rmackman

The "Genericizing" of NFL Wordmarks

Recommended Posts

Matching the logo is a pretty good reason.

As for the Patriots' logo with the warped Elvis in it, yeah, that looked bad, but the one without it was fine enough. Certainly better than what they're using now, and worlds ahead of that hideous bicentennial-style script they used to have.

And there were some pretty generic NFL wordmarks if you look back: Bengals, Falcons, and Cardinals were all pretty boring.

292.gif378.gifatlanta_falcons.jpg

No one is lamenting the loss of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, personally, I hate this generic wordmark trend going on. When I look at the new scripts for the Dolphins, Patriots, and Jags, I think of them being so generic that you could give it to any team that had the same nicknames, but looking at the old scripts, they were very distinct and automatically let you know who the team was. Going simple and modern just isn't for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That every single one of those changes was a significant upgrade tends to undercut your argument.

I agree. I can see an argument that the Dolphins and Pats were downgrades (though I don't feel that way), but the Jags and Panthers dumped steaming piles of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pantherslogo.jpg

I don't know why, but it seems to me like the new Panthers wordmark fits better with the old logo, and the old wordmark fits better with the new. The new logo seems more streamlined and "aggressive," which would match the style of the old wordmark (cleaned up a bit of course), while the old logo seemed "traditional with a touch of modern," which matches the style of the new wordmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put all these new wordmarks next to each other, there's no question they do look pretty similar. However, if you put each update side by side with the mark they're replacing they are, IMO, almost all big upgrades.

So, the question is, what's better? To have a nice wordmark on it's own but be a little generic when compared to the group, or to stand out as unique, but dated and/or goofy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most sentiments about the Patriots. The new one isn't good, but it's better than the one it replaced.

As far as the Panthers & Jaguars, I think the updates are better than their previous incarnations. The Jaguars one was as bad as the Panthers, but the odd shape of the layout always bothered me.

Now with the Dolphins, I think that's the only one that's a downgrade. I don't like the new one compared to the old, however, they could've just cleaned up and simplified the old one to make it perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lions also botched this a few years back although not as bad as some other teams recently

old:

475.gif

New:

Detroit_Lions_new_wordmark.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lions also botched this a few years back although not as bad as some other teams recently

old:

475.gif

New:

Detroit_Lions_new_wordmark.png

I like the new one, it works with their new rebranding and doesnt look like everything else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Lions' new wordmark, if only because it's uniquely styled. It came out around the tail end of the phase that gave us the Texans, Seahawks, Cardinals, and Bengals' wordmarks, so it was just a relief to see something original and not a rehash.

That and the old one never really did it for me. It reminded me to much of the Cowboys and 49ers' wordmarks, and with the Lions being the least prominant of those three teams their wordmark kind of looked like it was trying to fit in with those other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matching the logo is a pretty good reason.

As for the Patriots' logo with the warped Elvis in it, yeah, that looked bad, but the one without it was fine enough. Certainly better than what they're using now, and worlds ahead of that hideous bicentennial-style script they used to have.

And there were some pretty generic NFL wordmarks if you look back: Bengals, Falcons, and Cardinals were all pretty boring.

292.gif378.gifatlanta_falcons.jpg

No one is lamenting the loss of these.

For the Cardinals' wordmark, what's the deal with the Z; that thing is unnecessarily clunky. Also, the Cardinals had a wordmark where the primary logo was in place of the O, but I don't know if it was an on field logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else remember when the Cardinals had their endzones done up like the Arizona state flag? Not on topic, I know, but that old clunky Cardinals wordmark reminded me of those endzones for some reason.

Anyway those Bengals and Falcons wordmarks were uninspired, but I'd take these versions over what they use now any day...

379_zpsad8fde3c.gif303_zps2e2cd044.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These all had character IMO. To me, sport should always be bright, colorful, and should never take itself too seriously because it's a game. No sports team should have the feel of an IBM, Microsoft, or HP.

MiamiDolphinsClassicScript4_zps96abbb16.

303.gif

894.gif

5gtfjeljv9kf52bdv9otg3fhf.gif

371.gif

609.gif

351.gif

1008.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just following the trend of branding and design in general lately. Things are becoming much more streamlined and basic. Just look at the "flat" design of the new iOS7.

Yeah, in fact you'll similar type of fonts in a lot of non sport logos on this day and age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303.gif

Ironically, this wordmark matches their current logo better than the one they replaced it with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Cardinals have had some crappy wordmarks...(from 2004):

ArizonaCardinals_WMK0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

ArizonaCardinals_PMW0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

...and then, there was this Primary Mark with Wordmark/Logotype (this particular one is from 1997):

ArizonaCardinals_PMW0100a_1997_SCC_SRGB.

The Cardinals used a slightly different shade of Red for the sunbeam stripes in the flag...why they didn't adjust it to Cardinal Red, I'll never know...they adjusted the Blue in the flag at one point - why not the Red?

Here's the flag from 2004 - this was actually designated as a Secondary Mark by the Cardinals:

ArizonaCardinals_SMK0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but here's a NFL wordmarks graphic from 1972:

1972NFLTeamTypefaces.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.