Best Logo Refreshes

[Gothamite 18,801]

4 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

They wanted a better stand alone mark

 

I see.  

 

They failed.

[Gothamite 18,801]

4 hours ago, Derek said:

Just an FYI, the NC State wolf mascot that you said you like, and the Bucky you loathe, were done by the same designer.

 

Then s/he needed a better client.  Because one is an excellent update retaining the spirit of the original and the other a ham-fisted bastardization of the original. 

[mcrosby 2,472]

13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Then s/he needed a better client.  Because one is an excellent update retaining the spirit of the original and the other a ham-fisted bastardization of the original. 

 

@Gothamite, I'd love to get your feedback over on my concept post. 

[BellaSpurs 2,836]

55 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Then s/he needed a better client.  Because one is an excellent update retaining the spirit of the original and the other a ham-fisted bastardization of the original. 

It really ain’t that bad, its a good clean up from the original, how can it be a ham fisted mess up of the original, it’s almost the exact same design

[Ray Lankford 1,243]

The 90s-00s version isn't great but the old one looks like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon.

[andrewharrington 3,434]

14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I see.  

 

They failed.

 

Ouch. Got any advice for how I can suck less at my job next time?

 

[Gothamite 18,801]

49 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Ouch. Got any advice for how I can suck less at my job next time?

 

 

Sure.  But only if we talk about my many failures too. How much time do you have?  

 

Look, I know negative feedback sucks. But I also know that you’re big enough to take it. I hope you take in in the spirit in which it’s offered. And I’m pretty sure you know that we don’t hang all the blame for a bad logo on the designer; the team always deserves 50%.  At a minimum.

 

I don’t know what constraints the Islanders put on the project.  And probably never will.  I only know that the final product is a downgrade in virtually every way.  

 

Although given the Islanders’ history of questionable decisions in every single facet of their business, I think we do know one other thing: that the standard 50% of blame is almost certainly way too low in this case.  

[andrewharrington 3,434]

12 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Sure.  But only if we talk about my many failures too. How much time do you have?  

 

Look, I know negative feedback sucks. But I also know that you’re big enough to take it. I hope you take in in the spirit in which it’s offered. And I’m pretty sure you know that we don’t hang all the blame for a bad logo on the designer; the team always deserves 50%.  At a minimum.

 

I don’t know what constraints the Islanders put on the project.  And probably never will.  I only know that the final product is a downgrade in virtually every way.  

 

Although given the Islanders’ history of questionable decisions in every single facet of their business, I think we do know one other thing: that the standard 50% of blame is almost certainly way too low in this case.  

 

I’m looking for critique on why it’s a downgrade. Looking at the pieces objectively, to me, it’s a better mark in every way. It’s gone from clunky to clean by virtue of the letterforms being more visually balanced (no more fat N), aligning all the angles (no more tapered stick handle), and making the four stripes a more prominent and focal element (no more bangle bracelets choking off the bottom of the Y).

 

[Gothamite 18,801]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

I’m looking for critique on why it’s a downgrade. Looking at the pieces objectively, to me, it’s a better mark in every way. It’s gone from clunky to clean by virtue of the letterforms being more visually balanced (no more fat N), aligning all the angles (no more tapered stick handle), and making the four stripes a more prominent and focal element (no more bangle bracelets choking off the bottom of the Y). 

 

See, I think trying to square it off makes it far more clunky, not less.  The N Is no less fat, it's just now more squat.  There's a certain elegance in the old angle of the stick, and its taper, that's totally lost in the update.  The depth that taper gave to the logo.  Far from being problems, those were all the best parts of the old logo.  In fact, the whole re-design appears to be the Islanders looking for solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Moving from this to this was a substantial upgrade.

 

 

 

Aside from losing the dreadful chrome outline, shortening the stick was a good call.  It let the primary logo element stand on its own.

 

But this new one?  Too squat, too wide.  Too squared-off.  And it no longer compliments the primary logo, which may have been what the client wanted but is still a mistake.

 

 

Now, I do like the stripes doubling as tape.  That's a really clever touch, I'll give you that. 

[C-Squared 2,500]

I don't have much to contribute that hasn't already been said, but this thread turned into one of the best reads on the philosophy of design I've seen in a while.

[BrandMooreArt 3,447]

with the Islanders logo, i wonder how much recognition (equity) plays a part in perception? for context, @Gothamite i have to say im all in with @andrewharrington on this one. yes, i think there's a case to be made that an oddity or something "off" like the angle of the stick is interesting but moreover, what if the current mark were the old and then they made the switch to the original? just swapping the logos in the historic timeline? how would that be received? 

 

after decades of having this one thing be your logo and everyone recognizes that until the team tweaks it... how much does the change itself mean? no matter what direction you go in time, i wonder if a small shift like this matters more than one might expect, because you simply end up with a different version of the same idea. and whatever logo is actually better seems to not matter; it seems like the change itself dictates a degree of opinion. i think the angles, weight, shapes, balance are all very much better now — but was the logo always headed for resistance simply because it was different? 

[Gothamite 18,801]

13 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

after decades of having this one thing be your logo and everyone recognizes that until the team tweaks it... how much does the change itself mean? no matter what direction you go in time, i wonder if a small shift like this matters more than one might expect, because you simply end up with a different version of the same idea. and whatever logo is actually better seems to not matter; it seems like the change itself dictates a degree of opinion. i think the angles, weight, shapes, balance are all very much better now — but was the logo always headed for resistance simply because it was different? 

 

You raise an interesting point, one that designers and teams undoubtedly face every day.  Fans have an emotional connection to their teams that defies logic and makes any changes difficult.  I don't really like the Packers' logo, but I sure as hell don't want them to change it.

 

But in this case?  Eh, I don't think so.  I don't care one whit about the Islanders (or, to be fair, the NHL in general).  I have no emotional connection to the team or any associations, positive or negative, with any of their logos.

 

I just see this as a downgrade, for all the reasons I stated.  I think the choice to make the logo squatter and more square also made it much more ugly.  The old angles are more pleasing to my eye not because they reminded me of anything but because they are more pleasing to my eye.

[Survival79 1,124]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I think the choice to make the logo squatter and more square also made it much more ugly.

 

The black logo is more square than the blue logo.

 

 

[el_gmac 79]

 

 

 

[Gothamite 18,801]

7 hours ago, Survival79 said:

 

The black logo is more square than the blue logo.

 

 

 

Yes, and that’s why it works better. I’ve argued before that squares are the best overall shapes for cap logos, the same could be said for the front of sweaters. 

 

I meant more squared-off, for want of a better term, bringing the angle of the stick parallel with the bottom of the letters.

[Gothamite 18,801]

7 hours ago, el_gmac said:

 

 

 

 

Ditching a gradient is almost always the right choice, but I have to say it really bothers me that the flames now change color when they pass through the hoop. That doesn’t make much sense. 

 

Man, am I the town contrarian here or what?  

[WavePunter 2,117]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, and that’s why it works better. I’ve argued before that squares are the best overall shapes for cap logos, the same could be said for the front of sweaters. 

 

I meant more squared-off, for want of a better term, bringing the angle of the stick parallel with the bottom of the letters.

I'm with Goth in terms of having no dog in the fight.. not an isles fan, and don't follow hockey as much as I'd like to.. however, to me, the update is just a bit cleaner and more "correct", and therefore, more pleasing to my eye.. I get the "charm" that quirky elements can bring to a logo (especially one as simple and minimalist as this example), but the things that gave it that charm were arguably just wrong, which makes me favor the new version.. also, really the only thing making the new version more squat seems to be nothing more than the angle of the stick's blade.. so, I don't view that as an overall change in the logo itself, but rather a slight tweak to one small element that actually corrects one of the "wrongs" of the original, and can possibly aid in correct logo usage by outside entities who may, for whatever reason, have trouble aligning it properly on merchandise.. if nothing else, the update at makes sense

[Survival79 1,124]

I've been staring at these Islanders logos for far too long.

 

This is all I can think about when I look at them.

[hettinger_rl 1,169]

On 11/30/2018 at 7:31 PM, bluegrasswildcat said:

Although this is an update of a defunct logo, the University of Kentucky's Wildcat from 1989 to 1994 was a wildcat reaching over the interlocking "U" and "K". This logo was, however, reviewed critically due to the mascot having a tongue shaped like a certain inappropriate body part. An update in 1994 saw the wildcat change to gold fur and made the tongue less phallic, which is a great upgrade in my eyes. This was also the wildcat logo I experienced growing up, and it holds a dear place in my heart from when I was a child.

 

Here are the 2 logos.

 

And they dropped one paw pad on the large paw. 

[Red Wolf 4,398]

I really don't like the Heat update. I know gradients are bad and all, but I liked that the old logo looked more like a fireball. The updated version looks too much like a busted basketball to me.