Did the New Jersey Nets tease their Brooklyn logo?

[goforbroke]

Except we've already established that what you've seen them do with their logo package isn't necessarily a good sample of what they're actaully doing with it.

The shield is everywhere, even many places controlled by the team and not the league. Places where they could use what they want, and they sure as heck seem to want to use the shield.

And the reason I believe it qualifies within the mythical 50% rule is because if it didn't I don't think it would exist at all... They would have made an all new logo or used the b circle as the primary.

But you're wrong. Demonstrably so.

They did create a primary logo that's seldom-used to fulfill whispered-and-rumored NBA logo regulations. It looks like this:

Therefore, we know with some certaintly that they didn't create the shield logo for that purpose. Even if they didn't use the simple shield all over the freaking place.

So what is the point of the shield logo at all then.. That's my point.

I just don't understand why their primary logo.. With or without Brooklyn underneath.. Looks like that if not to fulfil that mythical rule. It almost seems like they desiged the circle b logo first and then designed the shield around it The ball with the b on it seems plucked from the roundel and plopped into a shield under the word nets. It looks forced, rushed, and incomplete. I've been saying the whole time this is my opinion but to me it just screams that the shield logo was designed and exists just to be less that 50% different than the old logo.. While the roundel will be the team's preferred logo.

There is no other reason honestly for the shield logo to look the way it does.. There is no history to honor, they don't care about that they are starting absolutely fresh. Their merchandise even says established 2012 .. As I've said (also an opinion) the only reason they didn't change the name from nets is it would cause an unnessasary extra word to market to Brooklyn. People already know the word nets.. So now they can just promote the word Brooklyn rather than also knights, ballers, etc.

We've seen this time and time again with the hornets, jazz, nuggets, bobcats, Raptors, wizards. On and on... That's how teams rebrand now in the nba. They have a slightly different primary logo that they don't use and the secondary becomes their preferred logo. That is what I feel the nets are doing. Are they never EVER using the shield? Apparently not but I feel they will phase it out and use it less and less and use the circle b mainly like we've seen with the fluer de bee, jazz note, etc.

[The_Admiral]

I'm an awful human being, but every time I see the "Nets B Brooklyn" logo, I say to myself "they sure do!"

[StillS]

So what is the point of the shield logo at all then.. That's my point.

To get the best of both worlds. A shield logo just like Nets name makes it easier for the current NJ fan base to support a team in Brooklyn and at the same time the new fan base can identify the history associated with Nets due to the name and the presence of shield in the logo. Plus the shield logo is different enough from the old one to create a sense of a brand new franchise starting in Brooklyn.

This might seem like a reach at first but it makes more sense when you consider that Nets are going against a historic team in Knicks in New York and there was also an article where someone from the Nets organisation said the reason they kept the name was because they found out people in Brooklyn seem to value the history associated with the name. Im guessing that's the same reason why they went with the shield that we have come to associate with Nets in the NBA.

[illwauk]

I actually expect the Nets to have very simple (Black and White) uniforms like these from South Korea women national team:

I'd love it if that were not only the case, but it spawned a trend of minimalism in the NBA and throughout sports. Of course, with my luck, it wouldn't be the teams with unique colors who jumped on the bandwagon, it'd be all the red & blue clad teams instead.

[Billy B]

Yeah, I'm still not buying the 50% idea, mostly because I don' think such a rule exists. Maybe the Nets are going with a shield to tie back to New Jersey. The owner is Russian, maybe he wanted a shield logo since it's similar to a lot of stuff you would see in the KHL or on soccer teams. Maybe Jay-Z just thought a shield would look cool. The Nets built a brand new arena in Brooklyn, are spending a bunch of money on advertising, and are looking to make big splashes in free agency. I don't think the reason they went with a shield as their primary was to save $500k.

[Gothamite]

The "50% Rule" is just like that "change a copyrighted logo 30% and you own it" thing that floats around here from time to time - totally false.

Goforbroke, your argument seems predcated entirely on your dislike for the shield.

You don't like the shield, so it must be a placeholder. You don't like the shield, so it must be an attempt to hold on to a couple New Jersey fans. You don't like the shield, so it must have been created to placate the league.

I have a far simpler answer: maybe they like it. It needn't be any more complicated than that.

[tBBP]

I actually expect the Nets to have very simple (Black and White) uniforms like these from South Korea women national team:

I'd love it if that were not only the case, but it spawned a trend of minimalism in the NBA and throughout sports. Of course, with my luck, it wouldn't be the teams with unique colors who jumped on the bandwagon, it'd be all the red & blue clad teams instead.

Hasn't that kinda already happened, though?

Look at the Warriors, Sixers, and most recently the Jazz. Granted, they're all "retrograde" identities?that is, they went back to something similar to what they used to wear?but still, they're all pretty barebones basic (maybe a tad bit too much in the case of the Sixers, but whatever).

The difference, though, is that we've not seen a straight black-and-white pro sports team without at least a smidgeon of silver since the Miami Sharks in like, ever. And if the Nets pull this off right?and according to our resident insiders, it seems like they did just that?we may have ourselves a new benchmark dawning on us come September.

[The_Admiral]

That Korea uniform reminds me of, if anything, the 2004-2010 Jazz uniforms, which were just navy blue with minimal piping and "phantom" side panels. Did not like.

[goforbroke]

The "50% Rule" is just like that "change a copyrighted logo 30% and you own it" thing that floats around here from time to time - totally false.

Goforbroke, your argument seems predcated entirely on your dislike for the shield.

You don't like the shield, so it must be a placeholder. You don't like the shield, so it must be an attempt to hold on to a couple New Jersey fans. You don't like the shield, so it must have been created to placate the league.

I have a far simpler answer: maybe they like it. It needn't be any more complicated than that.

I never said they want to hang onto the nj fans. For starters, their are none. This is a generalization but the only reason anyone went to nets games at all is because it was cheaper and more convenient than Knicks games. No one was ever a real FAN of the nj nets. The attendance proved that. And if their were a handful of real nj nets fans here, the new ownership could care less about them, they'll get plenty of new fans in Brooklyn. Mileage wise it's not that far but you know the area it's way to inconvenient to get from north jersey to the Barclays center just to go to a game. No ones going to do that. In short, they've lost their nj fans. Certainly more than a similar logo would bring them back.

My argument is that they DONT seem to like it. They are not using it as much as a new primary logo should be used if that were the case. It's their primary logo and yet is on only 10% of their merchandise after a quick browse of the online store. It won't be their centercourt logo.

My argument is that they want to brand themselves as Brooklyn.. That's what the b-circle logo does for them. They don't care about marketing the word nets. They don't need to (as I said even if their were never any nj net fans in the ny area before everyone at least knew who they were) What they need to market is Brooklyn basketball. Not Nets basketball. It really doesn't matter what the team name is to them, that's why it was easier to just keep it as nets.

I would love to romanticize that they want to honor the history of the nets from both nj and long island and are doing that through keeping the name and shield logo, but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

My argument is that the primary logo seems to serve no purpose for them other than appease the league. Even if the 50% rule is a myth, the existence of that shield with just the word nets over a basketball on it screams to me "here nba, it's our prImary that fits your guidelines for a primary".

None of this is based off my opinion of the logo itself. To me, all signs point to them making that shield logo with no intent of using it THAT much. And because of that, and because of the similarity to the previous logo, it makes me believe that it fits a 50% rule that the nba has in terms of resesigning logos... Because otherwise it wouldn't exist at all.

[IceCap]

My argument is that the primary logo seems to serve no purpose for them other than appease the league. Even if the 50% rule is a myth, the existence of that shield with just the word nets over a basketball on it screams to me "here nba, it's our prImary that fits your guidelines for a primary".

Except that the shield isn't a logo that fits the NBA's guidelines. Even if the 50% rule existed. Which it does not.

The NBA guidelines, as we understand them, state that you get fined for changing your primary. This is done to make it easier on manufacturers and to try to promote brand consistency. NBA teams have found loopholes in this by simply recolouring their primary and using their official secondary marks in place of their primaries. The Raptors, Jazz, Hawks, Bobcats, Nuggets, and Wizards all did that. You're trying to suggest that the Nets did this too, but they didn't. Those teams all recoloured their primaries with a few small tweaks here and there. Nothing to noticeable, other then the colour changes.

The Nets' shield logo, on the other hand, isn't a black and white recolour of their last New Jersey logo. It uses a lot of the same elements (not all of them, plus it adds a new one), but utilizes them in a completely different way, from a design perspective. It's simply not a recolour.

The NBA must look at each new rebrand to determine whether a team has followed their "keep their primary to avoid the fine" guidelines right? I have a hard time believing that whoever is in charge of that process looked at the Nets' new shield and saw it in the same category as the Raptors, Jazz, Hawks, Bobcats, Nuggets, and Wizards' recolours.

[Billy B]

And we don't know for a fact whether or not three Hornets paid the redesign fee. There's a pretty good chance they didn't, but for all we know they paid it. Yeah it was a small change, but maybe they didn't make paying 500 grand to make sure their primary looked like it came from the same package as the fleur-de-bee and NOLA logo.

[goforbroke]

I know what the logo looks like thank you.

I think if there was a 50.% rule, this would count. As I said before, a recolor to me is 5-10% change. The hornets redrew the same logo and modernized it. That seems like a 30% change. A full redesign... Sonics to thunder.. Is a 100% change. The old to new nets seems like 50% to me if you think of it that way.

Idk if the 50% thing is real or not, but if it was id say this qualified.

In any case... Like almost every other rebrand we've seen in the nba of late.. I feel the nets secondary circle- b logo will become the most used, If it hasnt already.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Bucks too, right? Tweaked, but basically a recolor.

And we need one of those automated editors that changes "50%" to Snuffleupagus or some other ridiculous word so that the concept doesn't take root as some sort of fact the next time this topic comes up. There's already too many references in here to a rule that doesn't exist.

[Billy B]

There is no 50% rule.

The Nets chose to still use a shield in Brooklyn that is roughly the same shape as their last logo in New Jersey. This has nothing to do with exploiting the loophole in the NBA's identity rules. They thought the shield would be best for purposes of a primary logo, but also thought their brand could benefit by having a strong alternate logo that they will use frequently. The alternate logo wasn't created to overshadow their primary, it's meant to compliment it. One of it's uses will most likely be the center court logo, but that's not even something that will be unique to them in the league.

[goforbroke]

There has to be some rule about being somehow encouraged to recolor or slightly tweak existing logos when rebranding. Because teams do it so often and never even use the new primary. Look at the wizards for example, or the jazz, or the raptors. 50% myth aside there is something going on preventing these teams from just creating all new primaries.

[CubsFanBudMan]

And it's in the Atlanta Hawks thread from a few years ago, in detail. I looked it up and pasted in last year's NBA megathread, too, I believe.

There is a cost to change your primary logo that persuades teams like the Jazz, Bucks, Wizards, Bobcats, Nuggets, Hawks, Suns, etc. into keeping a logo from a previous identity even when the rest of the set has moved on. Recoloring and minor tweaks don't count.

I will attempt to look up this info again.

EDIT: This Jazz thread from 2010:

...led me to the original Atlanta Hawks thread, which contained a post from DEAD! That quoted an Atlanta Journal Constitution story from June 24, 2007, outlining the $500,000 penalty for changing a primary logo:

No mention of a specific percentage, as if that could even be quantified anyway.

[goforbroke]

And it's in the Atlanta Hawks thread from a few years ago, in detail. I looked it up and pasted in last year's NBA megathread, too, I believe.

There is a cost to change your primary logo that persuades teams like the Jazz, Bucks, Wizards, Bobcats, Nuggets, Hawks, Suns, etc. into keeping a logo from a previous identity even when the rest of the set has moved on. Recoloring and minor tweaks don't count.

I will attempt to look up this info again, but I believe it's more difficult from a phone.

But what exactly constitutes a minor tweak? Does the hornets count? See here's my thing, this new nets primary... I really feel it has enough in common with the old primary that it would count as a minor tweak.

Think about the spirit of the rule...Why would the nba have rules like this? Even a small change would require a full change for the manufactures and graphics people. It really doesn't matter to them whether it's a small or gigantic overhaul they still need new graphics and templates and reprint everything. I think the point of the rule is to encourage some consistency in the brand identity... And for that I think te Nets did that ( to appease the NBA, not that they care). So even though it's not a straight recolor IMO it's similar enough that the nba would accept it under those guidelines. Just my opinion in thinking about the point of such a rule.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I edited my post before I saw your response. See above for links to details from 2007. Minor tweaks in colors and typefaces.

However, your argument is shot because many teams stop using the primary and encourage media to use the secondary, and as mentioned above, the Nets are prominently using their new primary in many places. It's not just satisfyimg some rule, if it even does that at all. And not to appease the NBA. They are actively promoting it.

When compared to all of the other teams listed just two posts above, which one doesn't fit? The Nets.

[goforbroke]

I edited my post before I saw your response. See above for links to details from 2007. Minor tweaks in colors and typefaces.

However, your argument is shot because many teams stop using the primary and encourage media to use the secondary, and as mentioned above, the Nets are prominently using their new primary in many places. It's not just satisfyimg some rule, if it even does that at all. And not to appease the NBA. They are actively promoting it.

When compared to all of the other teams listed just two posts above, which one doesn't fit? The Nets.

They aren't using it nearly as much as they should be using a new primary logo. It's not invisible but the circle b is much more prevelant. Lets see what happens in a year or so I bet we almost never see the shield.

[Gothamite]

They aren't using it nearly as much as they should be using a new primary logo. It's not invisible but the circle b is much more prevelant. Lets see what happens in a year or so I bet we almost never see the shield.

You seem to be missing the point - the shield logo is not their primary logo. This is their primary logo:

The shield with the city name. The shield logo by itself is an alternate or "partial" logo.

The shield by itself is a "partial" or alternate logo. They use the alternates everywhere - if the "circle-B" more on merchandise, then the "solo shield" more in advertising - but if you can't identify the primary logo then you'll have a hard time drawing any meaningful conclusions about why and when they use their primary logo.