jefrsn

New EKU Identity

Recommended Posts

Hey, you made a logo that looks great! Good for you. I guess there's a first time for everything.

I really would love for you to explain to everyone why you consider certain logos cartoons and not good design. Your stance on the UKU identity is perfectly clear (11 herbs and spices). You have also called out Dan Simon for the Toledo Mud Hens makeover.

How would you have designed the identity, if the school was adamant about keeping "The Colonel" in it? The previous logo that was shown, albeit an illustration more than a logo, showed a man who looked a cross between the KFC spokesman and Ole Miss' Rebel.

How would you have designed the Mud Hen? Would you have made him much more realistic looking, like a Dick Sakahara drawing?

Why don't you list some examples of work (other than your own) that you truly feel are works of good design, and not just cartoons. Instead of spamming us with your blog, why don't you show us what inspires you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you have designed the identity, if the school was adamant about keeping "The Colonel" in it? The previous logo that was shown, albeit an illustration more than a logo, showed a man who looked a cross between the KFC spokesman and Ole Miss' Rebel.

http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio/logos/logos.html

I would have had him drawn more abstract like the Larry Mahan Boots logo (and without white hair for sure)... veer away from the obvious KFC reference.

Or like the Polo poster... http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio/posters/posters.html

Remember the old (good version) of the Wichita Wranglers logo? That's another option...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

How would you have designed the Mud Hen? Would you have made him much more realistic looking, like a Dick Sakahara drawing?

Nope. I would have cleaned up the current logo, made him a bit more graphic and went with that.

Dan made a mess.

FYI- Thanks for asking. I really appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh, I'd welcome the chance to dialog on some interesting subjects?

Tom-

how did you get into the business?

What do you charge for primary? secondary? uniform? playing surface? web sites?

What type of proposals do you deliver to your clients?

Do you hire younger designers?

I would LOVE to answer those questions and more for you.

And I only mention Josh becasue he's the only one with the scroti to try and go beyond the bs insult stuff of the slapshot dude or the conehaaeds dude... thanks for have the balls jsh..

But in return show some respect for the accomplishments and if you dislike the Bobcats, cool. I think it sucks becasue... that's perfect...

Now... back to the EKU logo? Do you think work like this is making the sports design profession better? Do you think the toledo Mud Hens is? I don't becasue I don't believe they resemble logos. I believe they are decenlty drawn cartoons and that is not graphic design.

Forget about me. Who cares? Try and distance yourselves from your dislike of me and if you were going to present the EKU logo to a potential client or employer, you wouldn't be somewhat concerned this logo looks like Colonel Sanders?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Well the team name is Colonels, and central Kentucky is without doubt permanently tied to the Colonel Sanders and KFC images. Thus, it fits the bill and it's well-rendered. That's about all an athletic department of a medium-sized state university with a shi++y logo would ask for. They probably got exactly what they paid for, so more power to them. They upgraded their visual identity. Game over.

Now about 'decently-drawn cartoons' not being graphic design. How so? Just because a cartoon doesn't fit your opinion of what a logo should be doesn't mean it's not a logo. I've seen plenty of images that I would have never thought to be logos, yet the designer created a really great visual identity based around said image.

Graphic design falls into two categories; it can be fine art, or it can be visual communication. Logos and visual identities are generally visual communication. They are meant to send a specific message to a specific audience, e.g., a sports team may want to send the message that they are traditional and people-oriented to their fans, and they may do this with a classic-looking logo from someone like Todd Radom. Graphic Design can also be fine art. In this case, it is intended, plain and simply, to make a statement, without regard for who will see it, how many will see it, when they'll see it, or how well it will be received. It's intended to simply make a public or private statement. An example of this might be a collage, poster, or t-shirt campaign, or anything.

Point is, who are you to say what is or isn't 'graphic design?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the guy in the logo has white hair. Yes, he has one of those doofy neckties. However, he doesn't have glasses like Colonel Sanders, and I've never seen a picture of Colonel Sanders with a cowboy hat. It's a bit of a stretch to compare the two.

sanders_h.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise, you should respect anyone's ability to render an opinion.

[edit: another spamming attempt]

OK hotshot, here are my three opinions:

1. As an EKU alumni with both a Bachelors and Masters degrees, I like the logo.

2. I think your spamming in these forums suck.

3. I like the 1999 World Series program.

How about that for an opinion?

But, I'm betting you won't reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think everyone on this board needs to chill the f out. too many first grade style recess fights with feelings getting hurt and silly groundsless insults being tossed both ways here.

for everyone who thinks bricknivy is a cocky prick, clearly thats not his intention, he's trying to elevate the discussion around here to a 'pull no punches' debate on these logos where you literally look for the negative, and don't concern yourself with the feelings or emotions of the 'arteest' involved in the process ... this is extremely important. This is how designers, artists, and people grow. When showing any logo or any design, you're first question when showing it to peers should be ... what sucks about it. They shouldn't have to go through the retarded game of telling you how good your color choices are, or how great your rendering style is ... come on ... pats on the ass are for babies and over-paid athletes, not serious professionals. Those that are going to be too involved with emotional concerns need to understand its not about YOU, its about the WORK. get over it and participate in progress, or don't come to play ... just don't stand on the sidelines and complain that the game is too tough.

also, for everyone who thinks bricknivy is a cocky prick, clearly he is. sorry man, gameplan does good solild work, well worthy of some respect, and you've clearly done well to get your work and philosophy on design in front of many of the right eyes and ears to truly start impacting the industry ... but coming on here and demanding respect isn't the way to get it (i understand you're not here to make friends, but if you want to really have these kinds of discussions, i think it'd do well to let everyone know their welcome to it). I'm not telling you to change who you are and start humbling yourself in front of the masses .. but seriously, the name dropping and the "i'm so important" attitude is comical to a level nearing ron burgundy's. just shelve that, and i think alot of these people will have a much easier time slipping into the important candid debates you want to have.

ok, i'll step off the soapbox and stop pretending i got it all figured out .. its a fun game though, and the false sense of superiority is quite delicious.

as for EKU ...

not a BAD logo really ... it has relevance to the industry and it places the school at a much more respectable level than they were at. Also the fans will be easily able to rally around this image as a symbol for their team .. which is ... the most important attribute of any sports logo.

As for critiquing it on a purely artistic and design standard .. i think coming at it from a schwab angle would be perfect. I think something iconic and timeless is alway far more valuable than something cartoony and "drawn". The only problem with that approach is this ... the learning curve for emotional attachment to these marks has a much higher payoff in a much longer timeframe. Many clubs aren't interested in having patience and allowing a mark like the 'detroit red wings', to gain the attachment and importance is has to its fans ... they would prefer the much shorter response time that is associated with a MudHens styled logo. And maybe its the burden of the designer to educate the team on WHY this approach is right, but many clients have a 5 year business plan that they are trying to justify and really, thats all that concerns them. Its sick, but thats why logos, jerseys and colors are constantly changing ... I'm looking at you Houston Rockets. The bigger picture is lost .. and as such, we see trends dominate the market, not good design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. It's always more valuable to engage in a debate rather than a shi+ tossing contest, no matter how good you are at either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the one someone did for the Rebels - Univ. of Mississippi.

Still nice lookings, clean & simple logos. The text choice/create is nice also.

I like it a lot!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a nice upgrade, one less horrible logo i have to stare at throughout the course of an Ohio Valley Conference season. Even though they usually kick our butts in about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try and distance yourselves from your dislike of me...

I don't dislike you, Tom. I find everything about you mesmerizing... particularly the exceedingly humble manner in which you trumpet your accomplishments. :rolleyes:

Nobody is of a mind that you can't have your own opinions about the state of the sports branding industry, Tom. It stands to reason that you would... you work in the industry. What many folks - myself included - find problematic is the smug, condescending and laughably self-important manner in which you make your opinion known.

Case in point: You actually have the audacity to claim on your company's website that, "Gameplan first developed the 'secondary logo' while working on the Sacramento Kings team identity back in 1992".

This would be an outrageously egotistical statement all by itself. What makes it truly comical is when you opine in this very web community that "... the best NHL uniform in a runaway is the Blackhawks red jersey. The incredible indianhead crest and the "C" with the tomahawks secondary logos on the sleeves (the best secondary in sports).

What gives, Tom? Is Gameplan Creative in possession of a time machine? How else do you explain the Chicago Blackhawks having used the "Tomahawk C" secondary logo since the mid-1950s? I mean, either secondary logos have been in existance since the Blackhawks started sporting the "Tomahawk C" or Gameplan developed them in 1992. Which is it?

In point of fact, we both know that professional sports teams have utilized "secondary logos" since long before 1992. The Blackhawks are just one example. Yet, in an effort to tout yourself and your accomplishments, you've seen fit to engage in foolishly self-aggrandizing behavior. This is but one example of the over-the-top persona you've chosen to wrap yourself in while interacting with other members of this community.

Bottom line? From the very first time you logged on to this site, you've chosen to conduct yourself in a manner that is far less than professional... and beneath what most anyone would consider civil behavior. You're entitled to do so. However, don't presume that you can engage in such behavior and be treated with the utmost respect from this community's membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! There's a lot of bickering on this thread. I think the new EKU logo looks great. It's ob-

viously what the school wanted or they wouldn't have forked out the money. I don't know what

Gameplan has done overall, But the Silverman Group did a nice job on EKU. I don't think it's necessary to try and badmouth another company. The bobcats may be the weakest of all the NBA logos, next to the wizards, of course. EKU obviously wanted a Colonel Sanders-like guy and it was well executed. So what's the problem! If it was drawn poorly, that would be another story. Who is this brick guy anyway?? Who died and left him logo expert??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to think Tom and a Silverman Rep could settle this the only civilized way we know of in the Art Guy Community:

Thunderdome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a real danger in defining what is "graphic design" and what isn't.

Any of the "cartoon" logos being referred to here still use a sense of layout, typography and graphic elements. Just because you don't feel that type of design doesn't make it bad design.

To be honest I have seen some gameplan stuff that I don't like... I wouldn't say it isn't graphic design.... and it isn't necessarily bad graphic design either.

The thing you as a professional should know is that you design for your market first and yourself second...sometimes we get lucky and they both coexist. But when you design for a lower level sports team or league, you design for the market and what the image that team wants to relay to it's fanbase. If that is a fun, cooky Mudhen, and you pull it off so that the kids and the market enjoy the logo then you have succeeded. If you design the look for an MLB level team and apply it to a A, AA, or even AAA team you miss the mark on what that brand is supposed to accomplish unless that team wants a MLB style logo.... maybe you don't understand what these clients are asking for since you aren't in on the design prcoess... but don't trash other agencies...

You have made Game Plan's image take a dive in many eyes my friend.... you have no idea how many potential client's eyes have perused this forum.

BTW I have been doing this design thing for 12+ years now and I would never treat fellow designers with the disrespect you have show to Dan Simon and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've worked with Robert Johnson from BET on the Bobcats, Jon Bon Jovi and the Soul, Mark Cuban at the Mavs , and Pat Riley at the Heat... why wouldn't Dan Snyder's team work with Gameplan Creative?

Dude, we've worked hard to move the meter with our brand identites. We try and not crack out formula stuff that you see in the Minor Leagues.  And when I try and point out--- to get this business more respect  and collectively move it to another level, I come to this site, read waht the "designers" think is good work and want to throw up!!!

Of course I cannot tell you anything about it.

Ummmm.....I would never run around saying I'm responsible for the assault upon the senses that is the Bobcat's id package.

I've been looking for this for a while, but I finally found the .pdf about the branding of the Bobcats I found once upon a time. Love the vectorized graphics sitting there for the taking too... ;)

http://www.nba.com/media/bobcats/Bobcats_Brand.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.