Tradition vs. Modernization

[Hat Boy]

Disclaimer: this is all in good fun. nobody freak out!!

In near every thread, there is a someone who claims an old logo needs to be updated or a person who claims a modern logo bucks tradition.

To find out which is more important to you, take this small test:

Is the Dallas Cowboys star an untouchable icon or an antiquated logo that cries out for modernization?

[cajunaggie08]

icon, but maybe because i live in texas

[zer0dotcom]

I'm leaning into the Icon catagory. It is a simple design, when you look at it, you know what team it is, simple and effective

[nwtrailtrekker]

while i am a modernization person, in this case, i'll say an old classic. just because it is sooo identifyable.

[steiny_ramone]

there is no definate answer. It's all going to come down to personal opinion (and perhaps in some cases allegiances). That being said, I think the logo is an icon, because begin to think of where to start the modernization.

[sc49erfan15]

It's a logo that should never be touched. Simple as that.

It's one of the best logos in the NFL. It's simple. It's perfect for a helmet. It's easily identifiable. And I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed 1,000 people, asked them "Whose logo is this?" (not even mentioning sports)...at least 750 would say the Dallas Cowboys. Pretty good, considering Letterman did the same thing and more Americans that I'd care to admit can't locate their home state on a blank map. For some reason, it just screams "Cowboys."

This is coming from a die-hard, Cowboy-hating-to-the-bone, Niners fan. Never touch it. And honestly, how do you go about modernizing it? An extra outline? Already done...what else can you do?

[ninersdd]

We all know TO's had some experiences with it before!

[winters in buffalo]

Is the Dallas Cowboys star an untouchable icon or an antiquated logo that cries out for modernization?

Neither.

Nothing's untouchable, but there'll never be a need to update the Cowboys' logo. It's simple, yet highly recognizable. Everything you'd ever strive for in a logo.

[Shumway]

I'm all for tradition, so I'd have to say the star is untouchable.

[Michael_Studebaker]

Stop living in the past and modernize that baby. Looking at that boring star makes me want to take a nap.

[Stampman]

Is the Dallas Cowboys star an untouchable icon or an antiquated logo that cries out for modernization?

Neither.

Nothing's untouchable, but there'll never be a need to update the Cowboys' logo. It's simple, yet highly recognizable. Everything you'd ever strive for in a logo.

Well put.

And if they did change it I would think it would only be tweaking.

It's a simple star--but when you add that outline and the blue--most people in the US, and probably Canada know what it means.

[STL FANATIC]

It is by no means a great logo.

I can't show most 10 year old girls that logo and have them know what city the team plays in or what the teams nickname is.

However, I can show that to most anyone who's at all familar with American football and they'll know exactly what team its for. And because of that it is a great icon.

It's full of tradition and the logo itself has no major design flaws. It even has design strengths like simplicity.

Basically, that whole combination of things makes it a logo that I don't think is great or untouchable, but one that isn't worth changing.

Basically, many designers on these boards could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys football team that is 10x better than that star. But just about NOBODY could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys, est. 1960, of the National Football League that is near as good as that star.

[winghaz]

It's an icon, and I hate the Cowboys.

[quantum]

Nothing is untouchable. However, until someone can design something better, leave it alone.

[Phil]

It is by no means a great logo.

I can't show most 10 year old girls that logo and have them know what city the team plays in or what the teams nickname is.

However, I can show that to most anyone who's at all familar with American football and they'll know exactly what team its for. And because of that it is a great icon.

It's full of tradition and the logo itself has no major design flaws. It even has design strengths like simplicity.

Basically, that whole combination of things makes it a logo that I don't think is great or untouchable, but one that isn't worth changing.

Basically, many designers on these boards could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys football team that is 10x better than that star. But just about NOBODY could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys, est. 1960, of the National Football League that is near as good as that star.

Very well said, Justin.

The Green Bay Packers verges on being a bad logo... it's a G, which doesn't make sense since you'd think to have either a GB or a P, but it is perhaps one of the most recognizable logos in all of sports.

This is not to say all logos, even icons, cannot be changed or improved. Case in point, the Chicago Blackhawks. The original logo looks quite a bit different... same idea, but the execution has improved remarkably over the years.

These days, its hard to find modern designs that might become iconic. One of the most likely candidates in my mind is the Houston Texans' logo. Simple, effective, cohesive, representative. Could last for 50 years untouched. Whereas the Charlotte Bobcats' logo will not survive ten years. "Fairly complicated" and "poorly executed" is not a recipe for success.

However, I do think the pendulum can swing too far in the other direction. I see this more or less in the corporate world today. Small companies should not try overly hard to go iconic... make sure that people know who you are first. Write out your name if you have to.

Remember, for the longest time, even Nike preferred to add its wordmark to its highly recognizable, iconic logo.

was used a lot before the more recent move to the wordmark-less logo.

[Hat Boy]

Basically, many designers on these boards could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys football team that is 10x better than that star. But just about NOBODY could design a logo for the Dallas Cowboys, est. 1960, of the National Football League that is near as good as that star.

Excellent point, STL. A lot of people forget that a logo is representative of something far beyond just the logo.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I'll go with "untouchable icon," but I'm biased because the logo is why I became a Cowboys fan as a kid.

So a 10-year old girl might not know it, but a 5-year-old boy liked it enough to pick his team based on it. FWIW.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I'll go with "untouchable icon," but I'm biased because the logo is why I became a Cowboys fan as a kid.

So a 10-year old girl might not know it, but a 5-year-old boy liked it enough to pick his team based on it. FWIW.

That's funny. That's why I was a Bengals fan until I was 10 or so. I thought the tiger stripes were cool.

While the Cowboys logo might be iconic, it's also kind of simple. How hard is it to mess up a star?

[Lumbergh]

i'd say there should be some untouchable icons, the cowboys used the star because texas is known as the lone start state, easily recognized. Other logos just need some modernization, and always will. But the simple effective logos will always stay the same. It's just like anything else in the world, if it comes out perfect and effective it ussually stays, but if there's any problem it will be pricked and proded. But in some cases the owners just modernize great logos for merchandise revenue, which never looks good 10 years after the fact.

[steiny_ramone]

Stop living in the past and modernize that baby. Looking at that boring star makes me want to take a nap.

aren't you the guy who likes the mooterus jersey? if that's the case, that doesn't surprise me one bit