency purposes. Even the tiniest variation in execution through the parts of an identity can spell disaster. I'm always a proponent of dealing with a single client as opposed to a group or committee, though.

Imagine Monet, in the middle of a piece, saying, "I have the water and backdrop all done, and I've talked with some colleagues to nail down the concept and direction, but could you try painting these lily pads in here for me? I'm looking for a fresh take." That's what it feels like to me sometimes. Obviously the results wouldn't be optimum.

Valid point, sir!

I'm all about consistency and I think you did a great job of painting that picture.

[GFB]

Imagine Monet, in the middle of a piece, saying, "I have the water and backdrop all done, and I've talked with some colleagues to nail down the concept and direction, but could you try painting these lily pads in here for me? I'm looking for a fresh take." That's what it feels like to me sometimes. Obviously the results wouldn't be optimum.

Well, if he asked me or you to paint some lily pads, it probably wouldn't look so great. If he asked another French Impressionist painter like Manet, it probably isn't as catastrophic as you make it out to be.

In short, I think the process and ideation needs to be collaborative, and that outside perspective is invaluable, but I think the execution is better off done by one hand, for consistency purposes. Even the tiniest variation in execution through the parts of an identity can spell disaster. I'm always a proponent of dealing with a single client as opposed to a group or committee, though.

I think the bolded part is a little dramatic, but I understand what you are saying. However, for our industry, consistency can be somewhat easily faked. There aren't hindrances such as having to copy sketching techniques, paint mixing, texture of brush strokes, etc... If you were to give me a picture one of your logos, I can probably come up with a secondary design that would be pretty difficult to distinguish the difference between illustrators. Or if you wanted to have Pat make a primary design, Kris make a secondary, and myself come up with a wordmark; then having you make final passes over each of them to get them to "align in consistency..."

Of course, having everything drawn by one hand would be another way to ensure consistency. I guess my argument is that it's not as much a problem in having multiple designers work on a project as it is to have multiple designers without talent (not referencing this Sabres project, just in general). Chances are, the difference between the work of one single crappy designer and the collaboration of multiple crappy designers isn't going to be that noticeable.

[andrewharrington]

Of course, having everything drawn by one hand would be another way to ensure consistency. I guess my argument is that it's not as much a problem in having multiple designers work on a project as it is to have multiple designers without talent (not referencing this Sabres project, just in general). Chances are, the difference between the work of one single crappy designer and the collaboration of multiple crappy designers isn't going to be that noticeable.

You're right, ideally, but rarely is the situation ideal. Even with vectors, everyone draws differently. Everyone has has a different hand to their bezier curves, has a certain style, a different level of finish and craftsmanship, a different take on how thick an outline should be when they eyeball that sort of thing, and not everyone has the skill or awareness to replicate those details if given a design direction. Not every identity has a dream team working on it. Sometimes, the worst logo of the bunch gets picked and everyone else has to fall in line with that. Such is life, I guess, but I always compare it to someone like Frank Lloyd Wright. If he was just one guy in a design team, we probably wouldn't have all those great works of architecture that were the result of him working directly with a single client. That singular vision is really a valuable thing. It's nice to have it helped along by colleagues, but the strength of the original vision shouldn't be diluted by a second hand if it is indeed an excellent concept. More of the purist in me talking, I guess.

[RedSox44]

For all its flaws, the Buffaslug has actually grown on me... but weirdly, only on the sweaters.

I'm the opposite. Yes, the design has grown on me, but not on the sweaters.

I have to say, some of the concept logos look fantastic and arguably would have gone down as modern classics had the franchise gone with them.

[ARTnSocal]

>>>>

Watching the Sabres game at Winnipeg on TV last week and seeing alot of the Jets fans in the stands wearing the pre-Phoenix sweaters, I gotta say I really miss those.

[BrandMooreArt]

>>>>

you can clearly see who ISN'T a Jets fan lol

[sportslover12345]

Hey man. The buffaslug is, to me a pretty good logo. Some good components in it. It should have been with words, and it could have been a great wordmark logo.

[nash61]

Hey man. The buffaslug is, to me a pretty good logo. Some good components in it. It should have been with words, and it could have been a great wordmark logo.

Word of advice: Don't go bumping old threads.

Also, it was with words. It didn't do it any favours.

[beruud]

The second logo from the top is frankly the best Sabres logo I've ever seen.

I completely agree it is a good representation of the past while bringing the logo into the 21st century.