Jump to content

Warriors: Not Preferred Primary Logo


Wasatch

Recommended Posts

Tell me, why would the Golden State Warriors even bother to post their old primary on their logo sheet if its simply not preferred, or even if they dont want it used all together?

This may have something to do with the NBA's "Change your logo by x percent, get fined y dollars" rule. I know BBTV mentioned in another thread that this rule has attained urban legend status, but I'm also certain there has been at least one link to fairly concrete evidence of it here, possibly around this time last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, why would the Golden State Warriors even bother to post their old primary on their logo sheet if it?s simply ?not preferred?, or even if they don?t want it used all together?

This may have something to do with the NBA's "Change your logo by x percent, get fined y dollars" rule. I know BBTV mentioned in another thread that this rule has attained urban legend status, but I'm also certain there has been at least one link to fairly concrete evidence of it here, possibly around this time last year.

And what team is this so-called "urban legend" tied to this time last year? I really don't get the rule since teams in the past have modified current sets many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many teams are making efforts to get back to their identity origins and yet I don?t get why the Warriors and their fan base have bothered to put up with one of the worst logo and color palettes in the league for 10+ years now. thdoh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, why would the Golden State Warriors even bother to post their old primary on their logo sheet if it?s simply ?not preferred?, or even if they don?t want it used all together?

This may have something to do with the NBA's "Change your logo by x percent, get fined y dollars" rule. I know BBTV mentioned in another thread that this rule has attained urban legend status, but I'm also certain there has been at least one link to fairly concrete evidence of it here, possibly around this time last year.

And what team is this so-called "urban legend" tied to this time last year? I really don't get the rule since teams in the past have modified current sets many times.

It's not one team that got fined. Plus, I wouldn't call it a fine. It's just if a team redesigns their logo there is a $500,000 or so fee to do so. I believe this has to do with paying for changes that the NBA and Adidas would have to make to their products??? I really don't know. It's much cheaper though for teams to recolor their logos and that's why we've seen a number of teams do so this past decade. (ie-Detroit, Utah, Denver, Atlanta, Toronto, etc.). I don't have anything to verify that, that's just from my understanding.

Plus, Golden State is getting a whole new set next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the second time I've dug this up. The article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that brings up the $500,000 fine for a team changing their primary logo.

Hawks changing designs of logo, uniform

By TIM TUCKER

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/24/07

When the newest additions to the Atlanta Hawks ceremonially don the team's cap and jersey at Thursday night's NBA draft, you might do a double-take.

After using the same logo for 12 years and the same primary uniforms for eight, the Hawks this week will unveil a new look for the 2007-08 season.

Their home uniform, while retaining the league-required white background, will change from a red-yellow-black color scheme to blue-red-silver. Their road uniform will change from predominantly red to predominantly navy blue. And a new logo, to be used on the uniforms as well as on caps and other merchandise, will carry a close-up side view of a hawk's head "sleek and aggressive, a fierce look in its eye, swooping onto its prey," said Lou DePaoli, the team's executive vice president and chief marketing officer.

If it sounds as if the Hawks take this stuff very seriously, well, they do.

Sports teams attach importance to cosmetic matters like uniforms and logos because of the statements they are intended to make and the merchandise sales they sometimes can generate.

Changing the look of the Hawks was an 18-month process that included extensive consultation with officials from the NBA and Adidas, the league's uniform and apparel supplier. On DePaoli's desk, there's a stack of hundreds of sketches of possible new looks that were considered and dismissed.

Executing the change to the chosen design won't be cheap. A new Philips Arena floor will be required, because the current one reflects the old color scheme. Dozens of signs throughout the arena will have to be changed. New uniforms will be needed for the mascots, as well as for the players. And new business cards and stationary, too.

Total price tag?

The Hawks have budgeted $750,000 for their new look, DePaoli said.

The return on investment?

"I think it'll help people look at us differently," DePaoli said. "They'll look at the new uniforms and the logo and hopefully think, 'Oh, I like that.' So maybe then some of the old preconceived notions go away."

The preconceived notions are mostly negative: The Hawks have had eight consecutive losing seasons and haven't made the playoffs since Philips Arena opened in 1999, the NBA's longest current streak of seasons without a playoff appearance.

The Hawks have gone through some memorable fashion statements or mis-statements through the years, including the green-and-blue look of 1970-72 and the huge hawk clutching a basketball on the front of the jersey in 1995-99.

Coming off the worst stretch of seasons in franchise history, the Hawks' new look draws from a brighter era.

The general color scheme of the new uniforms mostly blue, red and white is the same as when the team moved to Atlanta from St. Louis in 1968. While the home uniform of recent seasons had red lettering with yellow shadowing on the front, the new home uniform has blue lettering with red trim and silver striping. The new road uniform (blue background, white lettering with red trim and silver striping) is reminiscent of what the team wore in 1958, when, as the St. Louis Hawks, it won the franchise's only NBA championship.

"We looked at a lot of possibilities but kept going back to our history," DePaoli said. He noted that the 2007-08 season will be the team's 40th in Atlanta and will mark the 50th anniversary of the franchise's lone championship.

"It's a good time to pay homage to our roots," team president Bernie Mullin said.

The primarily yellow second road uniform worn at selected games since 2004 will be retired.

Changing the logo was as involved as changing the uniform.

Because logos are ubiquitous around the NBA, the league assesses a $500,000 fee if a team abandons its primary logo. The Hawks avoided that charge by retaining their 12-year-old logo of a mostly red hawk clutching a basketball, albeit changing the typeface and the secondary colors (out with yellow, black and brown; in with blue, silver and white).

That familiar logo, with the colors updated, will continue to be prominently used, including on the Philips Arena court. But it is not the logo that will appear on the new uniforms or on the caps that Thursday's draft picks will immediately don.

For those applications, the team is adding a second logo the new hawk's head logo, which will be perched on both legs and the back of the neckline of the new uniforms.

Players had complained, Mullin said, that the old, larger logo was uncomfortable on their uniforms.

"Hopefully, the new swooping hawk [logo] will represent how we'll play the next few years," Mullin said.

Changes of logos and uniforms sometimes boost merchandise sales, particularly for the more popular sports franchises, but Mullin and DePaoli say that wasn't a primary consideration in the Hawks' changes. Revenue from merchandise sales is pooled and shared equally by all 30 NBA teams, meaning that even if Hawks sales were to surge, the team would get only 1/30th of the additional proceeds. (One exception: Teams don't have to share the revenue from merchandise sold in their own arena. But most gear tends to be sold elsewhere.)

Assorted merchandise with the Hawks' new colors and logo will be on sale at the team's draft party at Philips Arena Thursday night (or at hawks.com starting today). The new jerseys won't be available until the fall, but pre-orders can be placed online and at the Team Gear II store at Philips.

As bullish as the Hawks are on their new look, they recognize that a losing team never looks good. What they're hoping for is a convergence of cosmetic and substantive change.

"We think the timing is right," DePaoli said. "We're a team that we think is going to make the playoffs next season, and as a marketer we have to plan for it in advance."

Whether the playoffs pan out could depend on whether the Hawks this week obtain the right players to wear those new uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many teams are making efforts to get back to their identity origins and yet I don't get why the Warriors and their fan base have bothered to put up with one of the worst logo and color palettes in the league for 10+ years now. thdoh.gif

Worst color palettes???

C'mon - it's one of my favorite color sets out there...it's just the logos themselves that suck:

GoldenStateWarriors_FRC_9999_SOL_SR.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-time lurker, first-time poster, etc...

Anyway, I believe part of the answer to your question lies in Oklahoma City.

The Warriors' official primary logo includes that blue guy over the "Warriors" logotype. Well, "that blue guy" is the Warriors' mascot, Thunder. When the Seattle SuperSonics were moved to Oklahoma City, that team's ownership agreed not to use the SuperSonics/Sonics name as part of the settlement that allowed them to break the lease at the arena they played in while in Seattle. When the team's ownership re-named the franchise, they selected "Thunder." And, because one would assume the Warriors don't want to be advertising another city's team with their logo, they began de-emphasizing that logo last season.

Of course, the simpler solution would have been for the Oklahoma City team to come up with a unique nickname, rather than poaching an established brand from another club. But it's just another head-scratcher in that whole relocation story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, why would the Golden State Warriors even bother to post their old primary on their logo sheet if it?s simply ?not preferred?, or even if they don?t want it used all together?

Sorry to reply to something other than the content of the thread, but where did you find the image you included in your original post? Is that something any of us can have access to for every sports team--or, at the very least, every NBA team?

(P.S.: LOVE the idea of the Golden State Not Preferreds. We should come up with a logo for that...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article is very interesting. If that's the case, I wonder why a recolor would be OK, since a lot of stuff would still need to be changed.

Perhaps because it could still be sold on the shelf at retail to the less-than-discerning customer? I dunno. I can understand that the NBA might believe that giving teams incentive to not change their identities may help to retain and/or build the brand. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for the fact that some of the identites are not-so-good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not one team that got fined. Plus, I wouldn't call it a fine. It's just if a team redesigns their logo there is a $500,000 or so fee to do so.

Wow, I had no idea the league charged $500,000 everytime a team wanted to redesign their identity. thblink.gif Do you know if they charge a fee for changing uniforms too, i.e. a new alternate?

I really don't know. It's much cheaper though for teams to recolor their logos and that's why we've seen a number of teams do so this past decade. (ie-Detroit, Utah, Denver, Atlanta, Toronto, etc.). I don't have anything to verify that, that's just from my understanding.

Indeed, Utah changed the colors to their mountain logo, but they also made a few design changes when doing so. I wonder if those few modifications fall into the $500,000 fee. thdontknow.gif

This is the second time I've dug this up. The article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that brings up the $500,000 fine for a team changing their primary logo.

Changing the look of the Hawks was an 18-month process that included extensive consultation with officials from the NBA and Adidas, the league's uniform and apparel supplier. On DePaoli's desk, there's a stack of hundreds of sketches of possible new looks that were considered and dismissed.

Billy B, thanks for the article, it sheds some light on things for me. I have a question though; do you think it's mandatory for the NBA and Adidas consultants to design the logos for the 30 NBA teams?

Worst color palettes???

C'mon - it's one of my favorite color sets out there...it's just the logos themselves that suck:

GoldenStateWarriors_FRC_9999_SOL_SR.png

ColorWerx,

I know you may like their color palette and I can?t really disagree with you that it looks decent when you throw the colors out there by themselves, but when you consider how they use it; especially below with all the crazy gradients?.yes, I?ll go as far to say it looks horrible, and has for years!

Warriors_Primary_Logos_2009-10.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you may like their color palette and I can't really disagree with you that it looks decent when you throw the colors out there by themselves, but when you consider how they use it; especially below with all the crazy gradients?.yes, I'll go as far to say it looks horrible, and has for years!

Which is basically what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.