Oregon State Unveils New Logo and Uniforms

[habsfan1]

That beaver head looks bad with the sharp cutoff area. I think it would look better if those edges were smoother and rounder.

It would not look like they stuffed his head tightly in a box...

[BrandMooreArt]

Well wasn't that the whole point of bfbs for 'recuiting' merch sales and because it was 'cool'

yea same thing. it was a time when black was a large part of sports design and it was "in". which is why i've always had an issue with the term BFBS as well. did most teams do it to improve the aesthetic or meaning of their brand? no, but there was thought and reason behind it. they knew what they were doing.

[hugevolsfan]

Well wasn't that the whole point of bfbs for 'recuiting' merch sales and because it was 'cool'

yea same thing. it was a time when black was a large part of sports design and it was "in". which is why i've always had an issue with the term BFBS as well. did most teams do it to improve the aesthetic or meaning of their brand? no, but there was thought and reason behind it. they knew what they were doing.

I get & agree with what your saying for the most part but I think when something is done over & over again it can be BFBS or whatever.

The reason is that they are many other ways to generate cash than just doing a certain trend.

[Davidson]

Well wasn't that the whole point of bfbs for 'recuiting' merch sales and because it was 'cool'

yea same thing. it was a time when black was a large part of sports design and it was "in". which is why i've always had an issue with the term BFBS as well. did most teams do it to improve the aesthetic or meaning of their brand? no, but there was thought and reason behind it. they knew what they were doing.

I get & agree with what your saying for the most part but I think when something is done over & over again it can be BFBS or whatever.

The reason is that they are many other ways to generate cash than just doing a certain trend.

He's saying its done 'over and over again' for a monetary reason. if you agree, then its not done for its own sake.

You may not like the decisions being made, but there are reasons for them.

Aside from the boost in sales a rebrand will generate, neutral colours sell at a better rate than their vivid counterparts, check out the t-shirt range, of the 8 t-shirts on the front page of the shop, 1 is white, 5 are grey, one is black and only one is orange. This is not an accident. And its a very cost effective way to generate sales and improve recruitment.

[oldschoolvikings]

Well wasn't that the whole point of bfbs for 'recuiting' merch sales and because it was 'cool'

yea same thing. it was a time when black was a large part of sports design and it was "in". which is why i've always had an issue with the term BFBS as well. did most teams do it to improve the aesthetic or meaning of their brand? no, but there was thought and reason behind it. they knew what they were doing.

I get & agree with what your saying for the most part but I think when something is done over & over again it can be BFBS or whatever.

The reason is that they are many other ways to generate cash than just doing a certain trend.

He's saying its done 'over and over again' for a monetary reason. if you agree, then its not done for its own sake.

You may not like the decisions being made, but there are reasons for them.

Aside from the boost in sales a rebrand will generate, neutral colours sell at a better rate than their vivid counterparts, check out the t-shirt range, of the 8 t-shirts on the front page of the shop, 1 is white, 5 are grey, one is black and only one is orange. This is not an accident. And its a very cost effective way to generate sales and improve recruitment.

Yeah, that's obvious. And as the designer, hired by the client, that's a concern. But I think a lot of people (who have no stake in how much money is being made) just care about whether the visual decision makes the design aesthetically better. Period. Why do I care how much extra cash a black jersey brings in? As a sports fan with an unhealthy obsession with uniforms and logos, all I care about is whether or not the design makes me happy.

So, from that point of view, if the sole criteria is "Does this decision improve the design visually?", then BFBS, or GFGS, or whatever, means simply was black added to make it a better design (a good decision), or to improve sales/coolness/attract recruits (bad decision)?

[Davidson]

Well wasn't that the whole point of bfbs for 'recuiting' merch sales and because it was 'cool'

yea same thing. it was a time when black was a large part of sports design and it was "in". which is why i've always had an issue with the term BFBS as well. did most teams do it to improve the aesthetic or meaning of their brand? no, but there was thought and reason behind it. they knew what they were doing.

I get & agree with what your saying for the most part but I think when something is done over & over again it can be BFBS or whatever.

The reason is that they are many other ways to generate cash than just doing a certain trend.

He's saying its done 'over and over again' for a monetary reason. if you agree, then its not done for its own sake.

You may not like the decisions being made, but there are reasons for them.

Aside from the boost in sales a rebrand will generate, neutral colours sell at a better rate than their vivid counterparts, check out the t-shirt range, of the 8 t-shirts on the front page of the shop, 1 is white, 5 are grey, one is black and only one is orange. This is not an accident. And its a very cost effective way to generate sales and improve recruitment.

Yeah, that's obvious. And as the designer, hired by the client, that's a concern. But I think a lot of people (who have no stake in how much money is being made) just care about whether the visual decision makes the design aesthetically better. Period. Why do I care how much extra cash a black jersey brings in? As a sports fan with an unhealthy obsession with uniforms and logos, all I care about is whether or not the design makes me happy.

So, from that point of view, if the sole criteria is "Does this decision improve the design visually?", then BFBS, or GFGS, or whatever, means simply was black added to make it a better design (a good decision), or to improve sales/coolness/attract recruits (bad decision)?

You're kind of missing my point.

My point is that a metric for whether fans/ potential players like a particular design can be expressed by the number of units sold/ improved recruitment. The more they like the design, the more likely they are to buy stuff etc.

So to say 'does X improve a design visually?' is exactly the question asked of the general public. Experience tells us that (for good or ill) people (both fans and players) seem to respond better to what you would characterise as BFBS. They feel it improves a design visually.

Now, I dont for a second think that anybody's design opinions are anything other than subjective, but the rationale behind these decisions use the prevailing general preferences of folk. Something we can measure.

We could argue that people are actually responding to novelty, that its a shame that the design of on field uniform is increasingly dictated by the fashion preferences of the 200lb plus guys looking to better hide a beer belly. And I would agree, these were less of a concern in the past when it came to designing for sport, but regardless of the reasons for peoples preferences, these are preferences.

Dont get me wrong, I get it. I understand your point of view, its not dissimilar to my own, I imagine. I'm not saying you shouldn't get to say that you feel something looks if thats what you think. It just thats when it comes to the term 'BFBS' it feels like people dismiss the intent with which some decisions are made, when its the same decision making/ design process that gives rise to things you probably like and think improve a design visually.

Like I say, Im not trying to argue that say, Rhianna and The Beatles are the same and that there is nothing split between them, but (in their respective times) they have both have sell records.

[oldschoolvikings]

Fair enough. You're obviously right that these designs are visually appealing to the apparent target audience... they aren't dumb enough to do it otherwise.

I'm just wondering (and maybe being cynical)... how often do you think these decisions are made solely for the money? In other words, doesn't it seem like there are times when it seems the final decision was, more or less, "I couldn't care less about design, dammit... black sells, make it black", and the designer just has to do the best he or she can.

[Davidson]

Fair enough. You're obviously right that these designs are visually appealing to the apparent target audience... they aren't dumb enough to do it otherwise.

I'm just wondering (and maybe being cynical)... how often do you think these decisions are made solely for the money? In other words, doesn't it seem like there are times when it seems the final decision was, more or less, "I couldn't care less about design, dammit... black sells, make it black", and the designer just has to do the best he or she can.

Well, I dont think you can really tease these things apart to be honest. There is certainly an element of wanting to refresh a brand (in the marketing vernacular). on the whole people like new logos, something different, which in turn leads to an increase in sales etc.

But even if we were to assume that the decision came down from on high from the accounting department, everyone subsequently involved with the rebranding all throughout the design team from the creative directors to people like myself and Brian are all very passionate about the design and making it look great. Its easy to talk about corporate motivation, and everyone within a company like Nike would have their own motivations for being there, but in my experience its full of people who love designing for sport like the folk that do it for this board.

I dont work there and have no first hand experience, you might get better information from Brian, but Ill bet decisions get made far higher than the guy whos mocking up a uniform. There are many levels of design involved from engineering through to graphic people. There will be a strong overall strategy based on the market research and the stuff talked about earlier.

[Slammersman]

The logo looks like a messed up fish head.

[Foxxtrot44]

Am I the only who thinks you could lay the New England Patriots logo on top of this and have a pretty good outline match?

[dmhtfld]

Am I the only who thinks you could lay the New England Patriots logo on top of this and have a pretty good outline match?

You most likely are the only one considering their outlines don't match up in any way.