Tampa Bay Lightning New Logos

[JQK]

Adding the black was a bad idea...

[capn89]

If they would have added black to the striping and logo this would be a marked improvement. As it is they look incomplete.

Nice to see the bolts return to the pants though.

This is a joke, right? They look like horse **** with the black added. Like someone else said, all they needed was a white bolt on the pants and white victory stripes (I don't care either way on those) and they'd be nice. Now it is black for ****ing black's sake and it looks awful.

Sometimes I think people complain just to hear themselves to talk

They looked fine, good even, the way they unveiled them. Then people whined, now they're adding black for black's sake and they just don't look right now. At least now no one can call them the Tampa Bay Maple Wings or whatever stupid **** it was. Hell, they might as well throw in a silver gradient while they're add it, then they can have all their old colors back. But ultimately this is two steps forward, one step back, so I guess it's still a step forward. The change, personally, takes the new look from a 7/10 to a 5/10. Again, still much better than anything they've ever worn in the past. Probably a good thing, marketing wise, don't get it perfect the first time that way you can make more money on "adjustments" to the jerseys in future sales.

So when they steal the colour scheme of a team that's had it to itself for 86 years they're fine. When they add elements that call back to their own history, like black and pants bolts they've ruined it.

Or more to the point when people complain about something you like they're just complaining for the sake of complaining. When you complain about something you don't like it's a legitimate grievance.

Whatever sparky.

Waaaaaaaah!

By the way, how does someone steal a color scheme exactly?

[IceCap]

When one team wears it exclusively for close to a century and another team that's never used it switches to it after close to 20 years in their own unique colour scheme.

[Gothamite]

When one team wears it exclusively for close to a century and another team that's never used it switches to it after close to 20 years in their own unique colour scheme.

I really don't know about that.

Looks like the same blue, they just made it the focus. I really don't think there's much of a theft claim here.

[IceCap]

It's the same blue the Leafs use, and the Leafs have always worn it with white alone. The Lightning have always worn it with black and silver, until now, of course.

It would be like if the Bucks dropped the red and silver and went with a simple block wordmark/number font. They're still using the green they've always used, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still a blatant rip-off of the Celtics' identity.

[M4One]

First, props to the owners to listening to their fans. But, if they were going to add black back into the colour scheme, then they should have gone full out. It looks so out of place just outlining the numbers and the thunder bolt on the pants. They should have added a thin black stripe on top above the blue stripe in a black, white, blue pattern to match the way they outlined the numbers. And, yes, put some black in the logo.

[CS85]

Bland, bland, bland. Nothing innovative whatosever.

[demondg1]

First, props to the owners to listening to their fans. But, if they were going to add black back into the colour scheme, then they should have gone full out. It looks so out of place just outlining the numbers and the thunder bolt on the pants. They should have added a thin black stripe on top above the blue stripe in a black, white, blue pattern to match the way they outlined the numbers. And, yes, put some black in the logo.

My guess is that the jerseys have actually gone into mass production. The pants, shells, and numbering kits won't be produced till sometime this summer.

[Gothamite]

It's the same blue the Leafs use, and the Leafs have always worn it with white alone. The Lightning have always worn it with black and silver, until now, of course.

It would be like if the Bucks dropped the red and silver and went with a simple block wordmark/number font. They're still using the green they've always used, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still a blatant rip-off of the Celtics' identity.

From strictly a color standpoint, no. It wouldnt be.

[IceCap]

It's the same blue the Leafs use, and the Leafs have always worn it with white alone. The Lightning have always worn it with black and silver, until now, of course.

It would be like if the Bucks dropped the red and silver and went with a simple block wordmark/number font. They're still using the green they've always used, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still a blatant rip-off of the Celtics' identity.

From strictly a color standpoint, no. It wouldnt be.

Only because the Bucks use a different shade of green. The Lightning, however, use the same shade of blue the Leafs have used. So the Leafs have been the only NHL team to use blue and white for 86 years, and the Lightning had avoided infringing on that look for 19 years. Until they decided to just go with blue and white, using a colour scheme that had been the domain of the Leafs and the leafs only for close to a century. Them using the same shade of blue the Leafs have used drives the point home.

I get that in a vacuum these Lightning uniforms are a huge improvement. They reduced the clutter, and streamlined the look. The problem is that a uniform's design does not exist in a vacuum. The team's own history, and the new look's similarities to the other 29 looks in the league, all have to be factored into the discussion. The latter even more so since the increased emphasis on marketing makes having a distinct look an advantage.

Adding the black is an improvement for the Lightning, even if its application was inconsistent. Hopefully they'll add the black to the stripes and logos in upcoming seasons to perfect the new look.

[Drakonius26]

So after looking at this possible "improvement." How long would it take them to revert back to their previous uniforms, or is there no rule that can prohibit them from dropping this "iconic and timeless upgrade" altogether?

Something interesting to note... I usually get special clearance e-mails from NHL.com when the current stuff suddenly becomes nothing more than cannon-fodder to their shop, and while I got one early last season for the Buffaslug jerseys going down in price, I've seen nothing about the Lightning's current jerseys dropping in price. Perhaps it's the timing of them presenting their new look to everybody, but this whole rebrand screams 49er One-Day-Logo to me.

There are zero similarities, give or take zero.

I wouldn't be so sure, it's very tacky and a definite downgrade from their current uniforms. That right there are two similarities to the One-Day-Logo.

At this point it wouldn't be surprising if they pulled this rebrand and reworked the design multiple times. Plus, if they added black to the uniform then what was the point of unveiling anything really?

The 49ers only unveiled a helmet, and it was so roundly hated by the fanbase that they had little choice but to pull it. The new Lightning gear is certainly not hated as much as that 49ers helmet, definitely not by their whole fan base.

Your comment about "tacky" and "downgrade" is purely subjective. There are plenty of people who agree with you, but there are also plenty who disagree. This isn't like the Slug, where it was 99% hate.

Merchandising like we know it today was in its infancy when the 49ers fiasco happened. They probably didn't have to jump through many hoops to simply change back. Now though, so much is done in advance and so much is invested in an identity that it would be way more costly to revert back.

You may be right about them doing some more re-work, but it's clear that they aren't going to deviate too much from what they unveiled.

It's apples and oranges.

Well, if it wasn't disliked by the fanbase, then why would they bother to roster the lightning bolt on the shorts and black on the jersey? If they thought it was so iconic and timeless, they should've unveiled the updated/completed jersey after polling the fanbase or attempting to probe the fanbase(a focus group or something) to get their thoughts. This unveiling, and sudden act of backpedaling not only puts into question their efforts to rebrand themselves once more, but it makes it appear that their fanbase isn't thrilled with the new look.

For the most part, and even removing Ice from the numbers of critics on this board (due to the fact, he's been the most vocal, and one can say a little too passionate, although I understand where he's coming from) I've seen more hatred than anything else after the unveiling. Not to mention, some disgust from them basically performing a cheap mspaint job on the new jerseys to put some black back into play.

Being a third-party and not having inside knowledge of their marketing department, and who officially designed this uniform, the whole rebranding process looks muddled, lacks confidence with the backpedaling, and overall completely unprofessional with it's implementation. I'm not trying to say I'm right, or you're wrong, but judging this whole rebrand from afar (as a critic like anyone else here) it just appears to look that way to me.

[BBTV]

So after looking at this possible "improvement." How long would it take them to revert back to their previous uniforms, or is there no rule that can prohibit them from dropping this "iconic and timeless upgrade" altogether?

Something interesting to note... I usually get special clearance e-mails from NHL.com when the current stuff suddenly becomes nothing more than cannon-fodder to their shop, and while I got one early last season for the Buffaslug jerseys going down in price, I've seen nothing about the Lightning's current jerseys dropping in price. Perhaps it's the timing of them presenting their new look to everybody, but this whole rebrand screams 49er One-Day-Logo to me.

There are zero similarities, give or take zero.

I wouldn't be so sure, it's very tacky and a definite downgrade from their current uniforms. That right there are two similarities to the One-Day-Logo.

At this point it wouldn't be surprising if they pulled this rebrand and reworked the design multiple times. Plus, if they added black to the uniform then what was the point of unveiling anything really?

The 49ers only unveiled a helmet, and it was so roundly hated by the fanbase that they had little choice but to pull it. The new Lightning gear is certainly not hated as much as that 49ers helmet, definitely not by their whole fan base.

Your comment about "tacky" and "downgrade" is purely subjective. There are plenty of people who agree with you, but there are also plenty who disagree. This isn't like the Slug, where it was 99% hate.

Merchandising like we know it today was in its infancy when the 49ers fiasco happened. They probably didn't have to jump through many hoops to simply change back. Now though, so much is done in advance and so much is invested in an identity that it would be way more costly to revert back.

You may be right about them doing some more re-work, but it's clear that they aren't going to deviate too much from what they unveiled.

It's apples and oranges.

Well, if it wasn't disliked by the fanbase, then why would they bother to roster the lightning bolt on the shorts and black on the jersey? If they thought it was so iconic and timeless, they should've unveiled the updated/completed jersey after polling the fanbase or attempting to probe the fanbase(a focus group or something) to get their thoughts. This unveiling, and sudden act of backpedaling not only puts into question their efforts to rebrand themselves once more, but it makes it appear that their fanbase isn't thrilled with the new look.

For the most part, and even removing Ice from the numbers of critics on this board (due to the fact, he's been the most vocal, and one can say a little too passionate, although I understand where he's coming from) I've seen more hatred than anything else after the unveiling. Not to mention, some disgust from them basically performing a cheap mspaint job on the new jerseys to put some black back into play.

Being a third-party and not having inside knowledge of their marketing department, and who officially designed this uniform, the whole rebranding process looks muddled, lacks confidence with the backpedaling, and overall completely unprofessional with it's implementation. I'm not trying to say I'm right, or you're wrong, but judging this whole rebrand from afar (as a critic like anyone else here) it just appears to look that way to me.

Making simple mods like changing numbers and adding a stripe to shells is hardly the same as scrapping plans for an entire new identity package. I would bet that the "average" lightning fan doesn't hate these with nearly the same passion as the average 49ers fan hated the new helmet. They mostly complained about the loss of black and bolts so they got them back (sort of.)

Do you really think that they didn't have focus groups or contact with the fanbase? Marketing companies simply don't roll out a project like this without reaching out at least some extent. It may have been too small of a focus group, or possibly Steve Y said "F your focus groups. I want Blue Wings!" but I'd wager there was some kind of involvement there.

It's impossible to say that it "lacked confidence", but they probably had the plans for the black numbers and bolts ready to go as a contingency, figuring that would be the biggest complaints (if there were a lot of complaints, which apparently there were.)

As far as "I'm right" or "you're wrong", what are we arguing here? That it wasn't handled well and the design has met criticism and it's long term success is in doubt? There's no argument there. But I do not see any way to rationally compare it to a logo that had to be torn up and scrapped all together because of the total disgust of a (larger than the Lightning's) fanbase.

[Drakonius26]

So after looking at this possible "improvement." How long would it take them to revert back to their previous uniforms, or is there no rule that can prohibit them from dropping this "iconic and timeless upgrade" altogether?

Something interesting to note... I usually get special clearance e-mails from NHL.com when the current stuff suddenly becomes nothing more than cannon-fodder to their shop, and while I got one early last season for the Buffaslug jerseys going down in price, I've seen nothing about the Lightning's current jerseys dropping in price. Perhaps it's the timing of them presenting their new look to everybody, but this whole rebrand screams 49er One-Day-Logo to me.

There are zero similarities, give or take zero.

I wouldn't be so sure, it's very tacky and a definite downgrade from their current uniforms. That right there are two similarities to the One-Day-Logo.

At this point it wouldn't be surprising if they pulled this rebrand and reworked the design multiple times. Plus, if they added black to the uniform then what was the point of unveiling anything really?

The 49ers only unveiled a helmet, and it was so roundly hated by the fanbase that they had little choice but to pull it. The new Lightning gear is certainly not hated as much as that 49ers helmet, definitely not by their whole fan base.

Your comment about "tacky" and "downgrade" is purely subjective. There are plenty of people who agree with you, but there are also plenty who disagree. This isn't like the Slug, where it was 99% hate.

Merchandising like we know it today was in its infancy when the 49ers fiasco happened. They probably didn't have to jump through many hoops to simply change back. Now though, so much is done in advance and so much is invested in an identity that it would be way more costly to revert back.

You may be right about them doing some more re-work, but it's clear that they aren't going to deviate too much from what they unveiled.

It's apples and oranges.

Well, if it wasn't disliked by the fanbase, then why would they bother to roster the lightning bolt on the shorts and black on the jersey? If they thought it was so iconic and timeless, they should've unveiled the updated/completed jersey after polling the fanbase or attempting to probe the fanbase(a focus group or something) to get their thoughts. This unveiling, and sudden act of backpedaling not only puts into question their efforts to rebrand themselves once more, but it makes it appear that their fanbase isn't thrilled with the new look.

For the most part, and even removing Ice from the numbers of critics on this board (due to the fact, he's been the most vocal, and one can say a little too passionate, although I understand where he's coming from) I've seen more hatred than anything else after the unveiling. Not to mention, some disgust from them basically performing a cheap mspaint job on the new jerseys to put some black back into play.

Being a third-party and not having inside knowledge of their marketing department, and who officially designed this uniform, the whole rebranding process looks muddled, lacks confidence with the backpedaling, and overall completely unprofessional with it's implementation. I'm not trying to say I'm right, or you're wrong, but judging this whole rebrand from afar (as a critic like anyone else here) it just appears to look that way to me.

Making simple mods like changing numbers and adding a stripe to shells is hardly the same as scrapping plans for an entire new identity package. I would bet that the "average" lightning fan doesn't hate these with nearly the same passion as the average 49ers fan hated the new helmet. They mostly complained about the loss of black and bolts so they got them back (sort of.)

Do you really think that they didn't have focus groups or contact with the fanbase? Marketing companies simply don't roll out a project like this without reaching out at least some extent. It may have been too small of a focus group, or possibly Steve Y said "F your focus groups. I want Blue Wings!" but I'd wager there was some kind of involvement there.

It's impossible to say that it "lacked confidence", but they probably had the plans for the black numbers and bolts ready to go as a contingency, figuring that would be the biggest complaints (if there were a lot of complaints, which apparently there were.)

As far as "I'm right" or "you're wrong", what are we arguing here? That it wasn't handled well and the design has met criticism and it's long term success is in doubt? There's no argument there. But I do not see any way to rationally compare it to a logo that had to be torn up and scrapped all together because of the total disgust of a (larger than the Lightning's) fanbase.

I'm sure Stevie got a little too involved, as this rebrand has his fingerprints all over it, but when you publicly unveil a uniform in the middle of the season for everyone to see, then release version 2.0 not that long after the unveiling it appears from afar to lack confidence and show your fanbase didn't approve of the initial design. That in turn makes it appear as if the design was rushed or a focus group really wasn't used. I'm certainly not saying that the Lightning lacked these things, but it appears that way from a distance.

As far as the arguing thing... I just wanted to state that, because sometimes when I have disagreements with some of the members here, they think I'm personally attacking them, as if somehow being overly opinionated makes you an ass. I think that only thing we disagree on was comparing the 49er and Lightning rebrands, which might not have been the best comparison. Putting aside how large both fanbases are technically, both designs are visually unappealing in many ways and overall seem like massive steps in the wrong direction, despite the One Day Logo's entire uniform not seeing the light of day.

[Sport]

It's the same blue the Leafs use, and the Leafs have always worn it with white alone. The Lightning have always worn it with black and silver, until now, of course.

It would be like if the Bucks dropped the red and silver and went with a simple block wordmark/number font. They're still using the green they've always used, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still a blatant rip-off of the Celtics' identity.

From strictly a color standpoint, no. It wouldnt be.

Only because the Bucks use a different shade of green. The Lightning, however, use the same shade of blue the Leafs have used. So the Leafs have been the only NHL team to use blue and white for 86 years, and the Lightning had avoided infringing on that look for 19 years. Until they decided to just go with blue and white, using a colour scheme that had been the domain of the Leafs and the leafs only for close to a century. Them using the same shade of blue the Leafs have used drives the point home.

I get that in a vacuum these Lightning uniforms are a huge improvement. They reduced the clutter, and streamlined the look. The problem is that a uniform's design does not exist in a vacuum. The team's own history, and the new look's similarities to the other 29 looks in the league, all have to be factored into the discussion. The latter even more so since the increased emphasis on marketing makes having a distinct look an advantage.

Adding the black is an improvement for the Lightning, even if its application was inconsistent. Hopefully they'll add the black to the stripes and logos in upcoming seasons to perfect the new look.

I'm with ice cap (especially because he used my Bucks-Celtics analogy, but it applies so keep it up). The greens of the Bucks and Celtics aren't exactly the same, but people would notice if the Bucks dropped red and went to uniforms with one solid white stripe patterned across the various elements of the uniforms. That would definitely raise a few eyebrows. You know it would, we all know it would. How is this any different?

The Lightning certainly did steal the Maple Leafs color scheme which is unique to the NHL. The league has 5 teams using some variation of red and black (formerly 6 before Buffalo went back to blue), which is absurd in itself, but only had one black and blue team. Be that black and blue team, Tampa. It's yours, take it. They literally tried to glom onto the classic aesthetic of old teams. They said as much in the press conference and cited the Maple Leafs for crying out loud.

I like the uniforms, I even like the logo, but they're too similar to Toronto's, which is a very valid concern. The breezers bolt and the black outline on the numbers is a mini-victory and hopefully one day black joins the logo and stripes again.

The black will join the uniforms and it'll help distinguish the two teams a little more. They'll play the Hurricane to the Maple Leaf's Red Wing.

[KCScout76]

I like the move, adding black keeps their original color scheme and most color schemes need that "trim/3rd" color.

I also like the "bolt" on the pants, classic looking and it's Tampa's signature of the NHL. Good Move IMO!

[troy_3223]

I'm with ice cap (especially because he used my Bucks-Celtics analogy, but it applies so keep it up). The greens of the Bucks and Celtics aren't exactly the same, but people would notice if the Bucks dropped red and went to uniforms with one solid white stripe patterned across the various elements of the uniforms. That would definitely raise a few eyebrows. You know it would, we all know it would. How is this any different?

It's different because there are enough differences between the two uniform, er, systems. Outside of viewing highlights on a hipster's tiny cell phone, no one is going to mistake the Lightning for the Maple Leafs. The color is the only similarity (a large one, but not enough for a claim of identity theft, which seems to be what the Leafs fans are kvetching about). Now that the bolts are back on the pant shells, there are even less similarities.

The Bucks-Celtics analogy falls apart because in that analogy, more changes are made to make the two teams indistinguishable (striping, wordmark fonts). While there isn't much difference admittedly between the thick white stripe of the Lightning and the two thin white strips of the Leafs, the pant shells, the socks (best part of the Leafs uniform IMO), the shape of the crests, the vestigal black outlines, and the upcoming addition of the armpit stripes, there is enough to put to rest the whole "stolen Leafs identity" thing to bed.

[capn89]

When one team wears it exclusively for close to a century and another team that's never used it switches to it after close to 20 years in their own unique colour scheme.

It's not Tampa's fault they've only been around 20 years. And I still hold to the fact that all they did was drop excess colors to get to blue and white. Not like they went from completely different colors and said "hey, let's do white and blue," even if they did that (which granted would allow more of an argument for *hehehe* "stealing") I still wouldn't have a problem with it. There are plenty of teams with congruent color schemes, rangers/habs, isles/oilers devils/sens (save for the logos with gold/bronze/whatever featured nowhere else on the unis are some that come to mind off the top of my head.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion, that's fine.

[capn89]

I'm with ice cap (especially because he used my Bucks-Celtics analogy, but it applies so keep it up). The greens of the Bucks and Celtics aren't exactly the same, but people would notice if the Bucks dropped red and went to uniforms with one solid white stripe patterned across the various elements of the uniforms. That would definitely raise a few eyebrows. You know it would, we all know it would. How is this any different?

It's different because there are enough differences between the two uniform, er, systems. Outside of viewing highlights on a hipster's tiny cell phone, no one is going to mistake the Lightning for the Maple Leafs. The color is the only similarity (a large one, but not enough for a claim of identity theft, which seems to be what the Leafs fans are kvetching about). Now that the bolts are back on the pant shells, there are even less similarities.

The Bucks-Celtics analogy falls apart because in that analogy, more changes are made to make the two teams indistinguishable (striping, wordmark fonts). While there isn't much difference admittedly between the thick white stripe of the Lightning and the two thin white strips of the Leafs, the pant shells, the socks (best part of the Leafs uniform IMO), the shape of the crests, the vestigal black outlines, and the upcoming addition of the armpit stripes, there is enough to put to rest the whole "stolen Leafs identity" thing to bed.

Especially with the clown socks the Leafs wear, but we can agree to disagree on our opinions of the socks

[IceCap]

When one team wears it exclusively for close to a century and another team that's never used it switches to it after close to 20 years in their own unique colour scheme.

It's not Tampa's fault they've only been around 20 years. And I still hold to the fact that all they did was drop excess colors to get to blue and white. Not like they went from completely different colors and said "hey, let's do white and blue," even if they did that (which granted would allow more of an argument for *hehehe* "stealing") I still wouldn't have a problem with it. There are plenty of teams with congruent color schemes, rangers/habs, isles/oilers devils/sens (save for the logos with gold/bronze/whatever featured nowhere else on the unis are some that come to mind off the top of my head.

The problem is that the Lightning had successfully managed to avoid infringing on the Leafs' look for 20 years. If they had debuted as a blue and white team then the "in 30 team league there's going to be some overlap" argument would hold water. They didn't though. They debuted with their own unique to the league colour scheme. Now they're infringing on a look that's been the domain of only one team for close to a century.

They said as much in their press conference, citing the Leafs, as McCarthy pointed out. They want to look like a classic, old time team. The problem is that they aren't one. They're a 90s sunbelt expansion team. They are certainly able to develop a classic, clean look that incorporates black, blue, and silver. So why pretend to be something they're not?

Or think of it this way. Say the Ducks lose the gold and start wearing orange and black. After the Flyers have been the only team to wear those colours since they came into the league.

The black certainly helps. In a few seasons, if they add black outlines to the stripes and logos they'll have a decent look.

And drop the TAMPA BAY on the road whites. It looks awkward.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion, that's fine.

As are you. Just remember that as my opinion's nothing but my opinion, your opinion's nothing but your opinion

[TheOldRoman]

The problem is that the Lightning had successfully managed to avoid infringing on the Leafs' look for 20 years. If they had debuted as a blue and white team then the "in 30 team league there's going to be some overlap" argument would hold water. They didn't though. They debuted with their own unique to the league colour scheme. Now they're infringing on a look that's been the domain of only one team for close to a century.

They said as much in their press conference, citing the Leafs, as McCarthy pointed out. They want to look like a classic, old time team. The problem is that they aren't one. They're a 90s sunbelt expansion team. They are certainly able to develop a classic, clean look that incorporates black, blue, and silver. So why pretend to be something they're not?

Or think of it this way. Say the Ducks lose the gold and start wearing orange and black. After the Flyers have been the only team to wear those colours since they came into the league.

The black certainly helps. In a few seasons, if they add black outlines to the stripes and logos they'll have a decent look.

And drop the TAMPA BAY on the road whites. It looks awkward.

As are you. Just remember that as my opinion's nothing but my opinion, your opinion's nothing but your opinion

Futhermore, the Lightning are sticking with one of the previously used colors in that shade for royal blue, but the Lightning changed their blue a few years back. They used a lighter blue (which went better with black) for the large majority of their history, so you can't really say "this has been one of their colors for 20 years."