NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[oddball]

Here's the thing. EVERYONE was going to hate what True North was going to do. Why? Because half this board wanted and old styled logo, and the other half wanted a "new" styled logo. Then it comes out and you're pissed because it's not what you wanted. The funny thing is that all the Jets logos out there are NOT better than this set, maybe on par with, but not better. I'm not saying go back to the old logo, but it is what it is, a logo. I think sometimes we take these things way too seriously.

[ksupilot]

I like it. It isn't amazing, but I don't think it's as terrible as most on here are making it out to be.

[Guest]

Here's the thing. EVERYONE was going to hate what True North was going to do. Why? Because half this board wanted and old styled logo, and the other half wanted a "new" styled logo. Then it comes out and you're pissed because it's not what you wanted. The funny thing is that all the Jets logos out there are NOT better than this set, maybe on par with, but not better. I'm not saying go back to the old logo, but it is what it is, a logo. I think sometimes we take these things way too seriously.

This sums up the entire board well. We're all quite unsatisfiable.

[Sodboy13]

I will say, without a doubt, that these are the best logos the Winnipeg Jets have ever had.

But they're still not good.

[The_Admiral]

It almost looks like the jet is on fire.

[Lee.]

If they'd had another couple of weeks, I'm sure they'd be much better and maybe they'd have gotten rid of those awful maple leafs.

Considering the rush, I still like them (except the wordmark). They'll probably pull a Tampa and revise some things in time for 2012/13.

[kestrel79]

I like it. The RCAF roundel logo is pretty cool, as is the script. The only thing I do not like is the alternate, which is LBFLBS. I could see using the light blue as an alternate if it appears in the main logo, but it looks like it was thrown in at the last minute by the marketing dept to sell shirts because it's "in" right now.

[Cujo]

I will say, without a doubt, that these are the best logos the Winnipeg Jets have ever had.

But they're still not good.

Agreed. The bar was very low for this unveiling -- Sort of like if the Clippers or Browns ever deided to roll out a new logo.

[hockeyfreak6611]

If they had to keep the team in America, it would have been something like this:

[rams80]

Well at least this identity package's retro feel has actually gotten as far into the future as the 1950s. Shame the wordmark makes me think of a cheap drive-in burger joint.

[Brian in Boston]

Meh. I find the identity package underwhelming. The secondary mark is the "best" of a rather uninspired bunch.

Frankly, I feel badly for the folks at True North. I don't think they honestly wanted to resurrect the Jets name, but ultimately succumbed to fan pressure. With fans clamoring for a logo package to accompany the Jets name as soon as possible, True North was then forced to have their design partners rush a logo package to completion. And it shows.

[Sabrejeff]

The Jets aren't going to win very many hockey games if they're a curling team...

What?

Sorry but the logo looks like a house to me.

[Lights Out]

I will say, without a doubt, that these are the best logos the Winnipeg Jets have ever had.

But they're still not good.

Agreed. The bar was very low for this unveiling -- Sort of like if the Clippers or Browns ever deided to roll out a new logo.

The Clippers did come out with a new logo last year.

[SHaMROCK]

I like it. The RCAF roundel logo is pretty cool, as is the script. The only thing I do not like is the alternate, which is LBFLBS. I could see using the light blue as an alternate if it appears in the main logo, but it looks like it was thrown in at the last minute by the marketing dept to sell shirts because it's "in" right now.

Look at the Winnipeg Jets official site http://jets.nhl.com/ Not sure if it is visable with a non widescreen monitor but on the left and right side I think there is a major clue to the uniform striping pattern. This is where the light blue will come in, no red at all in the stripes.

[IceCap]

Less maple leaf is more. We get that this team is Canadian. Overkill.

- The forced leaf in the wordmark. It's the old McDonald's/Subway/Wal-Mart/Wendy's problem again. Must every corporate entity that makes its way north from the States have the leaf shoehorned in? "Here's our Canadian version of a foreign product. Note the leaf for local flavo(u)r. Yes, our currencies are equal now, but we'll still upcharge you 30% for it." Plus, the leaf's placement gives the appearance of incorrect apostrophe usage. Come on, Winnipeg, be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I'm imagining the design process went something like this....

Chipman: I'm a big fan of Captain America. Let's just use his shield as a logo.

Designer: But that logo is filled with American symbols. This is a Canadian hockey team.

Chipman: OK, then swap out the star for a maple leaf. Done.

Designer: But your team name is called the "Winnipeg Jets." Don't you think it should include a jet?

Chipman: Sure. Just slap a jet on there. Fine. And put a little notch on top for True North. Can't let the local forget who saved hockey in Winnipeg, after all.

Hello everyone. This is the roundel of the Royal Canadian Air Force/Canadian Forces Air Command.

As you can see the new Jets logo is playing off of this imagery. Air force? Jets? Seems to fit, I would say. So given that the team's identity is paying homage to Canada's air force it makes sense that the primary logo would be styled after the air force's primary identifying mark, right? As such, seeing as said roundel has a maple leaf, the use of the leaf isn't forced, contrived, or there just because the team is Canadian. I know people all need a reason to bitch, but do some research so your bitching doesn't look like bitching for bitching's sake.

And once again (while I completely get the connection to the RCAF), the over emphasis on the maple leaf remains a problem.

Does it?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=78011&view=findpost&p=1590894

It's like facts just fly over people's heads if it doesn't conform to their version of reality.

[BigEd76]

Was this posted yet?

[lancebridwell]

I personally believe that it's a dreadful identity. The best part is the secondary, and even, at that, I'd expect to see it in the ECHL or something to that effect. I'm also left wondering if that little triangle indentation on the blue circle is a mark that it's a True North owned team. Although I may be horribly mislead on that inquiry.

[rams80]

Meh. I find the identity package underwhelming. The secondary mark is the "best" of a rather uninspired bunch.

Frankly, I feel badly for the folks at True North. I don't think they honestly wanted to resurrect the Jets name, but ultimately succumbed to fan pressure. With fans clamoring for a logo package to accompany the Jets name as soon as possible, True North was then forced to have their design partners rush a logo package to completion. And it shows.

I don't. A second year marketing student could have seen the overwhelming fan pressure to resurrect the Jets identity coming long ago. It's your own fault if you ignore your market THAT badly.

[Primal]

Considering the rush, I still like them (except the wordmark). They'll probably pull a Tampa and revise some things in time for 2012/13.

So you think they're going to "Tampa" with them?

/groan.

[dgnmrwrw]

And once again (while I completely get the connection to the RCAF), the over emphasis on the maple leaf remains a problem.

Does it?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=78011&view=findpost&p=1590894

It's like facts just fly over people's heads if it doesn't conform to their version of reality.

As someone who's been doing brand identity work for more than a decade, I feel fairly confident about my sense of reality in this matter. And since I actually posted a Winnipeg Jets concept a few months ago that used the freakin' RCAF roundel as an alternate logo, I'm pretty sure this one hasn't gone over my head. (And since you posted in that thread, it's especially hilarious that you're telling people like me to "do some research".)

I'm still not sure why you've got such a stick up your butt about trying to convince everyone that the maple leaf is just as viable a connotation-less symbol as a star. (The numbers you posted so confidently only show the ratio of star-to-maple-leaf usage; they do not take into account the gross difference between the recognizable connotations associated with each symbol.) Let's all just forget for a moment that a star is a generic, geometric symbol that literally scores of states/nations use as a symbol on flags and other devices, while the maple leaf is a symbol that's used by precisely... (um... how many was it again?? oh, yes...) one nation. My point, if you had paused for a moment and looked at the actual post, was that the OVERUSE of the maple leaf was the problem. If they were the "Winnipeg Royal Canadian Air Force" then I wouldn't have a problem with this imagery. But slapping the maple leaf on every single mark, especially (as I and other posters have pointed out) as an unnecessary, almost apostrophe-like afterthought on the wordmark makes the entire implementation of the maple leaf seem like a shallow, knee-jerk association.

If they had implemented the jet/roundel logo as an alternate mark to make a nice, subtle reference to the RCAF and used the maple leaf there, then that would make more sense from a complete brand standpoint than to simply reproduce such a loaded symbol everywhere, even when it seemingly has no association.