Detroit Lions Rebranding Concept

[CreamSoda]

Not a fan.

Way too cartoony to ever work for the Detroit Lions.

The uniforms are decent at best.

Seconds, its a blatant rip off of that other Lion logo posted.

[GFB]

Just wanted to bump this to respond to some questions and comments....

I disagree with the LMU comparision. GFB and AH's Lion is saying "Hey!!! Aaron Rodgers! I'm going to teeth-rip your motherf-cking throat out!", while the LMU Lion is saying "Look at me, aren't I the most regal summabitch you've ever had the pleasure of laying your eyes upon? Stroke my magnificent mane and see what magic it possesses."

I laughed when I read this... these are my thoughts too. If I changed the direction of the lion and changed the color, this wouldn't even be in the discussion.

Not a bad concept. With the reduced sleeve area, the TV numbers probably should be moved to the shoulder. The logo is nice, but the uniform's simple design doesn't match up. A secondary logo would help. I'd prefer silver trim rather than silver numbers on the dark jerseys, but that is minor. I don't believe those solid color socks are going to fly with the regular uniforms.

Still, a solid concept.

Ahah! On the contrary my friend. I think that when you have a more complicated logo, simple uniform designs are the best. If you have a ton of piping and panels running in each and every direction, it becomes too overpowering and the logo becomes muddled down. If you have a simpler design, then you can get away with uniforms that are more on the crazy side.

I'll echo everyone on here who loves this concept. Clearly, it's top-notch. I just don't think that it would stand the test of time.

I think if the club were to greatly deviate from its historic leaping lion, fans -- and people on this board -- will start calling for its return within two seasons, if not sooner.

That said, nice work. It's a classy concept.

I second this. It's rendered very cohesively and thoughtfully, and your reasoning behind it is solid. The eyeball should be re done, it should look determined and detailed. Right now it looks kind of oblique and hollow, and too--playful. The eye in the Lions' old prototype displays that ferociousness and determination really well:

Everything else looks great. The wordmark is also solid.

However, I cannot see the Detroit Lions actually using this, because of what gosioux said, and it's similarity to LMU. I just don't think the NFL would let that slide.

As a concept for another Lions' team, by all means. If the NFL expanded and had a team called the Royals--by all means. Meaning it is professional level work, of course.

The current Detroit Lions are also one of the few teams that does not fall into the 'flying head' football logo category. I think what they have now is timeless, it works, and is easily recognizable. Sure it adheres to a losing history, but it's still a classic. Maybe a full bodied lion could work, in a completely different pose.

Regardless, great job, always a fan of both you guys' work. Keep it up.

I don't know if I agree with the statement that the concept lion looks more fearsome. That logo looks like it is squinting or something. And I'm not saying that my eye is free of problems...

Not a fan.

Way too cartoony to ever work for the Detroit Lions.

The uniforms are decent at best.

Seconds, its a blatant rip off of that other Lion logo posted.

Yep. That's what I did. You caught me.

Or my lion could have been been drawn by hand from this photo....

But you know, either one.

[bohob]

Great work. The logo package is downright flawless. I'm not usually one to say that either, I usually find a least one thing to critique, but you've stumped me on this one. As far as the uniforms go, IMO I would like to see a more modern design, since this is supposed to be a revolution. Even though you went classic with the uniforms, I can certainly say they are clean and well-executed. In addition, I think a modern uniform would contrast the throwback alternate more, thus increasing its impact. Also, on a technical note, NFL socks have to be white on the bottom. Although I don't agree with that rule, it is a rule. Finally, I just wanted to say your presentation is fantastic. Great job.

[qbeezy313]

Nice job on the logo. Being from the CITY of Detroit that's real talk. I must admit I originally thought it was an LMU rip-off but I'm happy to see it was based on that photo. Well done.

I would only recommend simplifying the logo as much as possible. Maybe reference the Houston Texans or Memphis Grizzlies. Stripping the mark to contain only the most necessary lines will make it more dominant and it would be real-world production ready (example: very small embroidery on a team polo).

A great logo should look good very large or very small...

[dgnmrwrw]

"pop" is a word the design-uneducated use that designers hate. let's see you make it "pop"

Speaking as a member of the "design-educated" with a BGD from a 4-year university College of Design, I have absolutely no problem with the word "pop," and I don't know anyone who has a legitimate beef with it.

But back on topic... It's a fantastic logo. It's well rendered, it's balanced, it's dynamic, all of that stuff. And it is VERY similar to that Loyola logo, but I don't have a problem with that. I can tell by looking at it that it's not a rip, it's just similar. Not a problem. So for my money, the logo is great.

The problem I have is the way it's integrated into the Lions identity. I can understand what you're saying about busy, modern elements in the jersey and pants. Maybe really modern uniforms paired with that really modern logo WOULD be visual overkill. But right now, they style of the helmet does not match the style of the uniforms, or really even the style of the type and wordmark. Right now the only thing tying the helmet to the uniforms is the color choice. Granted, that's important and it does go a long way toward unifying the identity, but to me the visual languages being used in the logo on the helmet and the rest of the package is completely different.

So I love the logo, but right now it doesn't fit the uniforms or the rest of the identity. I think you could do a very minimal update to the uniforms and it would really help pull this all together.

[Davidson]

"pop" is a word the design-uneducated use that designers hate. let's see you make it "pop"

Speaking as a member of the "design-educated" with a BGD from a 4-year university College of Design, I have absolutely no problem with the word "pop," and I don't know anyone who has a legitimate beef with it.

i have an issue with it. it explains nothing. im not so sure that its a word for the 'design-uneducated' so much as people who cannot express themselves verbally. its a way of saying something has/ lacks a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (literally and appropriately 'i dont know what').

'it just doesnt pop' says nothing and makes no attempt to be constructive.

[quantum]

"pop" is a word the design-uneducated use that designers hate. let's see you make it "pop"

Speaking as a member of the "design-educated" with a BGD from a 4-year university College of Design, I have absolutely no problem with the word "pop," and I don't know anyone who has a legitimate beef with it.

i have an issue with it. it explains nothing. im not so sure that its a word for the 'design-uneducated' so much as people who cannot express themselves verbally. its a way of saying something has/ lacks a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (literally and appropriately 'i dont know what').

'it just doesnt pop' says nothing and makes no attempt to be constructive.

"Make it pop" sounds like a license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion. You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate. I've heard designers use the term pop, so objections to it sound like a personal objection more than an industry peeve. There is a reason the client came to you instead of others or doing it themselves. Act like you're the expert and ask follow up questions. Use the opportunity to educate the client.

[dgnmrwrw]

"Make it pop" sounds like a license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion. You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate. I've heard designers use the term pop, so objections to it sound like a personal objection more than an industry peeve. There is a reason the client came to you instead of others or doing it themselves. Act like you're the expert and ask follow up questions. Use the opportunity to educate the client.

Completely agreed. While using the phrase may not convey the most information or convey it in the clearest way, the person critiquing is saying that while all the elements are good, they aren't coming together in an especially effective or memorable way. Maybe not the best critique, but still a valid critique. There is doubtless a bit of a "je ne sais quoi" element to it, but designers are forced to deal with that sort of input a lot. It's the designer's job to find a way to use ANY feedback he or she gets to improve the design so that the client no longer experiences said lack of pop.

[Davidson]

"pop" is a word the design-uneducated use that designers hate. let's see you make it "pop"

Speaking as a member of the "design-educated" with a BGD from a 4-year university College of Design, I have absolutely no problem with the word "pop," and I don't know anyone who has a legitimate beef with it.

i have an issue with it. it explains nothing. im not so sure that its a word for the 'design-uneducated' so much as people who cannot express themselves verbally. its a way of saying something has/ lacks a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (literally and appropriately 'i dont know what').

'it just doesnt pop' says nothing and makes no attempt to be constructive.

"Make it pop" sounds like a license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion. You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate. I've heard designers use the term pop, so objections to it sound like a personal objection more than an industry peeve. There is a reason the client came to you instead of others or doing it themselves. Act like you're the expert and ask follow up questions. Use the opportunity to educate the client.

i dont doubt that designers use the term. what i am saying is that it is a pointless term that expresses nothing.

"You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate." - no, i dont know what they are trying to communicate, this is entirely my point. this is akin to saying 'make it better' only without the qualitative nature, indeed 'make it good' is more apt. whilst i understand the sentiment, these things are entirely relative and give you no information.

my personal objections aside, its neither here nor there whether a client uses the term (and to be honest ive never heard this from a client although ive heard many equally asinine things). the point is that in critiquing somebody's work, to say 'it just doesnt pop'/ 'why not make it pop' or any other variation is not a helpful thing to say. indeed your extrapolation of the term "license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion" is equally unhelpful. how should his lions head stand out more? and in what way?

i understand what is meant by 'pop', i just think its a totally redundant and irritating idiom thats embedded itself into the vernacular of design. people should be specific when giving constructive criticism.

[quantum]

"pop" is a word the design-uneducated use that designers hate. let's see you make it "pop"

Speaking as a member of the "design-educated" with a BGD from a 4-year university College of Design, I have absolutely no problem with the word "pop," and I don't know anyone who has a legitimate beef with it.

i have an issue with it. it explains nothing. im not so sure that its a word for the 'design-uneducated' so much as people who cannot express themselves verbally. its a way of saying something has/ lacks a certain 'je ne sais quoi' (literally and appropriately 'i dont know what').

'it just doesnt pop' says nothing and makes no attempt to be constructive.

"Make it pop" sounds like a license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion. You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate. I've heard designers use the term pop, so objections to it sound like a personal objection more than an industry peeve. There is a reason the client came to you instead of others or doing it themselves. Act like you're the expert and ask follow up questions. Use the opportunity to educate the client.

i dont doubt that designers use the term. what i am saying is that it is a pointless term that expresses nothing.

"You may not like the term, but you know what the person is trying to communicate." - no, i dont know what they are trying to communicate, this is entirely my point. this is akin to saying 'make it better' only without the qualitative nature, indeed 'make it good' is more apt. whilst i understand the sentiment, these things are entirely relative and give you no information.

my personal objections aside, its neither here nor there whether a client uses the term (and to be honest ive never heard this from a client although ive heard many equally asinine things). the point is that in critiquing somebody's work, to say 'it just doesnt pop'/ 'why not make it pop' or any other variation is not a helpful thing to say. indeed your extrapolation of the term "license by the client to have the designer make the design stand out in some fashion" is equally unhelpful. how should his lions head stand out more? and in what way?

i understand what is meant by 'pop', i just think its a totally redundant and irritating idiom thats embedded itself into the vernacular of design. people should be specific when giving constructive criticism.

As for critiquing work, yes, JQK (or anyone else for that matter) could be more specific. And the term pop to me means less bland. At least that's how I interpret it. I've never heard the term used to mean "make it less flashy" or "make it more conservative". My point being you have some idea what direction to go in, even if it isn't specific. Then again, I find the term cartoony irritating because almost all logos have the same vector illustration look. Bottom line is, there are ways to educate people in how to provide feedback, and using the term uneducated in a snippy response isn't the best way to illicit that feedback. You certainly wouldn't behave that way with a client.

[Nemesis]

Can we 86 the hijack?

Back on topic,

This is an AWESOME design and presentation. I would have zero problem with the Lions adopting any and all of this.

Not going to happen unfortunatly, but it's always nice to dream.

Bravo.

[littlefox]

Again, nice work, Matt-- after reading through the replies, I'd like to also share my two cents:

Obviously, everyone immediately noticed the similarity to the LMU logo. While it's true that a lion is a lion is a lion, the striping in the mane seems to push the trademark-infringement line (not that I would know what that line is). Then again, Boise St. and Western Michigan's broncos are awfully reminiscent of Denver's.

Many posters have critiqued the eye, which could use some slight tweaking, such as definitely making it smaller, or with less guyliner. While the empty eye redesign makes it less "cartoony", I kind of like the round pupil. Also--just a thought--my tiger housekitty has white rings around his eyes; maybe this could be incorporated into a touch-up.

As to the uniform itself-- I am a HUGE fan of this design. Silver numbers are so much better, and I really like how they call upon the throw-backs. While I did kind of like the "traditional" sleeve stripes, with the way Reebok stitches through sleeve stripes w/o consideration--ie. the Steelers--I guess they wouldn't be missed much. Thumbs-up to the pants stripe, too. And I really do like all-blue socks-- it's too bad they need to be half white. The sharpie-marker/electrical tape black must be banished for eternity along with Millen. That crap was like the Packers or Bears incorporating teal into their uniforms.

On to the helmet-- this is where there's a lot of room to work with. Personally, I find this design surprisingly refreshing. It's clean, and though I don't know how intentional this was, the mostly-silver logo has a lightness in weight that also harkens to the throwback helmet. While I personally like helmet stripes (a la bulky sleeve stripes), I had been wondering about possible ways the current striping could be changed. Is a plain silver helmet too Patriots? Is a single blue stripe too Raiders? Can you keep a helmet stripe with asymmetrical pantstripes? Of course-- just look at how the Redskins pull it off with a completely different stripe pattern. I like how the white middle stripe looks with the away jerseys; maybe if the blue stripes were significantly decreased in thickness as to only outline the white it would still keep the clean, streamlined feel of your stripeless design? Probably not...

In regards to the poster who thought the logo design looked out of place in the context of the whole uniform... HELLO!!! Ever notice the current logo/uniform? I always thought it was kind of neat how "Bubbles" was this organic shape who stood out like a majestic individual. This logo design is completely in keeping with the clean, streamlined uniform concept. Maybe you think it'd be better if the logo was also splattered on both sleeves, then again on both hips. Maybe on the back above the nameplate, too. How about we get original and put a big logo on the butt? I frickin' hate that-- when I can see the logo on the helmet, why does it need to be displayed again six inches lower on the sleeve?!? Obviously, looking good on the merchandise rack has trumped looking good on the field. (Also, generally-speaking, I despise the "modern" clownsuit design. Denver's uniform redesign was fresh, but the imposters since have been tragically Patches the Clown horrendous.)

Lastly, as a matter of personal preference and not necessarily a critique, I still think I would rather have a more organic, unruly Lion instead of something of "modern" stylization. In all truthfulness, I really like "Bubbles" and would welcome keeping him around through a redesign. Also, I like unpainted endzones. Kudos again, Matt-- maybe if I ever finish stitching the stuffed bunny for my baby daughter, I'll put something on here that all you guys can tear apart. : )

[dcameronh]

Again great work on this Lions concept. Any chance you might do a Rebranding the NFL project? Or maybe would you do a 49ers concept in light of the new uniforms they will be getting next year?

Also are you in the process of finishing the Rebranding the NHL? You do great work and I would love to see more.