Comments on: NHL’s New Logo

By: Choad Machine

Choad Machine — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:45:58 +0000

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.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:57:11 +0000

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

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:34:36 +0000

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

By: PixelHustler

PixelHustler — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:46 +0000

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.

By: Nate Voss

Nate Voss — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:09:14 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:14:08 +0000

Fire Glen Sather. That’s all I have to say about the N.H.L.

By: NhL - ThE nExT GeNeRaTiOn

NhL - ThE nExT GeNeRaTiOn — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:10:25 +0000

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,
$$$ThE nExT GeNeRaTiOn$$$

By: PK1

PK1 — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:46:59 +0000

No sir I don’t like it!

By: felix sockwell

felix sockwell — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:40:58 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:16:41 +0000

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