Brewers' Cap Logo, etc.

[Gothamite]

I welcome the return of the Glove logo, if only because the Brewers have the worst look in the Majors right now short of Toronto's debacle.

Personally, I want the Beer Barrel Man back. He ties in with the nickname, and has decades of history with the city stretching back to the Brewers of the 1940s.

But the Glove is at least a step in the right direction.

[Moser316]

Hey, I'm not a Brewers fan, but I would rally around the logo that existed when the team was good.

Beer is about fun, as was the old logo.

Have they ever done a poll on old Brewers players? What would they like to see?

Thanks again for whoever (Pat) debunked the myth of the logo representing the sports team.

I used to work for a marketing company, so it maks me ill whenever I see a ballclub have a logo directly out of a marketing meeting.... gold and navy blue were the hot colors when it was created.

Brewers, be yourself! Be the team with a baseball glove logo. Somebody has got to do i: ask the Nets and NY Jets and Winnipeg Jets. They both have something representative of their sport in the logo.

What about something like this?

http://brandx.net/pilots/flocker.jpg

Please. The ball-in-glove is a product of the 1970's, and like other things that went out of style from that era, this one ought to bite the dust for good (save for the occasional throwback game)...

[Gothamite]

The ball-in-glove is a product of the 1970's, and like other things that went out of style from that era, this one ought to bite the dust for good (save for the occasional throwback game)...

How do you feel about the design aesthetics of the 1940s?

[Moser316]

The ball-in-glove is a product of the 1970's, and like other things that went out of style from that era, this one ought to bite the dust for good (save for the occasional throwback game)...

How do you feel about the design aesthetics of the 1940s?

They had design aesthetics during the 1940's? I thought they just drew cartoons back then...

[Gothamite]

Those were the days. When designs were created because the artist liked them, not because they had been test-marketed, focus-grouped and merchandised to death, draining anything even vaguely creative out of it....

[ltravisjr]

So let me get this straight. The argument against the ball in glove logo is simply because it is not relevant to the name of the team? In other words, if they were called, I don't know, say the "Milwaukee Ballstars" nobody would have a problem with the logo?

LT

[Moser316]

Those were the days. When designs were created because the artist liked them, not because they had been test-marketed, focus-grouped and merchandised to death, draining anything even vaguely creative out of it....

Are you still hanging on to your idealistic "I'm-not-going-to-sell-out-no-matter-what" mentality? I thought that it went away after graduating from college and getting your first taste of the real world.

That being said, you're right in the fact that it's all about making money. Where's the problem? If cartoon logos were still profitable in major professional sports, that's all we'd be seeing. However, this is not indicative of the time in which we live. You can't give a college student "35 bucks and a case of beer" or commission a cartoonist to come up with an identity for a multi-million dollar entity anymore and expect to make a dent in sales.

[Gothamite]

Hey, I work in the arts. I know the story.

I don't think sales are your best argument, Moser, considering that the glove logo is if not the #1-selling Cooperstown Collection cap, it's certainly up there, and reportedly outsells the regular Brewers merchandise handily....

[DrBear]

First off, the only reason the Brewers had blue and gold was because they inherited those colors from the Seattle Pilots. There were other uniforms ready if Milwaukee had got a team from someplace else - I remember a wirephoto shortly after the Pilots sale was announced of a pinstriped shirt with "Brewers" in script similar to what they wore in the late 80s-early 90s. I'm guessing it was red-blue or maybe red-black.

Second, for all the talk here about a logo needing to be tied to a team's name ... what may be more important is whether the logo speaks to the people the team is trying to draw or sell merchandise to. The Beer Barrel Man never did, nor did the "Motre Bame" logo. The ball-in-glove did, and to a lesser extent, so does the current look.

When the Brewers did their t-shirt "pick your logo" promotion, the old logo had a slight edge. So there's support for both.

So if this is what they plan to do, it seems like a nice compromise. If nothing else, it can lend itself to marketing - "a proud past, a bright future" - for a team that made great strides this season.

What the design fans on the board think really, in the end, doesn't mean that much. We've all see shows we think are pure non-Scottish do well at the box office or in the ratings. That doesn't mean they're good, but it means people like them. And that's what the payoff is. If you had asked car experts, they would have agreed that the original VW Beetle had no chance in the 1950s tail-fin era. It did. And still does.

If it works for the audience, the beliefs of experts don't amount to anything.

[Gothamite]

First off, the only reason the Brewers had blue and gold was because they inherited those colors from the Seattle Pilots. There were other uniforms ready if Milwaukee had got a team from someplace else - I remember  a wirephoto shortly after the Pilots sale was announced of a pinstriped shirt with "Brewers" in script similar to what they wore in the late 80s-early 90s. I'm guessing it was red-blue or maybe red-black.

I've never seen the pinstriped jersey wire photo. Interesting. I'd love to see that.

I've actually spoken to Bud Selig about this very issue. Had he been granted the expansion team he sought in 1969, the new Brewers would have adopted the colors, logos and uniforms of the 1950s American Association club. That's why the Beer Barrel Man pins sold at County Stadium in 1968 and 1969 were navy and red.

Second, for all the talk here about a logo needing to be tied to a team's name ... what may be more important is whether the logo speaks to the people the team is trying to draw or sell merchandise to. The Beer Barrel Man never did, nor did the "Motre Bame" logo. The ball-in-glove did, and to a lesser extent, so does the current look.

Hmm. I take issue with two statements in that paragraph. First, that the Beer Barrel Man didn't speak to the fanbase. You don't know that. Nobody knows that. How do you measure the fans' like or dislike for the logo at the time? Merchandising at that time was in its infancy. How else would you do it?

I will admit that the BBM logo doesn't speak to the fans as well as the glove does. Granted. For whatever reason that's true, it's patently and obviously true. But compared to the current logo?

What evidence do you have that the current logo speaks to the fans, except through inertia? The merchandise sales don't back you up - they're terrible. Terrible. They had a brief spike when the new scheme was introduced, but since then the Brewers have tumbled back to the merchandising cellar in all but Cooperstown Collection merchandise. I don't see any evidence that the fans prefer this current logo to either the "Notre Bame" logo or the BBM, except that this is the current one and the most widely available one.

When the Brewers did their t-shirt "pick your logo" promotion, the old logo had a slight edge. So there's support for both.

Actually, when the Brewers did the "pick your logo" promotion earlier this year, the glove logo won 64% to 36%. That's not "a slight edge," that's a landslide. (In political terms, compare that to the lopsided 1984 election - Reagan got 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.5%.)

So there you have it. The new logo has less support than Fritz Mondale!

Fans don't seem to have any demonstrable love for the current logo. If they did, the Brewers would sell more stuff with it. But go into the clubhouse at Miller Park, look around, see how much merchandise they display in the old royal blue and gold, and tell me that the fans haven't already made themselves clear.

The new owner knows it, as well. He's said in interviews that everytime the fans are polled, they vote overwhelmingly for the old logo. My guess is that this is a test drive, put those votes into action, before committing to any great on-field change.

[schtee]

"The merchandise sales don't back you up - they're terrible. Terrible. They had a brief spike when the new scheme was introduced, but since then the Brewers have tumbled back to the merchandising cellar in all but Cooperstown Collection merchandise"

where can one find stats on merchandise sales?

thanks,

[Gothamite]

Unfortunately, I don't think MLB allows those out.

My statement was based on public comments on merchandise sales by Ulice Payne, former President of the club. Before he was forced out, he was openly talking about going back to the old logo just because of what the merchandise sales said about the old logo vs. the new one.

Payne couched a potential change in two terms - "It's what the fans want" and "it makes good business sense."

[DrBear]

I've actually spoken to Bud Selig about this very issue. Had he been granted the expansion team he sought in 1969, the new Brewers would have adopted the colors, logos and uniforms of the 1950s American Association club. That's why the Beer Barrel Man pins sold at County Stadium in 1968 and 1969 were navy and red.

The Beer Barrel Man never did, nor did the "Motre Bame" logo. The ball-in-glove did, and to a lesser extent, so does the current look.

Hmm. I take issue with two statements in that paragraph. First, that the Beer Barrel Man didn't speak to the fanbase. You don't know that. Nobody knows that. How do you measure the fans' like or dislike for the logo at the time? Merchandising at that time was in its infancy. How else would you do it?

1. I remember reading elsewhere that Selig did have "emergency" unis available if a team suddenly moved and didn't have its own unis; when they got the Pilots, it was easier to take the uniforms that had been measured, numbered, etc. and just replace the front lettering.

2. I say the reaction was better by the generally strong reaction to the introduction of the ball-glove in 1978. Admittedly, there was a better team wearing it, but it seemed, as a fan at the time, that the new logo was welcomed in a way the old one never was; it was easier, for example, to paint on banners and such.

And I do think there is some like for the current logo; not love, but like. It does, after all, represent the current team and they're picking up a following with players such as Lee, Overbay, Sheets and Davis.

[Moser316]

And I do think there is some like for the current logo; not love, but like. It does, after all, represent the current team and they're picking up a following with players such as Lee, Overbay, Sheets and Davis.

You do have a point there, my hatred towards the ball-in-glove is stronger than my love of what they have now. But anything (even Motre Bame) is better than seeing the dog paw worn on the field on an everyday basis.

[Gothamite]

2. I say the reaction was better by the generally strong reaction to the introduction of the ball-glove in 1978. Admittedly, there was a better team wearing it, but it seemed, as a fan at the time, that the new logo was welcomed in a way the old one never was; it was easier, for example, to paint on banners and such.

And I do think there is some like for the current logo; not love, but like. It does, after all, represent the current team and they're picking up a following with players such as Lee, Overbay, Sheets and Davis.

But you're comparing apples to oranges. The fan reaction to the logo in 1970 was very positive. Or was it the team? We don't know, because they landed at the same time. We can't separate them.

Response to new logos is usually pretty positive. So it was with the 1978 logo. So it was with the 2000 logo. Again, you can't really tell much about the fan response to the 1970 logo.

I don't think there's much interest in the new logo for its own sake. As I've said before, there's tepid support for it only because there's support for the team. But Brewers fans vote with their wallets - they don't buy all that much merchandise, except for the glove logo throwbacks. Again, look where Brewers stuff is sold and see how much Cooperstown Collection merchandise is on the racks.

[Gothamite]

And I do think there is some like for the current logo; not love, but like. It does, after all, represent the current team and they're picking up a following with players such as Lee, Overbay, Sheets and Davis.

You do have a point there, my hatred towards the ball-in-glove is stronger than my love of what they have now. But anything (even Motre Bame) is better than seeing the dog paw worn on the field on an everyday basis.

Hey, at least you're honest about it.

Join with me in my quest - send the new logos to the dump where they belong. Bring back the Beet Barrel Man! I've no great love for the glove, and would much rather see a return to the Brewers logo with the most history.

[BRice16]

"The merchandise sales don't back you up - they're terrible. Terrible. They had a brief spike when the new scheme was introduced, but since then the Brewers have tumbled back to the merchandising cellar in all but Cooperstown Collection merchandise"

where can one find stats on merchandise sales?

thanks,

Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal prints figures like that all the time. Best luck might be to search their archives.

[Gothamite]

They seem to be having a problem with the archives - I keep getting error messages. I'll try again later or tomorrow.

[quantum]

I have no love for the B&G logo, but let them bring it back. I know I'm in the minority, but I loved the mid-90s look (except the logo itself). If they would've fielded a team worth a damn, it would have been received better.

If the team doesn't get to the playoffs, the Ball & Glove will finally be out the door as well. Then they can start fresh.

[DEAD!]

DEATH TO THE GLOVE LOGO!!!!