The Packers logo

[andrewharrington]

Ha! Kind of you to say. Not trying to win anything. Or squash the debate. By all means continue. I enjoy all the thoughts on it. Nothing is sacrosanct here.

When I ask myself why "G" stands for Green Bay and not Greenbay? My response is just...I dunno. Why is water wet? It just is and it just does. But maybe that's my failing.

And despite the fact that I regard the Packers brand as a settled issue, I obviously do find myself drawn to the same minutia as you guys do. Really fascinated lately with how the execution can change the effect. Not so much the marketing/merchandising point of view. But the optics of the colors like I described earlier. Similar to the ongoing Weagle debate in other thread and how the blue and red in that mark compete and (to some) how that downgrades that design.

It's a fair question posed in this thread. Why do people think the Packers logo is good (one of the best)? I'm not sure they DO to put it bluntly. Who thinks that? I don't necessarily. I don't stare at it like I do the Wild logo and just want to gush...Man! That's brilliant...wish I'd thought of it. But I do think when you take everything together it works nearly perfectly. I think we forget the temporal aspect to design. Something that was designed XX years ago automatically means that same thing can never be re-invented. And the Packers logo is just one of dozens of logos like that...timestamped into a given era. And if it can survive a few tweaks and still be here all this time later? Then so be it. I get the impression the subtext of the question is the classic "My 8 year old neice could draw that...." ergo "Why am I not a professional logo designer". I feel that way all the time and heck, I've got some work out there. Nothing wrong with looking at super simple logos out there (ahem, Cowboys) and thinking...."Dang, in another world, that could have been done by me". Truth is to some extent everything worth doing has already been done. Logos with simple letterforms or stars or (literal) icons are like lakefront property...as in, they been done got bought up years ago. It is what it is. I don't think newer teams necessarily WANT to go overly illustrative. But 1) all the good true icons are used up and 2) If you faux-retro yourself like the 'Ning you get mocked for doing so. These simple logos may not be flawlessly crafted compared to today's standards and focus group mentality. But they are like our grandparents. They deserve a certain amount of reverence for just lasting this long in the first place.

That's the thing about it. Visually, sure, it could be drawn smoother, it could be a GB, etc. Maybe it's not everyone's cup of tea, aesthetically, but there's no arguing that it's characteristics are those of a logo that's the beating heart of a really strong brand. It just works, based on all things that must be considered in a real-world assessment for how well something works.