Wasatch

Official 2010-11 Utah Jazz Logo Leaked

Recommended Posts

Not sure why this is in a new thread instead of the one with all the speculation and an actual leak from an owner, but...

I don't see anywhere that you say you actually saw the logo, but the AE did, so is there any chance the gold he mentions could still be metallic? Or did he clearly describe it as the Jazz's old logo with navy replacing purple?

Seems unlikely they'd use metallic after the popularity of the throwbacks, and to be honest, seeing them side by side I like the yellow better.

Couldn't the Jazz get around the NBA alt rules by continuing to wear the green as a throwback and introducing a new white home and navy road with the old logo? Max out the throwback on the road and a couple times at home, and after a couple of years they could just slide it if over to the road if that's what they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny how many of you seem to trash this look. What's one thing you all have in common? - you aren't Jazz fans. This is a situation in my mind where they made this move entirely because the fans were clammering for it, me being one of them. Vintage Jazz merchandise is a huge, HUGE seller here in Utah, and stores here seem to actually have more musical note merchandise than the present powder blue and navy. You'd be suprised how much green and how much vintage Jazz you see around here. So you can bicker and moan all you want about it, but truth is that the majority of the fans wanted it, we got it, and we'll love it - besides, the fans are all that matter.

Well I think the majority of us are mature enough to judge designs objectively, without allowing our allegiances to a team (or hatred of a team) to play any bearing on our opinions.

It is fair to say that if a fan base (essentially a market) is clamoring for something, and will buy a ton of something, that it may be a wise business decision to market that thing. Evaluating whether something is a sound business decision is NOT the same as evaluating whether something is a good design, or helps create a strong identity.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I know you guys wouldn't base your opinions on hatred or lack of fanship for a team; what I'm trying to say is because you aren't fans, you guys don't understand the fans' love for the logo.

As for the judgement of the logo, to me at least, yeah it is a little bland to a point, but at the same time it's so classic that it seems to override that. I compare it to the Canucks "rink and stick" logo - probably the most boring logo in sports, yet fans love it for its classic feeling. I think if the Jazz do stick with this and don't change in the near future, they'll get a stronger identity. I mean, it's not like this is a total re-haul from scratch - the Jazz had that look for nearly 16 years in Utah and 21 years altogether, and it is the look used in every Jazz's retired number jersey except one, with such names in the rafters using it as Maravich, Malone, Stockton, and Eaton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the (Yellow) Gold being changed over to a metallic?

Where did this rumor stem from? Is there any articles and anything out there on the web to support it?

This is the history of the Utah Jazz:

1. didn't bother to change the logos from the New Orleans Jazz

2. came up with a new mountain-themed logo a few years after the Nuggets debuted a mountain-themed logo

3. sloppily recolored that logo in blue on blue a few years after the Mavericks and Nuggets popularized blue on blue

4. sloppily recolored the New Orleans Jazz stuff

So it can be argued that at no time in the history of the Utah Jazz have they done anything truly original.

In a way I agree with you but who?s to say they copied the Nuggets when both cities are located next to big mountain regions? If a team had a name that didn?t tie into their community what-so-ever, I would think one of the first steps would be to incorporate one of the elements of the local environment and one of these would happen to be the mountains.

As a die-hard Jazz fan, I am terribly upset & disappointed. This is the stupidest logo in their ENTIRE history.

And yet you support an element of this logo in your avatar, yellow or not? :therock:

Not sure why this is in a new thread instead of the one with all the speculation and an actual leak from an owner, but...

The reason why I choose to post this topic in a New Thread is because I didn?t see any other Thread that was specific to the 2010-11 Utah Jazz logo brand. :D

I don't see anywhere that you say you actually saw the logo, but the AE did, so is there any chance the gold he mentions could still be metallic? Or did he clearly describe it as the Jazz's old logo with navy replacing purple?

I straight out asked him what they were doing next year and he said they're going straight back to the original. From there I said, isn't with green, yellow, and blue replacing the purple? He said yes.

Couldn't the Jazz get around the NBA alt rules by continuing to wear the green as a throwback and introducing a new white home and navy road with the old logo?

That's an awesome question, and I'd love to see that discussed. I don't know the rules in the handbook. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why a lot of you are disappointed in the Utah Jazz for not taking advantage of the opportunity to create a fresh new updated look! After all, this community is filled with a bunch of amateur & professional designers who can not only design better identities than what half of the teams already have out there, but we can all critique these sporting and corporate brands very well too. It?s no big news that we all get off on fresh, new, clean designs/identities whenever they?re released! However, like knnhrvy16 said, you need to understand why the Jazz made this move to go back to the classic 1980?s ? 90?s look, and the #1 reason is quite simply the fans! That?s right, the local Utah Jazz fans have been wanting this for years now, and it all boils down to wanting an identity that connects directly to the good old Stockton & Malone days, and yet we?re not alone! It?s been nearly 14 years since the Jazz used this logo, and since then many franchises have made the cosmetic attempt to return to heyday of the 1980?s where the NBA was arguably at its absolute peak!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. remaining w/ current colors + exclusive use of note logo = ok

2. going back to bright yellow and bright green + no purple or blue = good

3. using current logo or note logo + gold, forest, and navy = great

4. not changing anything = ok

5. keeping navy + incorporating bright yellow and bright green = terrible

6. going back to 'note-AZZ' in any color = terrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. remaining w/ current colors + exclusive use of note logo = ok

2. going back to bright yellow and bright green + no purple or blue = good

3. using current logo or note logo + gold, forest, and navy = great

4. not changing anything = ok

5. keeping navy + incorporating bright yellow and bright green = terrible

6. going back to 'note-AZZ' in any color = terrible

Why do you think the move is so terrible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, personally I think it?s sort of a marketing genius in a sense since one of the first things you think of when you hear ?Utah Jazz? is that old classic logo. This isn?t a logo that anybody will really have to get used to since it?s been embedded in our minds for a long time! Try to think of the Miami Heat and their current logo, and then they ditch that logo for 15 yeas and then come back to it. Yes it?s not new and fresh, but it?s really the prominent team identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is in a new thread instead of the one with all the speculation and an actual leak from an owner, but...

The reason why I choose to post this topic in a New Thread is because I didn’t see any other Thread that was specific to the 2010-11 Utah Jazz logo brand. :D

I don't see anywhere that you say you actually saw the logo, but the AE did, so is there any chance the gold he mentions could still be metallic? Or did he clearly describe it as the Jazz's old logo with navy replacing purple?

I straight out asked him what they were doing next year and he said they're going straight back to the original. From there I said, isn't with green, yellow, and blue replacing the purple? He said yes.

Thanks for the clarification on yellow vs. gold. Just curious.

As far as the thread, there were two Jazz threads floating around on the front page in recent days, here and here, the former about the green jersey which sparked this change and the latter specifically about this same uniform being leaked, so that's why I asked. No big deal, but I've been digging around in here to try to find the thread that discussed the $500,000 logo-change charge in detail for you. (Last question asked in the second link.) No luck so far, but I know there is a thorough discussion here somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there was plenty of discussion of the $500k thing, I think it started when the Hawks unveiled their uniforms and simply recolored their logo.

I'm not sure if the reasoning is that it's a charge that the league needs since it will have to pay to change any league-owned materials that contain the outdated logos, or if it's simply a method of discouraging teams from making frequent changes to their look so that they develop an identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there was plenty of discussion of the $500k thing, I think it started when the Hawks unveiled their uniforms and simply recolored their logo.

Why I believe you're right, but for the life of me I can't find that thread. Im pretty sure ColorWerx or Davidson was the one who was laying all the ground rules out.

EDIT: I found this similar discussion involving the Thunder back in November 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there was plenty of discussion of the $500k thing, I think it started when the Hawks unveiled their uniforms and simply recolored their logo.

Why I believe you're right, but for the life of me I can't find that thread. I?m pretty sure ColorWerx or Davidson was the one who was laying all the ground rules out.

EDIT: I found this similar discussion involving the Thunder back in November 2009.

The quote is in the Atlanta Hawks new uniform thread. I've quoted it at least twice since then, so I'm positive it's there. I might look it up again and save that link later if I have time, but anyone can go to the Hawks thread to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why a lot of you are disappointed in the Utah Jazz for not taking advantage of the opportunity to create a fresh new updated look! After all, this community is filled with a bunch of amateur & professional designers who can not only design better identities than what half of the teams already have out there, but we can all critique these sporting and corporate brands very well too. Its no big news that we all get off on fresh, new, clean designs/identities whenever theyre released! However, like knnhrvy16 said, you need to understand why the Jazz made this move to go back to the classic 1980s 90s look, and the #1 reason is quite simply the fans! Thats right, the local Utah Jazz fans have been wanting this for years now, and it all boils down to wanting an identity that connects directly to the good old Stockton & Malone days, and yet were not alone! Its been nearly 14 years since the Jazz used this logo, and since then many franchises have made the cosmetic attempt to return to heyday of the 1980s where the NBA was arguably at its absolute peak!

So the Jazz are paying homage to an old look by completely eliminating the primary color from the old scheme? That is bull. If I were a fan I would be a whole lot more attached to the look of the jerseys than the logo (even if the logo appeared on the jersey). To my knowledge, the Jazz have had purple as one of their team colors for their entire history up until this revamp (there are even hints of purple in their current awful set). I don't care what the logo is. Trying to honor an old look by looking completely different means you failed. Bringing back a slightly dated, campy logo but replacing the colors associated with it is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a longtime Jazz fan I have to agree with the rest of the Jazz fans on here that say this is great news. I love the old logo and color scheme and I would have prefered that they stuck with purple but there are also a ton of Jazz fans who always hated the purple in the old scheme because it reminded them too much of the Lakers. I';m not a big fan of the green jerseys so I hope they go with a navy road uni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why a lot of you are disappointed in the Utah Jazz for not taking advantage of the opportunity to create a fresh new updated look! After all, this community is filled with a bunch of amateur & professional designers who can not only design better identities than what half of the teams already have out there, but we can all critique these sporting and corporate brands very well too. It?s no big news that we all get off on fresh, new, clean designs/identities whenever they?re released! However, like knnhrvy16 said, you need to understand why the Jazz made this move to go back to the classic 1980?s ? 90?s look, and the #1 reason is quite simply the fans! That?s right, the local Utah Jazz fans have been wanting this for years now, and it all boils down to wanting an identity that connects directly to the good old Stockton & Malone days, and yet we?re not alone! It?s been nearly 14 years since the Jazz used this logo, and since then many franchises have made the cosmetic attempt to return to heyday of the 1980?s where the NBA was arguably at its absolute peak!

So the Jazz are paying homage to an old look by completely eliminating the primary color from the old scheme? That is bull. If I were a fan I would be a whole lot more attached to the look of the jerseys than the logo (even if the logo appeared on the jersey). To my knowledge, the Jazz have had purple as one of their team colors for their entire history up until this revamp (there are even hints of purple in their current awful set). I don't care what the logo is. Trying to honor an old look by looking completely different means you failed. Bringing back a slightly dated, campy logo but replacing the colors associated with it is ridiculous.

I know it may sound weird but I?d say the fans are more attached to the logo itself, rather than the color purple. Besides the navy blue that?s replacing the purple in this case isn?t really that far off in the color spectrum when really compared to purple anyway. I mean the change is noticeable but most people aren?t going to care. It?s just a fact that navy blue sells more than purple, so sticking with navy blue is a better business decision in this sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 problems with this:

1) the 'note-AZZ' is not a logo, it's a wordmark/script. In the NBA, nobody develops an identity with simply a wordmark/script. The note logo by itself is far better than adding an "-AZZ" at the end of it, even if it reveals the cleverness of the note logo by it's context as a "J". If you're intent on perpetuating that context then update the "-AZZ" to something better.

2) bright yellow, bright green, & navy blue just don't work well together. If you darken the green to a forest, those 3 work well together. If you remove the navy blue completely, the yellow & green work well together; that is the look that Jazz fans are clamoring over right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 problems with this:

1) the 'note-AZZ' is not a logo, it's a wordmark/script. In the NBA, nobody develops an identity with simply a wordmark/script. The note logo by itself is far better than adding an "-AZZ" at the end of it, even if it reveals the cleverness of the note logo by it's context as a "J". If you're intent on perpetuating that context then update the "-AZZ" to something better.

I see what you're getting at, but that wordmark seems busy enough to (barely) work as an entire logo. Same thing with the old Spurs.

Interesting that the "isolated wordmark" is the complete opposite direction as the "isolated secondary emblem" (Yankees cap, Rockets HR without the wordmark) trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it may sound weird but I?d say the fans are more attached to the logo itself, rather than the color purple. Besides the navy blue that?s replacing the purple in this case isn?t really that far off in the color spectrum when really compared to purple anyway. I mean the change is noticeable but most people aren?t going to care. It?s just a fact that navy blue sells more than purple, so sticking with navy blue is a better business decision in this sense.

I agree with you - the note is bigger than the purple (the existence of the green jerseys testifies to this.)

Also, the Jazz have kind of eroded their classic look with incremental change, from purple/gold/green to purple/teal, to navy/teal-light blue. As we've seen with all our threads about the Lakers jerseys and differences with lighting - navy can kind of stand in for the purple.

It remains to see how it will work, but going to navy/gold/green kind of incrementally turns back toward the classic look, while making the navy/light blue look like less of an outlier (or at least they can avoid admitting that the navy/light blue was an outlier.)

That said, if it's done wrong, they'll look like Notre Dame and look completely different again. And in 15 years they can recolor them to honor JazzFanatic fans as a 5th alternate. And I'll probably say it all ties things together well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there was plenty of discussion of the $500k thing, I think it started when the Hawks unveiled their uniforms and simply recolored their logo.

Why I believe you're right, but for the life of me I can't find that thread. I’m pretty sure ColorWerx or Davidson was the one who was laying all the ground rules out.

EDIT: I found this similar discussion involving the Thunder back in November 2009.

The quote is in the Atlanta Hawks new uniform thread. I've quoted it at least twice since then, so I'm positive it's there. I might look it up again and save that link later if I have time, but anyone can go to the Hawks thread to see it.

Ah... I was looking in 76ers and Jazz threads. Didn't think back far enough. The time really flies here. Thanks. I will resume my search.

EDIT: Success! Halfway through Page 10 of "Atlanta Hawks to be completely re-branded in '07-08", DEAD! posted an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story from June 24, 2007:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 problems with this:

1) the 'note-AZZ' is not a logo, it's a wordmark/script.

I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you here...

While there can be a difference between a logo and a wordmark (which is part of a logo "package"), I think that the shape and style of the Note-AZZ design qualify it as both a logo and a wordmark. In fact, if I had to pick one of the other, I'd lean toward logo. It's subjective, and certainly debatable, but I think that it's a strong enough mark to hold its own on jerseys, court markings, team letter head, web useage, etc.

Note - strong mark != appropriate mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 problems with this:

1) the 'note-AZZ' is not a logo, it's a wordmark/script.

I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you here...

While there can be a difference between a logo and a wordmark (which is part of a logo "package"), I think that the shape and style of the Note-AZZ design qualify it as both a logo and a wordmark. In fact, if I had to pick one of the other, I'd lean toward logo. It's subjective, and certainly debatable, but I think that it's a strong enough mark to hold its own on jerseys, court markings, team letter head, web useage, etc.

Note - strong mark != appropriate mark.

I completely agree!

Share this post


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