Jump to content

GFB

Members
  • Posts

    7,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by GFB

  1. Brian, in the only part of my post that you didn't pick apart, I explained this. Aspects of visual identity are not self-contained, they bleed into one another. That's why if I say "Flying Elvis" you think of silver and blue, but if I say "Pat" you think red and white. Are the colors blue and red responsible for the demise of the Indians brand? Of course not. But if (as you yourself pointed out) red and blue makes Clevelanders not only think of baseball, but also the Indians brand, Chief Wahoo, and everything that comes with that, then the colors have a little stain on them as well, even if they aren't the reason for the offense. Maybe there's not enough to have to throw them out entirely, but there's enough dirt that you might consider it and should at minimum give them a deep cleaning. Look, I'm a Detroit Lions fan and a comparable organization to the Indians/Guardians. I'm very familiar with a rich tradition despite decades of futility and bad luck. My grandfather would attend Lions games at Briggs Stadium; the honolulu blue and silver runs deep in my family, memory and nostalgia. If the Lions came out next week and said "We're turning a new page and with it we're changing our blue to red like the 1940s Portsmouth Spartans," I'd be fine with it. Sure, the Lions were the first NFL team to use blue and silver before the Cowboys and Oilers and Seahawks and Panthers and a lot Detroit fans would probably be shocked and confused, but I think the majority of fans would quickly appreciate the organization attempting to wipe the slate clean to a degree and trying to build something new. Now try to change the Red Wings or the Tigers colors and I'll go to war with you, but it's hard for me to feel attached to the silver and blue in the same way when all it's represented to me is 30 years of disappointment. I'm open to a fresh start and this is without the Detroit Lions brand having employed a racist and toxic identity for the last 2-3 decades.
  2. Perhaps! No one really knows what data they received or how the questions were phrased or how the answers were weighted... we're in the dark. I do want to quickly touch on the "the colors aren't problematic" issue, which is true to a degree. In a vacuum, blue and red are relatively neutral (I'll gloss over predisposition to certain colors based on societal and cultural influence -- red/blue in America stir different emotions than red/blue in Russia or red/blue in China), just like any other color scheme. But when you're talking about an identity, those aspects of a brand aren't self-contained: they bleed over into one another. The colors make you think of the logo which makes you think of a certain player which takes you back to a specific point in time. If I say "teal Pistons," your mind instantly tracks to the horsepower logo, Grant Hill, 90s NBA, other crazy looks from the same point in time, etc. If I say "volt," you think of Nike, Oregon Ducks, early 2010s, LaMichael James, Mariota, uniformz, etc... There's a level of connection to these things that goes beyond the vacuum. Speaking for myself only, I think the Guardians carrying over the red/blue is fine. I think creating a clearer mental break from the past would have better served the true purpose of the rebrand, but clearly the organization was clearly trying to keep the waves the transition created as small as possible. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but when your entire goal is to change as little as possible, that creates an appearance of resistance to the change and just wanting the whole thing to go away, which may be unfair but feels real. (FWIW, from the outside looking in, I do think that WFT is going about their rebranding in a better way with the hard stop of the name and logo, vs Cleveland who tried to slowly phase-out and phase-in an updated identity, which is a statement I couldn't have imagined making 18 months ago.) Where I will disagree with the majority is that the red and blue colors are untouchable for Cleveland's baseball team. This isn't a "bored designer" take, as I don't think Washington should move away from the burgundy and gold or that teams should mess with tradition for no reason at all. Rather, in this specific case, I don't think the colors should be untouchable. There's little connection to the city with those colors, outside of the Ohio/Cleveland flag. Multiple other MLB clubs share those colors and with more success (Red Sox, Braves, Angels, Nationals, Twins, etc.) The old brand was insensitive and actively hurt the brand's value. With all those factors considered, I think that's enough to move the needle to seriously consider a new color scheme, despite the 120 years of tradition. Also, a color change didn't have to be dramatic either like a move to green and gold. It could have been slight darkening of the red to a wine color like the Cavs use. It could have been lightening the blue and bringing it closer to alignment with the Cleveland flag. It could have been raising up an existing neutral color like white/grey to secondary status and using red as an accent color. Any of those things would have helped mentally divorce the Guardians name from the old era, which is the biggest shortcoming of the new brand (IMO of course)
  3. I never said that all fans who wanted to keep the colors wanted to keep the name; I said all the fans who wanted to keep the name wanted to keep the colors. It’s a “not all yellow fruits are bananas but all bananas are yellow fruits” statement
  4. Look, none of us know what questions, information and data that they are basing these decisions off of. But I think it's safe to assume that the Venn Diagram of fans who didn't want a change to the name/logo and the fans who wanted to keep red/blue is a perfect circle.
  5. My point is that they really should be. Because you're not moving from something neutral to something good; you're moving from something actively bad/toxic and hoping to neutralize it. If the current team had a mark or a cap that was synonymous with Cleveland baseball, then your point would have more weight. But as of today, this is currently a desolate brand devoid of ideas and the Guardians revamp doesn't add anything at all of substance. As you stated in your post, some fans are going to be upset either way and what's a little more change on top of a much bigger change? I don't think giving fans an opportunity to fully embrace a new chapter is a bad idea.
  6. If we're talking about the concept of self-identity and awareness, yeah I think some level of confidence and boldness is important.
  7. A good informative post, BiB. You outlined the history of Cleveland baseball lore, which is impressive... But everything in your post ultimately only boils down to tradition: it's the way things have been for 120 years and so they should remain that way. Obviously, tradition is a rich ingredient when it comes to brands (especially baseball), but usually there's some semblance of winning or positivity to go along with that legacy. The Cleveland MLB identity is all nostalgia and bittersweet memories, along with a heavy dose of insensitivity to flavor... Is that actually worth saving? You outlined some of the negatives in the recent past that have spanned decades, which I'd argue has removed any positivity surrounding the brand, and there's no tradition of winning either. Franchises like the Toronto Maple Leafs, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions and Sacramento Kings all have won championships since Cleveland won a World Series. From this list, of the top 10 players in franchise history, only two have suited up for the team in the last 50 years. Why is any of this is worth embracing and celebrating, other than pure nostalgia? Was not changing the colors really the right decision, or was it simply the easy one? It's not like changing the team name and colors would erase that tradition that you outlined. They'd still be able to trace their history back, but they'd also be able to turn a fresh page from any of the baggage that has built up over 75 years of incompetence and poor decisions. And if the new colors flopped, you could always go back to them later on and have a short-lived "phase," like red/green Red Sox or the blue/red White Sox. I believe that if you look at this rebranding from a distance, you'd see that there's no courage in it. There's no point where the team boldly stakes their flag in the ground and says. like-it-or-not. this is who we are now and this is who we will be in the future. Rather, this feels like an attempt to revise their past into something that allows them to skate by and that's cowardly, IMO.
  8. But maybe that slow, gradual change is why it feels like a Jedi mind trick. This wasn't a scenario where the team was caught with their pants down and had to whip up an identity in two months... this was a deliberate and methodical process spanning years where the prevailing sentiment turned out to be "only change what you absolutely have to." Like you mused, maybe an abrupt change would have been out of character for the organization, but if there ever was an understandable opportunity to take a risk, this would have been the time. If a bold, new identity or colors flopped, you could have done this exact identity as a retrace 5 years from now and everyone would have understood and welcomed it. As for the impression on the cultural zeitgeist, other teams like the White Sox had Michael Jordan, Obama, wild uniforms, etc. But when I think of Cleveland, I guess I think of the Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton teams of the mid-90s... but even then that's far, far down the list after Major League and having/defending a racist logo for decades. It just never struck me as a historic brand worth salvaging in the same way that a Dodgers/Giants/Red Sox/Yankees identity was.
  9. Count me in with the "Spiders > Guardians" crowd, but as far as names go, it's not bad. I think my biggest problem with everything about this brand is how much it reeks of "well actually, we still want our old name and identity." Between the -dians name, keeping all the touchstones of the identity the same (red "C" on a blue hat, new scripts are inspired by the old ones, another decades out-of-date sleeve logo), and keeping the colors the same, it feels like the organization's approach was an attempt to jedi mind trick the universe that there was never a change at all. The effect of that is like removing a controversial-but-popular painting in a museum and now we're left looking at a printed copy with all the controversial aspects cropped out, rather than simply going out and finding a new work of art to replace it with. Look, I realize that that the team has a history that it's mostly proud of and that there are some fans out there who are really happy that the bare minimum changed. But from an outside perspective, it's been almost 75 years since the team won a World Series and the biggest contribution of the team to the cultural zeitgeist since was a movie from 30 years ago. It's ok to let things die sometimes, especially when they've run their course. Some people will disagree and that's ok. I just wish this felt more like a trade of one identity for another rather than a simple whitewashing.
  10. Seattle has worn dark clash kits going back a decade: purple/black, black/pink, black/lime green, black/green/blue and it’s never been a real issue until now. Also, MLS is 30+ teams, which is more to juggle than the Premier League or Bundesliga where you’re only at 20. Look, I agree that the home team should never have to wear clash, but unless Adidas starts allowing every team a third shirt, you’re going to run into the odd game every now and then where you have to compromise a little.
  11. That’s not true in the least. Bright green/blue and purple/black have plenty of contrast. The problem is that Austin’s primary kits are half green and half black. Personally, I would live with the rare nights like tonight where both teams have to wear their clash kits than having even more MLS teams with bland white/light grey clash kits.
  12. Eh, I don’t think this is enough contrast. I’d have put Austin in white and Seattle in purple if I were the MLS.
  13. Rumor has it Messi was in the house for that Miami game last night. I don't think I can overstate how important it is/was for the health of the league as a whole for Inter Miami to fall flat on its face. Everything about their approach from Beckham overstepping his fellow owners, to the hiring his buddy Neville, to the Championship-level players they brought in (Shawcross, Kieran Gibbs, and kicking the tires on Willian) was completely unimaginative and even snobbish to a degree. Instead of looking for young and exciting Latin American players hungry to launch their careers (and would go a long way in helping endear the club to the city), they instead went after big European names who were past their prime. The only time those moves work out in MLS -- Keane, Beckham, Henry, Villa, Zlatan, Nani -- are when those players are the ultimate competitors and they have such pride/egos/drive that won't allow them to go out and play at half-speed.
  14. Because 3 stripes = Nike's biggest competitor
  15. It can't be THAT difficult to create a CCSLC post-bot where you input the team and the poster type (classic, new school, design snob) and it outputs the proper complaint...
  16. Funny you should mention that, because when a hawk is resting, it’s beak is closed and you don’t see the lower one: It’s only when a hawk is acting aggressive that it opens its mouth enough to the point where you can see the lower beak.
  17. Instead of a double post, I'll just point out that adding tail feathers technically makes this a harpy, which can be considered a demon and very much not an angel.
  18. The art direction is spot on. The name, the colors, the art-deco vibes, the typography; it's all really nice and perfectly fits the team, ownership and location. With all that being said, I think this logo is average at best. That's a rookie-level design mistake. Additionally: Shoehorning in the "hawk-tail" element does more to visually confuse the design then to add anything of real substance. ("Do angels have bird butts?") The curves in the cuts of the wings are sloppy and are randomly distributed. Look at the cuts in the tail: the top two "feathers" are small with rounded curves on the underside. That is followed by a thick "feather" with a half-rounded under-curve and a heavy cut, and that is followed by a smaller "feather" with a square curve and a lighter cut. None of the angles of the cuts are aligned, consistent, or follow any sort of planned pattern or logic. The sharp, pointed curves of the "palm-wings" doesn't really match traditional art deco stylings (straight lines and curved edges). Take something like the NAIAS logo (which has some really similar to aspects to the ACFC angel) and how the perfectly horizontal lines naturally fit the LA art deco motif in a way that the more aggressive cuts do not: I'm probably being harsh here, because when viewed in it's entirety, I do like the branding. However, because we've known the name for so long and the typeface created by Matt Wolff was already in place and the art deco direction was clear. From a designer's standpoint, you can't ask for anything more: the table was set, bases loaded with a 3-0 count and a green light... and they hit a weak fly ball just deep enough to score the run. Ultimately, I think it's a good example how important art direction is. My guess is that the things in this brand that resonate with people the most isn't the design itself, but rather the club name, the colors, the idea of an art deco angel, and the general vibes the identity gives off. Hats off to the decision makers here, they definitely picked the right target to aim for... I just wish the designer had done a little more with the ingredients that were at their disposal.
  19. Phew, I thought I was going to look stupid for a minute there. Thanks for the link! That's phenomenal.
  20. These are guesses, but the outer shape feels directly inspired by classic bunting banners: while the sash feels like a nod to minutemen uniforms
  21. From a brand equity perspective, five-point stars are so common, that have a -- stretched-- star is something unique that you can somewhat call your own. I'm still getting used to it, so it does look a little weird at the moment, but that feeling might be something that goes away in time
  22. I already love the new Revs branding and I know I will die bunkered on this hill.
  23. @Ridleylash My post was specifically about the conflict of the Avs colors and not establishing a rule™ that you had to have all three tones to have a good uniform (in fact, I noted the opposite). I really like both the uniforms you shared, but those two color schemes have a few different dynamics going on. First, here's the HSB scale that I'm using (in case you're unfamiliar with it): Arizona's purple might not contrast with black on the brightness scale, but it certainly does on the saturation scale (the purple being heavily saturated and the black, not at all). The Rangers are a closer comparison, but the rich saturation of the royal blue and bright red helps push the two shades further away from one another. With Colorado, both red and blue shades are a "closer" distance from another because neither shade is close to fully saturated (I'm using Pantone values via TruColor here): (black line is Colorado, white line is New York) Perhaps the closest comparison I could make for Avs would be Minnesota, but that's another franchise that has struggled to balance their dark green and red colors over the course of their history. However I will say that the area where both the Rangers and Wild pass the Avalanche is that both teams use the less-bright color in their palette for the helmets (Colorado's burgundy is about 15% darker than the blue). If New York or Minnesota used red helmets, I think most people would agree that would look really off.
  24. The problem with the Avs elimination of black is that the shades of blue and red have very similar levels of brightness; there's almost no contrast between the two. To illustrate this, I'll use these desaturated photos. When you had black in the color scheme, the white and silver were the light-tones, the red and blue acted as mid-tones, and the black acted as your dark tones. While unconventional, black equipment balanced the uniforms out because there's almost no dark tones on the sweater outside of the hockey pucks in the logos. Once you remove black from the color scheme, the entire uniform is solely midtones and highlights. Other teams pull off "no dark colors" looks well enough, so that isn't entirely the problem, but because there's almost zero contrast between the brightness levels of the blue and the red, there's something jarring and a bit off about it. I'll be honest that the black equipment never bothered me and I much prefer it to the current blue equipment, but if the team was going to eliminate black, the better course of action would have been meeting in the middle of the black and current blue by using the navy the team had been using as an alternate... The contrast is much easier on the eyes here in my opinion, others might disagree. Personally, I'd hate to lose the Avs current shade of blue for another generic navy team, but I do think it's a better solution to accomplish what the Avs were attempting to do.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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