NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[walby2]

So I look at the logo, I like it but something is missing...

It's missing text in the blue part of the circle saying "Winnipeg Jets Hockey" or any variation of name you want to use. I'd whip it up myself but I can't image edit for crap.

Actually, I'm glad that TNSE managed to resist the temptation to do that. I think a logo on its own look far cleaner and more iconic than when you clutter it by cramming in a bunch of text... I mean really, anyone who cares will know that the logo means "Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club" even if the words aren't there. Fewer words = better logo, IMO.

[rvrdgsfn]

I like the look of the Jets, its got a good look to it, sure its not perfect, but its not awful. I would have thought that the primary logo would look better as a secondary, I could see the primary & the wing logo as shoulder patches with the word mark being on the center of the jersey. Only time will tell.

[walby2]

- The wordmark font is atrocious. Some sort of type/script fusion with random pointy bits and notches, and half-assed cursive attempts. Look how the "t" and "s" come together, and you realize they're never meant to do that. It's like an elephant making love to a pig.

Someone at hfboards pointed out that the weird mashing together of the letters on the wordmark makes it look like it says "Winnipeg Jew" if you take a quick glance at it. I'm hard pressed to disagree - it does look a little rushed which is surprising all things considered.

[IronChefShark]

The wordmark looks like some airstream - googie bastard child

[Lee.]

- The wordmark font is atrocious. Some sort of type/script fusion with random pointy bits and notches, and half-assed cursive attempts. Look how the "t" and "s" come together, and you realize they're never meant to do that. It's like an elephant making love to a pig.

Someone at hfboards pointed out that the weird mashing together of the letters on the wordmark makes it look like it says "Winnipeg Jew" if you take a quick glance at it. I'm hard pressed to disagree - it does look a little rushed which is surprising all things considered.

1. You and the people at hfboards need hobbies.

2. It WAS rushed.

[walby2]

1. You and the people at hfboards need hobbies.

Wow, a member of a sports logo community calls out another member of a sports logo community for making a remark about... a sports logo.

I have been humbled. I bow to your superior wit.

[The_Admiral]

Someone at hfboards pointed out that the weird mashing together of the letters on the wordmark makes it look like it says "Winnipeg Jew" if you take a quick glance at it.

hfboards is a den of tards. Still, pretty cool that Sam Katz gets a personal logo!

[dgnmrwrw]

Really, I think they should have played up the actual jet a little more. It's small. It's clip arty. It's just kinda there. I would have appreciated a bigger jet and a little more action in the Jet. I mean they are the Winnipeg JETS. Not the Winnipeg RCAF division team.

This. This. One million times, this.

This is my problem with the overuse of the leaf. And Ice_Cap, perhaps I didn't do a good job of communicating what I meant. I was never trying to comment on the overuse of the maple leaf throughout the gamut of sports branding. (I still believe the conclusions you are drawing from your counts are flawed, but that's a different discussion for a different day.) I was trying to say that it's overused here. In this particular identity. It seems to me that the maple leaf has become in this identity (as it seems to in so many others) a quick, easy, superficial element, while the more conceptually important jet imagery unfortunately has been pushed to the back burner. Give me these logos without the type and I wouldn't come up with "Winnipeg Jets". I'd probably come up with "Royal Canadian Air Force Club Team." (Granted, that exercise is not meant to be an acid test for branding, but I do feel that it reveals some serious issues with the way this branding process was undertaken and produced.)

Again, I would call it brand unity. You have the leaf in the roundel logo, it would look odd to not use it elsewhere. Yeah, its use in the wordmark is troublesome, because it makes it look like Jet's rather then Jets, but I maintain that people would be complaining about the lack of the leaf had they left it out of the wordmark.

Given the background of the Jets' website, I expect the leaf-less alternate script to get more use anyway.

By this logic, a quick glance at the overall collection of logos in the league reveals that very few teams have brand unity, including my own Hurricanes. Brand unity is not about making sure that you pick out a piece of imagery and slap it on each of the marks. That's called repetition (or reinforcement). Brand unity is about creating a group of visual images that are clearly related to and support each other, along with appropriate implementation of those marks to achieve those goals.

[Fregus]

To much like the Canadiens?

[ARTnSocal]

Can't remember if the Bills use a patch with a leaf for Toronto games.

We do ...

[Xodius]

To much like the Canadiens?

That looks pretty damn good. Damn good indeed.

[habsfan1]

If they go exactly with what's seen on their official website, it would look like this.

It's not me who made it, though. It's somebody from HFBoards.

[Bayne]

^that's nice. Clean and simple.

[Patchey13]

Those jerseys are gorgeous. I love them

[oddball]

The more people blast this logo, the more I like it. I've also noticed doing research on Canadian Air Force patches, that this logo is spot on as a tribute to the Canadian Air Force. If you look at their brand identity on the website, on the second slide you see a black and white image in the top righthand corner that has a jet over a maple leaf inside a roundel. If you do research of Canadian Air Force patches, you see that imagery a lot. To me it's a perfect job done by the designers to create a logo that honors the men and women of the Canadian Air Force. It's a beautifully crafted logo that puts that crappy "Weagle" logo to shame that the Capitals have and a lot of people love for whatever reason. And the fact that so many people hate this logo and the use of RACF imagery baffles me. What did you want them to use? A Boeing 747? Or better yet, how about the Concorde? Not gonna happen.

[Bayne]

The elements in the logo arent the issue for me, its just they way it's put together. It looks a little flat. I like it, but it could be stronger.

[Sodboy13]

The more people blast this logo, the more I like it.

That's our oddball. We should all chip in and get you an Andrew Ladd jersey.

[IceCap]

Really, I think they should have played up the actual jet a little more. It's small. It's clip arty. It's just kinda there. I would have appreciated a bigger jet and a little more action in the Jet. I mean they are the Winnipeg JETS. Not the Winnipeg RCAF division team.

This. This. One million times, this.

This is my problem with the overuse of the leaf. And Ice_Cap, perhaps I didn't do a good job of communicating what I meant. I was never trying to comment on the overuse of the maple leaf throughout the gamut of sports branding. (I still believe the conclusions you are drawing from your counts are flawed, but that's a different discussion for a different day.) I was trying to say that it's overused here. In this particular identity. It seems to me that the maple leaf has become in this identity (as it seems to in so many others) a quick, easy, superficial element, while the more conceptually important jet imagery unfortunately has been pushed to the back burner. Give me these logos without the type and I wouldn't come up with "Winnipeg Jets". I'd probably come up with "Royal Canadian Air Force Club Team." (Granted, that exercise is not meant to be an acid test for branding, but I do feel that it reveals some serious issues with the way this branding process was undertaken and produced.)

I would apologize for misunderstanding, but you completely misunderstood my survey, and proceeded to post all over on the basis of your misunderstanding, so at this point I'm willing to say that we both missed a little of what the other was trying to say and move on with a hopefully less confrontational tone.

You say that you see the current Jets identity and think "RCAF Club" before you think "Winnipeg Jets." The problem I have with this statement is twofold. The first is that anyone looking at this logo in the context of NHL logos will know it doesn't stand for a RCAF team, as armed forces do not ice teams in the NHL. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans didn't know what "RCAF" stands for, or if they could recognize its roundel (and I mean this in no disparaging way, just an honest observation on my part).

Secondly for a team located in Canada (in a city with ties to the air force) called the Jets a RCAF theme seems more then appropriate. The "this says RCAF more then Jets" argument falls flat with me because the RCAF theme is perfect for a team named after aircraft.

I get that you think the leaf is overused, with it appearing in all three marks (well three of four, there's that alternate script mark witch is leaf-less). In my opinion, however, I feel an element (any element in any logo set) isn't overused if it makes sense to be the logos. The primary is obvious. The RCAF roundel is a red leaf on a white disk inside a blue ring. Hence the leaf in the primary. The leaf in the alternate is similarly justified. Its design of a leaf at the centre of a pair of wings mimics the design of the wings awarded to pilots of the RCAF/CFAC. In both the primary and secondary the leaf has a reason to be there. Which why I do not mind it. As good as Fraser's proposal/concept was, the leaf wasn't there to emulate the emblems of the air force, it was just there. That's forcing the use of the leaf much more then it is here, I feel, where its use in both the primary and secondary works due to the imagery they're emulating.

Again, I would call it brand unity. You have the leaf in the roundel logo, it would look odd to not use it elsewhere. Yeah, its use in the wordmark is troublesome, because it makes it look like Jet's rather then Jets, but I maintain that people would be complaining about the lack of the leaf had they left it out of the wordmark.

Given the background of the Jets' website, I expect the leaf-less alternate script to get more use anyway.

By this logic, a quick glance at the overall collection of logos in the league reveals that very few teams have brand unity, including my own Hurricanes. Brand unity is not about making sure that you pick out a piece of imagery and slap it on each of the marks. That's called repetition (or reinforcement). Brand unity is about creating a group of visual images that are clearly related to and support each other, along with appropriate implementation of those marks to achieve those goals.

I get what you're saying, and I do believe that the script logo is the one logo that makes unnecessary use of the leaf. That being said, consider that the leaf will likely be the only bit of red in the entire identity package (the website hints at blue, powder blue and silver sweaters and Mark Chipman hates red). As such incorporating the leaf into the script, even as poorly as they did it, injects red into the wordmark so as to make it "clearly related" to the rest of the package.

[Gothamite]

If they go exactly with what's seen on their official website, it would look like this.

It's not me who made it, though. It's somebody from HFBoards.

Nice, but this is one time I definitely would have used the lace-up collar. It would look good with such a deliberately classic sweater.

[Lee.]

There's a nice write up on the new logos here: http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/7/23/2290369/jets-logo-unleashed

I warn you all now: the author of that story is a fan of the primary.