Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

[dgodz]

Sorry to break down the fourth wall here (I oversee marketing for the Bucks)...but blue was always planned as an accent. Assumptions were made when we announced colors because there was no context for how colors were being used, however it was never intended to have anywhere near equal weight with green and cream.

Definitely think they should have went with triangle 3.0 but then again I'm one of the few who liked that design in the first place.

Is it just me or has light blue been very quietly, and correctly, phased back out after so much backlash of being a copy of the Mavs?

[Sterling84v2.0]

Are you at liberty to discuss either:

1) Whether the Milwaukee Bucks actually requested errors intentionally be present in the new typography? It's the contention of the designers that you guys did... as a "homage" to older errors in your pre digital artwork. I call complete and utter BS.

2) Why the Bucks never cared enough to correct the myriad of errors in their artwork from when they added red in 2006-2007? Missing bevels in the typography. Deer not centered horizontally within the triangle?

[j'villejags]

Sorry to break down the fourth wall here (I oversee marketing for the Bucks)...but blue was always planned as an accent. Assumptions were made when we announced colors because there was no context for how colors were being used, however it was never intended to have anywhere near equal weight with green and cream.

Definitely think they should have went with triangle 3.0 but then again I'm one of the few who liked that design in the first place.

Is it just me or has light blue been very quietly, and correctly, phased back out after so much backlash of being a copy of the Mavs?

Thanks for clarifying. I'm really looking forward to the reveal. We'd love to hear some insider info from you!

Welcome to the boards!

[dgodz]

I've probably opened a can of worms here, huh?

1) I don't think "requested errors" was the perfect way to state it, but to say that we attempted to walk a fine line between being modern yet evocative of the era our team is rooted in is accurate. We definitely gave them leeway and to make stylistic choices that, by the book, are "errors" - for example, we were fully aware that the Ks in the marks are not exactly the same, that the M and W in the primary are slightly different. I guess, all I'll say is that these weren't oversights.

2) I can't speak to that, I've only been here three years so I inherited the previous branding.

Are you at liberty to discuss either:

1) Whether the Milwaukee Bucks actually requested errors intentionally be present in the new typography? It's the contention of the designers that you guys did... as a "homage" to older errors in your pre digital artwork. I call complete and utter BS.

2) Why the Bucks never cared enough to correct the myriad of errors in their artwork from when they added red in 2006-2007? Missing bevels in the typography. Deer not centered horizontally within the triangle?

[Sterling84v2.0]

I've probably opened a can of worms here, huh?

1) I don't think "requested errors" was the perfect way to state it, but to say that we attempted to walk a fine line between being modern yet evocative of the era our team is rooted in is accurate. We definitely gave them leeway and to make stylistic choices that, by the book, are "errors" - for example, we were fully aware that the Ks in the marks are not exactly the same, that the M and W in the primary are slightly different. I guess, all I'll say is that these weren't oversights.

2) I can't speak to that, I've only been here three years so I inherited the previous branding.

Probably yes. =) Listen, I for one appreciate your response. Not here to lambaste you or have you stand trial for their weird and hurried work. There will be things you can and cannot say and we respect that barrier. I didn't bring it up to get you to spill dirt unless you were inclined to. I'm under no such professional embargo and so I stand by my takes and all comments on the typography, the palette and the deer artwork that I made upthread. Nothing you wrote changes that. In fact, it sort of confirms it...as I suspect I hear you parsing a bit. Leeway is something you give or grant....it's not a parameter of the project flowing downhill from your end. Not the way it sounds at least. And even if the tool and die parameters idea were yours....perhaps leeway describes their interpretation OF it. And I would also potentially question what era we're talking about? The 60s-70s? I don't draw those parallels quite as easily. I don't know if we're talking about the city itself or the team. And it's not like the Bucks ever did. Their stuff has always been pretty standard athletic block. Also......last nit to pick. Inconsistencies that people let slide are not the same thing as oversights....true. But they aren't the same as necessary either. What we are used to seeing at the highest levels of design are mods that are of the utmost necessity... There's no reason for the Ks to be different. Follow?

And it's completely logical to assume (given the time crunch) that ownership liked (loved) the satanic goat these guys came up with (gross) and from that point on perhaps you were XX% let down by the typography but let it slide as the deadlines approached.

Blink twice if I'm right. Don't reply at all if I'm wrong.

Kidding of course. About you needing to clue us in. This stuff happens. It shouldn't. But it does. I've been a Bucks fan for 30 years+. They've looked like hell for at least 22 of those. It doesn't change anything. I always will be. I'm hopeful the uniforms at least come out of this looking good or better than before..

I believe you on the not knowing about the errors in the old one. But it's also kind of telling that they didn't fill you in. At least IMO.

Last thing.......the state silhouette is all FUBAR? Did that come up at all?

[ShinyHubCaps]

2) Why the Bucks never cared enough to correct the myriad of errors in their artwork from when they added red in 2006-2007? Missing bevels in the typography. Deer not centered horizontally within the triangle?

I didn't notice these prior to your comments to Paul Lukas which made the Uniwatch blog. I've since taken an interest and noticed that, around 2009, they fixed all of these errors in large-format printing.

For example, they fixed the bevels, centered the deer, and made the strokes uniform for the on-court logos as well as certain merchandise, billboards, vehicle wraps, etc. The only place where the bevels were still missing was the red alternate jersey.

[ShinyHubCaps]

My biggest question on the new logos: How much thought was given to a deer that wasn't a face-forward bust? That is, why were all of the D&B sketches of a deer bust instead of a full-body deer, deer silhouette, or any other juxtaposition?

[Gothamite]

Sorry to break down the fourth wall here (I oversee marketing for the Bucks)

Just because you're already hearing from people who don't like it, I'll chime in - the new look is great, and in every sense a step up from the previous two.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Agreed, it's a huge step up. The green and cream in particular look great.

[Sterling84v2.0]

2) Why the Bucks never cared enough to correct the myriad of errors in their artwork from when they added red in 2006-2007? Missing bevels in the typography. Deer not centered horizontally within the triangle?

I didn't notice these prior to your comments to Paul Lukas which made the Uniwatch blog. I've since taken an interest and noticed that, around 2009, they fixed all of these errors in large-format printing.

For example, they fixed the bevels, centered the deer, and made the strokes uniform for the on-court logos as well as certain merchandise, billboards, vehicle wraps, etc. The only place where the bevels were still missing was the red alternate jersey.

Darnit. You're totally right. And I don't have an excuse for why I didn't know that. I actually called the team when I saw the promo van downtown in ....2006? And while I lived there nothing was done. That was frustrating. I moved out of state in fall of 2008; hadn't been back to the BC and do not encounter Bucks merchandise where I live. . So clearly I made some assumptions that what had gone on for 2-3 years (ignoring the errors) was still going on 7 years later. And when the new look was leaked and I logged back in here and got a little hot about it.....I actually only then was reminded how bad that the last rebrand had gone. I actually clicked into Chris' archive here at the mother ship and they "wrong" logos were still there. So I assumed they'd never changed them.

That's my fault. Thanks for making me aware. And I didn't mean to throw Chris under the bus just now either. Without a formal acknowledgement of the change I dunno how he was supposed to know either.

I just put in my old copy of NBA 2K12 and zoomed in at the center court graphics and they are, to my embarrassment, correct. (still looks like a pig) but at least the artwork was properly assembled and aligned.

There would have been no need to fill in dgodz if it's been fixed for more than 3 years. So I withdraw that question.

NOW...with that said and myself feeling a little more humble...that doesn't change the fact that all of that still happened...was implemented and installed and left to sit for at least 3 years. And it's bad when it does. Cause now, corrected or not, most of the images we Google are old ones and so the wrong version never really dies.

And my understanding (even back then...to be as fair as I can to the Bucks) was not that it was internal mistakes. I understood it to be NBA Properties who handled it and messed it up. I could of course be mistaken on that too.

So....thanks again for setting me straight on that Shiny. I like to own my dumbness. But the carelessness I showed (I hope) doesn't distract from what I feel are still bonafide gripes about the new look.. to wit: That only two letters in the entire alphabet have 45 degree angled corners? WTF? That's not quirky. That's stupid. That the middle cross bar on the E goes all the way over while on the F it doesn't? There is some serious BS in this new set.

Look at how the differences in those letterforms play out in the State of WI logo (which is the wrong shape). The B appears gently rounded by its 45 degree corners (which are really only there so it won't look like an 8). But the U, C, and S...which under almost every other font circumstance ever would ALSO be rounded with 45s? Are not. Try and un-notice that after you've found it. That's not tool and die. That's not leeway. That's clown car.

[ShinyHubCaps]

The worst part of the WI outline logo is summarized very concisely by user Dandro in his comment on the mothership:

That basketball is a true disturbing factor. The round, smooth shapes don't harmonize with the angular shape of the Wisconsin state in the background and the really edgy typeface. They should have dropped that basketball.

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/22524012016/Milwaukee_Bucks/2016/Alternate_Logo#comment-2056458904

The angular typeface itself could look neat, though I also don't buy the design-speak in the Uniwatch article. (Nor do I buy the inclusion of blue to pay tribute to Wisconsin's water resources. Um... 70% of the world is covered in water. How is that unique to Wisconsin?)

[Gothamite]

The best thing about the Wisconsin logo is limiting the blue to the maritime borders.

(The worst is the basketball, which I don't love in any of its forms.)

[AndrewMLind]

The basketball inside the antlers is the best part of the entire rebrand, thus far.

[Sterling84v2.0]

The worst part of the WI outline logo is summarized very concisely by user Dandro in his comment on the mothership:

That basketball is a true disturbing factor. The round, smooth shapes don't harmonize with the angular shape of the Wisconsin state in the background and the really edgy typeface. They should have dropped that basketball.

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/22524012016/Milwaukee_Bucks/2016/Alternate_Logo#comment-2056458904

The angular typeface itself could look neat, though I also don't buy the design-speak in the Uniwatch article. (Nor do I buy the inclusion of blue to pay tribute to Wisconsin's water resources. Um... 70% of the world is covered in water. How is that unique to Wisconsin?)

VERY good point. True. Made worse by the fact that the stroke within the ball varies in width. Stands out like a sore thumb when nothing else varies in the entire set in terms of width. Totally disjointed.

The basketball inside the antlers is the best part of the entire rebrand, thus far.

Also true. And also cool. BUT.....that ball was in a sense always "there". All that needed doing was to flip the brow tines horizontally (even on the old rack).

So in finding that one true bit of genius (credit where credit is due) they went overboard and unnecessarily steered the rack away from that of a whitetail to accomplish the trick .

Wasn't needed.

[dgodz]

Thanks for the comments, all - both positive and negative. I've been a long-time lurker on this site, since long before I was involved with the Bucks. No one has ever done a perfect rebrand, so it wouldn't be normal if there weren't questions and/or criticisms - that said, we're proud of the work that has been done and very pleased with the overall reactions. I really can't wait to unveil the home and road unis this weekend and get another round of feedback! I'm extremely biased, but through my green and cream colored glasses, I think we're going to have the best set of kits in the league.

Sorry I can't answer every question right now - I'll be around though!

[Sterling84v2.0]

Thanks for sharing and good luck. Even us haters want the team to succeed and for the uniforms to be an upgrade. Can't wait to see them.

Also, FWIW...I've been having a devil of a time moving past this. And I'm OK with hater status here cause I don't get to do it very often.

Some of my tweaks upthread were well received. Others not so much. That's fine too. And I think most other designers (amateur and pro) here can sympathize that it's simply something that must be purged . The issue to move past isnt' "I can't believe I didn't get the gig"....or "Mine is better.". Who cares?

NO no no. It's not that at all. But it's a puzzle to be solved. Like a nagging feeling. I won't be at peace with it until these are either long in the rearview OR I can feel I "cracked it"..put it in the old concepts portfolio and close that page. I'm trying here to use as many of their solutions and parameters as I can...and pay fealty to their vision....not my own. But also tighten up the parts that I feel are objectively wrong and that bug me so much. So....Space Ghost eyes? Check. Ball antlers > Check. Not so hidden "M" in the throat area? Check.

Just put the eyes further apart (on the side of the head)...mount the neck to the back of the skull rather than the bottom. Remove the white "goat" "Sheep" or "pony" fur from the bridge of the nose? Same but not same? Getting there? If you all hate anything it'll be the side highlights....those are there to show the M while not putting the neck/head attachment area in the wrong place like the old bobblehead goat did.

Plus in my full color versions that bit gets to be blue. (No more blue on antlers).

[Gothamite]

Sorry, man. Get what you're going for, and prefer your antlers, but on the whole don't think you've topped their version.

[Sterling84v2.0]

Sorry, man. Get what you're going for, and prefer your antlers, but on the whole don't think you've topped their version.

You know that scene in any cartoon where a character begins to go crazy and their one eye twitches uncontrollably? That's me upon reading that.

I can't wrap my head around it. But the world is great BECAUSE we don't all see things the same. Not in spite of it. So.......allow me to rank for you my discontent. It seems like I hate everything about this. But Lo! I do not. So I ranked them in order of (IMO) what would "have to" be corrected for me to tolerate say...owning a cap with this image on it. then I made those changes one at a time.

1) the antlers. In fairness to Doubleday..there are deer that look like this. But they aren't whitetails and since Gothamite is granting me he prefers "mine"...which aren't mine btw...they are the old ones with the brows inverted. Stage 1 I change those.

2) the stupid sheep nose. Even if you actually like the elk/hart/irish deer antlers part...the white fur that forms the ram, kangaroo, sheep, goat snout is the single most offensive and ineffective part of this mark. Remove that...

3) Whether you like Space Ghost eyes or not...(I love em) it cannot be argued that these eyes are not too much in the center of the head. The artist correct identified the previous logo had accidental human proportions...and then proceeded to duplicate that problem. This would HAVE to be corrected in post for me to look at it everyday.

4) the comic book hero "M" in the neck. A cool idea pushed 50% too far IMO. This to me is the least offensive of the catalog of errors. People like hidden initials and are willing to compromise with stylization to have them. I would have just tweaked it a little bit so it wasn't as overwhelming and didn't make it look like quite as much of a bobblehead atop a neck (like a person).

I think it's fair to argue that this set of images includes NONE of my own "vision" at all. I use either the old Bucks marks or the new marks...nothing of my own but nudging and skooching and gentle deleting of bits here and there.

So my question to Gothamite or anyone would be.....do you really prefer what we got to any or all of these? For my eyes it gets more palatable from left to right. And of course, to me that suggests revisions and time were needed. (as well as skill). The bones of a good mark are there and were there.

But if you can look at these 5 and prefer the far left? Then maybe it's an issue of irreconcilable personal taste. I think these are objective problems but it appears at least half don't.

What to do when something's objectivity is subjective? Mind blown.

[JPDesign]

The one in the middle is the sweet spot, IMO. The eyes, no matter how anatomically correct just don't "look right." It's the same reason why cartoon characters have four fingers.

Then on the far right, you labeled it "Tone down M" but actually I think you've made the "M" more explicit here. It has much more the shape/proportions of a regular "M." Whereas on the real Bucks logo, it feels like a hidden element that you'll notice eventually, on your far right version, it looks like a deer head slapped on top of an "M."

Like you alluded to, I think it's all subjective, and I certainly can't speak for everyone, but that may be some insight as to the criticism you've gotten.

[Sterling84v2.0]

Yeah I was staring at it a while and thought maybe the eyes apart was the sweet spot. (#4)

I don't like how the "M" shakes out in my mods here necessarily either. It was the thing I hated least in the real one so...that kind of makes sense. And I think taken apart maybe I don't even hate it. I hate how it doesn't fit when they pull it out on it's own (on the ball) and try to make it part of the rest of the very blocky set.