UW Huskies Logo

[andrewharrington]

^ He said it. A graphic designer looks over that page of logos, and instinctly chooses the logo that shows the best line quality, best execution, best positive/negative relationship, best balance, best reproducibility, and so on, which is, far and away, the current husky logo and most recent W logo.

Alumni Joe and Jane, however, don't understand the ins and outs of design and application. They say, "I like the logo we had when I went to school there, so bring it back because I'm closed-minded, and Robo-Dog is the result of my ama mater selling out to Nike."

They don't understand identities must be kept up to date. As design principles have evolved for the better, so too must the identities of the past. Some iconic images need no updates, like the Texas Longhorn, Sparky the Sun Devil, the Minnesota M, or even the Washington W, for example, but those are exceptions because they were so well designed at first inception.

Designers have realized that photo-realism and hand sketching is not conducive to an athletic brand. It's inconsistent, hard to reproduce, and just plain ugly in many cases. Bucky Badger? He was updated perfectly, and few made a stink about it. The Boston College Eagle? Same deal.

The 1979 and 1995 Huskies are good artistic renderings, but they look they belong in a sunny Bob Ross landscape, perched atop a mountain, over a flowing river, sitting next to a happy pine tree. They just aren't iconic enough to carry a large athletic brand. The W is, and the current Husky is. It looks unmistakably like a Husky, not a weasel (dumb lady), and it's icy stare and closed mouth are stoic and regal. It's an intimidating image, and a great icon for an athletic program. Nike and UW are right in this case.

[leopard88]

^ He said it.

Which one of us is the "he"? Avenger or me?

[Avenger]

Trust me- working in design for years and now at an advertising agency, I am well aware of the need to work to make sure the general public is accounted for.

I guess my point is, the logo isn't a gross departure from their history, it isn't costing them merchandise sales (if anything is, it's the poor performance of their football program), and I think the program is smart to tolerate some early grumblings and avoid a knee-jerk reaction to change back to a past logo.

I firmly believe that a brand such as UDub's needs to remain contemporary and fresh, and I have no doubts that the "weasel" mark will have more longevity in consitantly delivering that. In five years, very few will look back and long for the 1995 logo, and Washington's brand will be better off for it.

As for the ball and glove logo, not only do I not care for it visually, I think they're going to hurt their brand badly in future by putting it in their regular rotation. I understand that the fans are feeling nostalgic [de-sic'ed ] for the glory days, but that mark isn't timeless enough to serve them forever (ie, Yankees, Red Sox), nor does it paint them as a forward moving brand with a commitment to the future. I'm sure out-of-the-gate, the sales will be good and the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive, but I think the organization's identity will be clouded. From a branding standpoint, I think their ideal course of action would have been to stick with what they've had for the past couple years, and had some on-field success with it. I know it's easier said than done, but falling back on to past accomplishments won't serve them well in the years to come.

I think the most successful uniform design in recent memory is the Denver Broncos (designed by Nike, coincidently enough). Locally, their old look was considered untouchable and the thought of getting rid of the orange jerseys and D logo was sacreligious to most. But the marketing people behind the change were very smart and it was executed well. Throw in a couple Super Bowl victories in the mix, and suddenly the merchandise sales are at their highest point in history, especially nationally. That, and the organization has a visual identity to serve the brand for years and years to come.

[leopard88]

Avenger,

Thanks for the well thought out reply (as opposed to the "screw you" response that is often fired off when disagreements arise).

I agree that some marks are "timeless" and, therefore, probably untouchable. I think the hard part is figuring out which ones those are, because the line is anything but bright. I have no particular attachment to UW or the Brewers, so I can't speak for their fans' and/or alums' attachment to the old logos. What may be ready for an update to you and me may be the untouchable classic to those closer to the scene. I think that is what must be kept in mind when taking the leap into the future.

That being said, UW's 2001 logo doesn't seem that radical to me. Perhaps the way to avoid the backlash would have been to couple it with the W, which is still used on the football helmets anyway (even though the rest of the uniform has been Nike-ized). The one thing the new logo certainly accomplished was to distance UW's look from UConn's (which really does need an update, since there is nothing else like an initial to go with it).

As for the Broncos, I will concede that I hated the new unis and logos at first, but they have grown on me. Maybe that is because it was the Broncos decided to "shove" it down my throat.

leopard88

P.S. Since you are the "duke of beer pong" I want to raise a pet peeve. Specifically, how did beer pong evolve into something that doesn't even involve paddles? Back in my day [he says, while rocking slowly and whittling], we used ping pong paddles to hit the ball into our opponents' cups. What is going on with you kids?

P.P.S. Post No. 500. I REALLY have to get back to work.

[Gothamite]

As for the ball and glove logo, not only do I not care for it visually, I think they're going to hurt their brand badly in future by putting it in their regular rotation. I understand that the fans are feeling nostalgic [de-sic'ed ] for the glory days, but that mark isn't timeless enough to serve them forever (ie, Yankees, Red Sox), nor does it paint them as a forward moving brand with a commitment to the future. I'm sure out-of-the-gate, the sales will be good and the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive, but I think the organization's identity will be clouded. From a branding standpoint, I think their ideal course of action would have been to stick with what they've had for the past couple years, and had some on-field success with it. I know it's easier said than done, but falling back on to past accomplishments won't serve them well in the years to come.

I think it's more than just nostalgia - I think it's a legitimate response to a bland and uninspiring scheme.

We didn't hear these same cries for the old logo back when the Brewers were using the "Motre Bame" scheme. There were some, to be sure, but not many. Merchandise sales were better, as well, if you believe the retailers around the stadium. And the team wasn't any better - in fact, it was worse than it is now.

When the Brewers changed their logo in 1999, all of a sudden many fans (including myself) started to say "Hey, maybe that glove wasn't so bad after all...."

[eastcoasthusky]

I've always seen the W as the logo for the school, everything else was just stuff they put on t-shirts

I ran into Washington's volleyball team at a restaurant last night at A&M after they just had won their regional match and earned a berth into the volleyball final 4. They were wearing windbreakers and the only logo on them was the W logo

hey cajunaggie, there's some lookers on the UW volleyball team. I find Christal Morrison to be really cute, but I heard she's dating Jon Brockman on the bball team.

And Go volleyball. Second Final Four. Most successful team on Montlake.

[matthew516]

I have no explanation for how it happened, but I fell in love with Christal last year. I've watched like one game, but she stole my heart.

[eastcoasthusky]

I was browsing the article again and the one UWAA member called it the Nike nimrod dog. I brought back horrible memories of this lady who would come into the Daily decked in all purple with this poster board with all this negative stuff towards the new logo. She would go on and on and about it.

My friend worked with the promotions department and people would call them, they people who give out pom poms and free pizza, and complain about stuff like this, too.

[cajunaggie08]

I've always seen the W as the logo for the school, everything else was just stuff they put on t-shirts

I ran into Washington's volleyball team at a restaurant last night at A&M after they just had won their regional match and earned a berth into the volleyball final 4. They were wearing windbreakers and the only logo on them was the W logo

hey cajunaggie, there's some lookers on the UW volleyball team. I find Christal Morrison to be really cute, but I heard she's dating Jon Brockman on the bball team.

And Go volleyball. Second Final Four. Most successful team on Montlake.

Id definatly say there were some lookers. I hadnt felt THAT short in awhile though haha. . It was funny when they asked me what they should order at a BBQ restaurant and i of couse said brisket. Then they replied "what is that?" i dont think ive ever heard that question before living in texas

[RamblinGamblinTiger]

I just whipped these up after reading this thread....what do you guys think?

[leopard88]

I just whipped these up after reading this thread....what do you guys think?

That is a great compromise. They look fantastic. Send them to Seattle now so we can avoid riots like those during the WTO meetings.

[tommytimp]

Too much subliminal swoosh in the new logo. I wonder why.

Perhaps they should go back to Percival Algernon the Sun Dodger.

[Avenger]

Too much subliminal swoosh in the new logo. I wonder why.

You're kidding me, right? You weren't one of those people that thought the Broncos uniforms made Nike swooshes when they're in the three point stance, were you?

[Broken Record]

Too much subliminal swoosh in the new logo. I wonder why.

Perhaps they should go back to Percival Algernon the Sun Dodger.

I think this would be perfect.

[Phil]

Avenger's hit the nail on the head here.

The current look is miles beyond anything they've had in the past, and to go back now would be foolhardy and would sabotage all the efforts they've made since then to establish a viable brand into the future.

If they want a solid brand to call their own the next time the wins roll in (and can cash in on merchandise sales), they'd be best off to pay the price now - rebuff the nostalgic, and build on a brand that is solid.

"It doesn't look like crap? Darn that evil meddling corporate giant that gave us a respectable-looking brand!"

[hawk36]

Thumbs down on the newer look. Right or wrong, it looks Nike and that's overdone. I like the head-on Husky over the W but maybe just clean it up slightly. The weasel is too slick.

[RedEye]

Man it has become so cliche to blame Nike or call a logo Nike-ish.

The new logo has energy, movement, stoicism..... all traits you want an athletic brand to have...who gives a flip if it was designed by Nike or Mikie?

The new logo, in 10 years, will be the defacto fav. of almost all Huskies fans because they will have had many years to assimilate tradition with the new mark and I bet in 10 years we wont be having "those damn Nike-bastards" conversations about it either.

Nostalgic designs become so due to time and association with the entity...given many years this logo will be the fav.

[Phil]

Man it has become so cliche to blame Nike or call a logo Nike-ish.

The new logo has energy, movement, stoicism..... all traits you want an athletic brand to have...who gives a flip if it was designed by Nike or Mikie?

The new logo, in 10 years, will be the defacto fav. of almost all Huskies fans because they will have had many years to assimilate tradition with the new mark and I bet in 10 years we wont be having "those damn Nike-bastards" conversations about it either.

Nostalgic designs become so due to time and association with the entity...given many years this logo will be the fav.

Exactly!

Nike or not, it's better. Plain and simple better design.

What's so bad about Nike anyway? Sure they're a corporate giant, but does it matter if they're producing good stuff?

The worst thing we can do is rebel against this kind of stuff, which is actually of good quality, and then embrace the crap they do, like those differently-coloured shoulders we saw a few weeks ago in college football.

[JQK]

The new logo has energy, movement, stoicism.....

THis is what the people of UW are saying the new logo does NOT have....

It looks like it hit some of the kind bud at a frat party.....

[Gothamite]

What's so bad about Nike anyway? Sure they're a corporate giant, but does it matter if they're producing good stuff?

You're presuming that people don't like it strictly because it's Nike. I don't think that's the case.

I personally judge Nike designs on their own merits, as I do all designs. For example, I'm an Oregon alum. I think the helmet logo Nike designed is brilliant. Simply marvelous. But the rest of the uniforms? Just when I think they can't get any worse, a new one is unveiled and moves the "sucky" markers another ten yards.

In my opinion, Nike doesn't produce very much "good stuff." They want to be on the edge, they want to experiment. Most experiments fail. When they do succeed, I do see them getting credit for it on these boards.