NHL’s New Logo
So the National Hockey League cancels an entire season, becoming the first “major” sport to ever do so, losing most of their fans in the process. And now that they’re back, of course, one of the first things they do is change their logo.
Great, now I need to buy all new gear, since my “I Love the NHL” shirt is outdated.
You bet.
In all seriousness, I don’t own an “I Love the NHL” shirt. That would be the ultimate in non-committal fandom, not having a favorite team, so you just wear generic clothing with the league’s logo on it because you root for everyone. Dammit, I’ll take a stand and tell who I root for.
The NFL.
Now, the logo itself is not a huge change from the old one. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the genesis for this re-brand is a DC Comics-inspired thing (as one reader commented in our discussion of their new logo), because this new logo will look better in video games and on TV. I’d imagine the gradient will sparkle and maybe even have a cheesy ice-skate “cling” sound when the sparkle climaxes.
Gone is the orange-and-black color palate; in is the silver and black shield with a gradient applied to it so it looks 3-D for the kids. Because 3-D is cool and automatically makes you hip, even when you’re not.
The color scheme doesn’t bother me, even though I do like orange and am sad to see it go. In fact, I’m glad in a morbid lookey-loo kind of way, because I bet Raiders owner Al Davis will sue them now, since in a lawsuit against the Carolina Panthers, Gangsta Al attempted to establish that Silver and Black are the exclusive property of the Oakland Raiders…
What does bother me is the type going bottom-to-top. In the old logo, the type was naturally flowing, left-to-right and top-to-bottom. Your eye follows everything in the logo, and its a pleasant experience. “Thank you, NHL logo, for flowing so nicely like a mountain stream, my eyes aren’t even tired from the voyage.”
I can guess what the marketing geniuses at the NHL said when they suggested the change — make it flow upward, so everyone subconsciously believes the league itself is moving upward! Even though our ratings are lower than “Watching Paint Dry” on HGTV! — but the old one went down for a reason. Bottom-to-top is hard for the eye to read. At least, it is for me.
Maybe I’m the only one. I also listen to Duran Duran and Journey, so it wouldn’t the first time I’m the only one on something.
I can sit here all day and make fun of this logo, but I’m curious what other more studious designers think of this thing. Eh?
July 28th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
’ÄúThank you, NHL logo, for flowing so nicely like a mountain stream, my eyes aren’Äôt even tired from the voyage.’Äù
Awesome. Talk about overthinking things JUST a bit. I’ll buy the basic argument that type reads better top to bottom, but this is three letters, and in a combination that pretty much everyone ¬í√Ñ” even non-hockey fans ¬í√Ñ” know. So I see no issue here.
This is more of the sporting trend (led by SME Branding, mostly) emphasising movement and dimension. I can’t really complain too much about it. The basic form works without the gradients just as well. I get crazy (crazy, I tell you), when gradients are used to prop up a weak execution, and I don’t think this is the case here.
From a somewhat strategic point of view, this is a smart thing to do. They’ve just got the living crap kicked out of them in terms of brand respect and awareness. If you’re going to reemerge a “new” league (and hopefully the financial agreements in the new contract will permit a healthy bottom line overall), get your marketing ship in order as well.
(Oh, and I’m down with the Duran Duran. Journey, not so much.)
July 28th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Seems pointier. Like it will hurt you. Just like the NHL hurt all its fans.
The only thing I take away from this is that the type reads upwards√جø¬Ω√جø¬Ω√جø¬Ω straight into sharp, pointy, deadly, steal spike-teeth. Perhaps Hockey Fan enjoys the pain. It is hockey after all. I just didn’t think hockey players ever stabbed each other.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
I think they are trying to be more like the XFL…..’Cause you know how good that worked out.
I have to agree with everything stated above, the new direction for the type is horrible.
July 28th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
I miss the orange, but from a business standpoint silver and black sell more t-shirts. I also assume the designers who work for the individual teams appreciate not having to figure out how to make orange not clash with their own team’s merchandise.
July 28th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I like the way the old “L” ever-so-slightly reads as a hockey stick. And I’m not sure about doubling-up the border – looks like they got carried away with the “offset path” command in Illustrator. I agree with Nate, it looks sharp … cut you sharp.
July 29th, 2005 at 6:41 am
I agree with JonSel about the type…it is just three letters and everyone recognizes them. Perhaps they hired some no-brained designer who couldn’t figure out how to make the characters slant to the left, or they hired a smart designer who didn’t want to bastardize the font by making it slant to the left. Personally the type in the old logo just bugs me, as the font was clearly transformed. The type in the old logo feels a bit “forced” into that space, while in the new logo it feels a little more “comfortable.” I don’t necessarily like that the points at the top are pointier (the words we designers invent to describe things!), it almost seems like they didn’t actually give the shape of the shield any thought, it seems like they just transformed the original shield horizontally and that caused the points to be more pointy. I don’t mind the color scheme, as Donovan said it will clash less with the other merchandise this way. I don’t mind the gradients so much, even if it is the “trendy” thing to do, but I think it would have worked just as well without them. That’s my 2 cents, but this is my first post ever so don’t be too hard on me!
July 29th, 2005 at 6:51 am
OH MAN! They’re SO innovative!
The light direction is coming from the top right… oh, I see now, it’s ingenious!
-M
July 29th, 2005 at 7:31 am
So that brings up a good general question. When you’re doing a 3-D logo (students¬í√Ñ”never do a 3-D logo), and use it in all kinds of animations and media, does the gradient and “light-source” need to remain consistent? What ever happened to the rules of simple recognition and audience memorization!? Why the hell does everyone need a 3-D, gradient-enriched logo now? Doesn’t anyone go to school anymore? If you drop a lens flare/lighting effect/gradient/drop shadow on a logo, you are automatically a terrible designer, or at least one so enamored with today’s technology that you’ve forgotten the basics of design¬í√Ñ”and instead chosen 52 pieces of flare.
July 29th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I don’t mind the change in type direction much either. The type was handled better in the new version.
Here’s the good news. The logo can be used for self-defense now (chinese throwing star).
Since we are talking about sports logos . . . What does everyone think of the new Pistons logo “The new primary logo has some subtle changes, but what a great combination of the Detroit Pistons logo from the Bad Boys era (and before) and our current word mark logo,” said Pistons CEO Tom Wilson.
Hey Nate, I don’t see any gradients on their new one.
I like the secondary logo with the “D” inside the “P”.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:15 am
My vote: too little, too late. Speaking aesthetically, it’s hard to see why they would have used the inset line and gradient shading to add extra emphasis to the very thing that’s so awkward about the original logo: that clumsy shield shape. Bevel, emboss and drop shadow DO NOT equal “refinement.”
p.s. Hooper. That is the single most AWESOME name for a horse basketball mascot ever. I love it. Long live Hooper!
July 29th, 2005 at 10:37 am
If the Pistons’ old logo was the one with the horse and the fire-spitting exhaust pipes, yes, I like the new one better. Nothing really wrong with the horse logo, I suppose. It just seemed more than necessary.
I find it interesting that the horsey logo was introduced when the team wasn’t that good. Now that they’ve been in the NBA finals 2 years running, they revert to a logo that recalls their last championship era.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:36 am
While I’m not usually fond of gradient logos, I think this one works well. Yes, the spikes are a little much, but the colors and gradients remind me of ice and steel, two crucial elements in the game of hockey.
The Detroit Pistons’ logo seems a little blah. A basketball and type? How is that unique to them in any way?
August 1st, 2005 at 3:11 am
As for the recommendation that students NEVER use gradients in marks… I think that that is unsound and outdated advice.
Yes, there is no need for it on a typical 1 color application… but most of these old-school “shield” logos are wanting to update their image while maintaining the basic shield shape for brand equity’s sake.
If used thoughtfully and tastefully… they can work quite well. They can also be not so good (ahem… ¬¨√∏UPS?)
Modern prepress techniques and new media applications leave many modern consumers wanting more that a flat logo. We all have preferences… but to assume that “you are automatically a terrible designer” if you use gradients is an outdated point of view, IMHO.
Some of the largest and most prestigious branding companies would disagree with you overwhelmingly.
Just my 2 cents, we all have opinions.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:03 am
In response to this in the original post above:
“I can guess what the marketing geniuses at the NHL said when they suggested the change ¬í√Ñ” make it flow upward, so everyone subconsciously believes the league itself is moving upward!”
I just found this quote at CBC Sports Online (emphasis mine):
The new mark maintains its time-honoured shape of the original shield, but changes its dominant colour from orange to silver. It also “uses upward-reading letters to project a vibrant, optimistic image.”
Yeeaahhh… someone needs to let the NHL know that upward reading letters doesn’t project an optimistic image; an optimistic, well-intentioned company projects an optimistic image.
Fix the company first… and then design appropriately.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Okay… the “brand equity” comment has come up in this listing, and it’s come up many times as of late at my job… care to discuss it?
August 4th, 2005 at 8:51 am
What aspects of “brand equity” are you unsure of or want to discuss? “Brand equity” can refer to many parts of a company brand, not just the logo, of course. It could refer to certain attributes that people associate with a company (even if they are purely nostalgic). It could be the logo. It could be the color palette. It could be an ad campaign.
Want to narrow the discussion a little?
August 4th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Umm…some gradients and new color schemes are okay with me. But as previously stated, new and flashly and “optimistic” uphill-reading letters cannot disguise the fact that the new logo is poorly re-tooled. The trendy spikes – dare I call them serifs? – are forced at best. The shield shape itself is not sensitively rendered – just look at the individual beziers.
And that’s the problem. The old logo was done by hand, this one was weakly traced with the pen tool and “sharpened”, then given 5 concentric outlines. The new shield looks like crap.
When designing a mark, especially one that features a traditional shape, draw the darn thing by hand first. It will reveal why heraldic shields and other ancient symbols are so often used in logos.
August 5th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
From the clean and classic black and orange NHL logo (and that beautiful LHN French Canadien option) to the new overdesigned and heavy handed 3-D logo. Oh I get it now, it’s to tie into the overall NHL Brand direction. Excellent. Synergy in desperation… It’s a Whole NEw Game! Yeah right.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 2 because they did spell NHL right…
I did hear some good news out of the NHL headquarters, they are going to begin testing goalie pads for steroids…so scores should go up instead of going down as in baseball.
Logoman
August 6th, 2005 at 8:40 am
I dont mind the new L to R read. Its the curves that bother me. Look at the way the upper “spikey” curves with withiin the design. Its irritating. Also, the strengthened “point” is unneccessary.
August 7th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
No sir I don’t like it!
August 15th, 2005 at 12:10 am
I tHiNk ThE nEw LoGo Is DiFfErEnT fRoM aNy OtHeR lEaUgE……wHiCh Is A gOoD tHiNg CuZ tHeRe IsNt AnY sPoRt LiKe HoCkEy!!!!!!!!!
YoUrS tRuElY,
$$$ThE nExT GeNeRaTiOn$$$
October 13th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Fire Glen Sather. That’s all I have to say about the N.H.L.
October 13th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
No OtHeR sPoRt LiKe HoCkEy? Isn’t Hockey, stripped down to a fundamental level, essentially Soccer-On-Ice? (And really, how much time do people lose when they type like that?)
To Mr. Kerr’s humble remarks above, I vehemently disagree. Gradients and 3-D meshes do not belong in a company’s identifying mark. The problem lies in allowing the technology to dictate the design, instead of the fundamentals of why the mark is created: Clarity, recognition, association, and memorization.
True, many of the design fundamentals we cling to were devised out of the technology of the day, but their established use has since become a part of the visual lexicon of society. We can’t change those rules just because we can. We can’t modify our definitive view of “great design” simply because new technology allows us to.
Simply put, people use gradients because the computer allows them to. Not because it makes for better design. Is this logo for the NHL better for using gradients? No. Would it be better without? If all else remains equal, yes. UPS? Same answers (though we all know we hate the UPS logo out of respect for Paul Rand).
If you are a designer putting gradients in your logos, somewhere along the way you learned better. You know better. And we all have to work for clients with those bad ideas we have to do√¢¬Ä¬îbut we shouldn’t originate those ideas. Because we know better.
August 16th, 2006 at 7:18 am
I think what I see here is a generational difference between designers who remember when you -couldn’t- use gradients, and designers who have always had the option. Now personally, I don’t feel that you should use gradients just because they’re available. However, I do think that a well placed gradient can add emphasis, visual hierarchy, or an overall “wow” factor to a logo. Most gradient use today however, does not. For example, look at the Tulsa Oilers minor league hockey team ( http://www.tulsaoilers.com/ ). Their logo drives me INSANE, because I have to work with it, and there are like 12 gradients in it.
This new NHL logo is pointier, sharper, and I think it does grab your attention a little quicker than the old logo. Is it better -because- of the gradients? No. But, is it better in general? Well, I just asked everyone in the office (keep in mind, I’m the only designer here), and 5 of 6 of us like it better. No one knows why, though.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Just stumbled on this here. Looks like you are students of graphic design I assume?
I am not a design student, but there has been something about this logo that has bothered me from day one. Its more of a feel about it, nothing to do with drog shadows, and such.
Is it just me or does the thing look like it’s falling over towards the right??? There is something in the angle of the letters in relation to the position on the shield that makes me thing the whole thing is slightly tilted. Am I the only person that gets this ‘feeling’ when looking at this thing??? I hope folks still read this posting, as no one I talk to about this seems to ’see’ what I mean.
Im a photographer by trade, and if this was an image of mine, I would be trying to level it.
Thanks
d
January 26th, 2007 at 2:57 am
I don√¢¬Ä¬ôt mind the new color, it’s fine, but the new logo itself is a bit “clumsy” – Borders are a bit too thick (or too double-triple, etc.)
It really could work as well without the gradient. Instead I’d suggest grey enhancements if at all.
But to be honest, NHL is not the worst re-design we’ve seen, is it? Think of at&t. Blaaah!!
Thanks
Alex
August 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Ratings lower than HGTV. Wow. This coming from someone who, evidently, is glued to the TV for an average of 16 minutes of real action for an NFL game. Talk about a waste of time.
In terms of the “new” NHL logo it looked odd to me at first, but only because I was used to the black and orange iteration. Also, if you had done eight seconds of research you’d know that that’s how the NHL shield looked many many years ago. So strictly a marketing move? Ehh not entirely. There’s over 100 years of history there.