a3uge

Members
  • Content Count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Prospect
  1. Is this the new "Clip art!" hyperbole? Because it makes about as much sense. +1, not sure what "robotic" and "after thoughtish" mean either.
  2. Isn't there a rule that says a logo has to be in place x number of years before a change? Isn't that why the Wizards and Hawks technically haven't changed primary logos yet? I thought it was because the NBA requires teams to pay a ridicules sum of money to change the primary. Money that could be used for other things. Define "ridiculous sum"? You'd imagine the NBA would want teams like the Wizards to escape from their hideous old logo. $500,000 IIRC? But, I doubt the change rules apply for the Clippers since their last change was a tweak more than anything. Hmm, $500,000 seems like it would be pocket change for a logo. Teams waive millions of dollars each year just to get rid of players. Maybe there's a hard rule we don't know about.
  3. Isn't there a rule that says a logo has to be in place x number of years before a change? Isn't that why the Wizards and Hawks technically haven't changed primary logos yet? I thought it was because the NBA requires teams to pay a ridicules sum of money to change the primary. Money that could be used for other things. Define "ridiculous sum"? You'd imagine the NBA would want teams like the Wizards to escape from their hideous old logo.
  4. Isn't there a rule that says a logo has to be in place x number of years before a change? Isn't that why the Wizards and Hawks technically haven't changed primary logos yet?
  5. Aside from the UW-Milwaukee logo, the rest of the Horizon League is pretty bad as well: Bird shot in neck: Peeping Tom: ---- And then escaping the Horizon to the Summit: Bad wordmark alert:
  6. Yuck. So a school that is completely void of a cohesive brand decides to introduce jerseys with a brand new script. Didn't think they could dilute their identity even more, but they've outdone themselves. They really need to just scrap everything, their alternate logos, their scripts, and even their school name and start over (and not touch anything for 10 years).
  7. I didn't really see a thread for discussing national uniforms that are probably noticed once every four years, so I think this new thread can be a good landing point for commenting on uniforms that you liked/disliked while watching the Olympics. So here's some bad uniforms so far: US Women's Indoor Volleyball and Korea Women's Indoor Volleyball What's with the numbers and name on back? Why is it colored? Why are the shorts a different shade of blue from the jersey? For the Korean team: why are there feathers on the butt? What are those feather things on the side? Why is there a white stripe on the top of the shorts? For all the complaining we do about Nike and Adidas uniforms, could you imagine Asics or Mizuno designing NCAA Football jerseys?
  8. I'm not sure what the guidelines behind the project were, and if they were given the choice of which company to 'rebrand', but I personally think the smartest idea for Microsoft would be to build off the Windows logo, use Metro, and start thinking 'enterprise' rather than fragmented software solutions. Not sure what direction Microsoft is headed. What is Windows? Is it just an operating system? What products get branded as 'Windows'? Why were their phones branded as 'Windows Phones' while their tablets are being branded as 'Microsoft Surface'? What does 'Zune' mean now? Does that only refer to the physical product? Is it more like iTunes or Google Music? Who decided on the name 'Google Drive'? Wait... that last one isn't a Microsoft question. Let's think about Google for a second. What product does Google have that Microsoft doesn't have? Sure there's some differences, but they both put out relatively the same products. Google's strength with a growing product base was that it was always seamless and connected through a common interface. Microsoft? Well, you'd get to your Word, Excel, Mail in different applications all though your OS, then fire up a web browser to use MSN.com, and maybe navigate to Bing.com to search for some stuff. By design, Microsoft is already fragmented and is caught in a pickle. They CANT switch to pure web-based applications because they have to sell you the idea that you NEED a dedicated high-powered application to do word processing, or open your emails. Microsoft's products may have the same outcome as Google's, but their business structure is entirely different. What would I do if I were Microsoft? MSN and Bing would become consolidated to just 'bing.com', and the MSN homepage would behave similarly to iGoogle. I would have the same Metro - pastel - boxed design for every product possible. XBox's interface would look similar to Windows 8 and their phones. I would release a new base OS every 4 years (major release) and keep incremental the release number. I would get back to having the manufacturer creating phones and tablets, and slapping the Windows brand into the OS. I would increment the release number by .5 every two years and release a big phones/tablet on a 2-year cycle. I would call Internet Explorer bizarre codenames until it had a change to catch up. I don't think the Office suite necessarily needs to match logo-wise with the rest of the company, but each product should have the same look and feel as the OS and the web front ends.
  9. Here's a concept I've been working on to make the dolphin a bit more 'mean'
  10. Pretty unremarkable. But I agree that the Microsoft brand could use some work. Part of the problem Microsoft has is 1. It hasn't consolidated its branding across products well enough. 2. Branding gets revamped every couple of years instead of fine tuned. While everything Microsoft owns does not need to be branded identically (YouTube is branded as a nice standalone), I do think Microsoft would benefit from claiming X-Box and Bing as their own. It's almost as if Microsoft is afraid of their own name. While the Microsoft name may have a certain stigma attached to it, I don't understand why Microsoft has gone through a re-branding with Windows 8, Windows Phone, and Windows Office, but high potential products Bing and MSN.com are completely ignored.
  11. At least a good logo came out of that whole debacle: But yeah, MU could've saved themselves a lot of future headaches if they'd have just reverted to Hilltoppers or Golden Avalanche upon dropping the Warriors tag. That's canceled out by their 'Fighting Chickens' logo that was released at the same time Saddest part is, I'm not only shocked to see a logo with guns in this day and age, but totally flabbergasted that a gun-free logo was changed to include them after the public revolted against the *lack* of guns. Virtually every non-sports video game and most action-thriller movie posters feature a gun, or guns. I just don't think most people are all that outraged by gun references. This year, the same revolt happened with the 'Colt 45s'. MLB initially said no to the gun on the front, but later reversed their decision. This story had a poll attached to it... 97% disagreed with the MLB. And it is important to note that the Colt 45's name change was not a result of fan outrage. It was a battle with the Colt 45 firearm company that lead to the name change (according to the always reliable internet). We all know what happened to the Washington Bullets... But I'm not convinced the shift to the Wizards was a result of mass fan protest, and throwback unis remained popular after the name change.
  12. Oh come on guys, most Jayhawks I see flying around in my back yard don't wear yellow shoes. Which is why the Jayhawk isn't on the thread, and I don't think the Jayhawk is an actual bird? This is probably for another thread, but Illinois State redbirds / Louisvilles. NO BIRDS HAVE TEETH But yeah we can get back on track, it just hurts the logo's awesomeness. That does sound like a good topic... animal anatomical anomalies? But anyways, despite the claws/fingernails, I think it's a cool logo.