Logo New(s) 7: Ducks, Bucks, Payless and Priceless
by Bennett Holzworth, (40 comments)
The Ducks that are no longer “Mighty” get a new logo from Frederick & Froberg Design Office. “We wanted to be more traditional in terms of the name, … In fact, it was a little too tied to the movie.” said Ducks owner Henry Samueli
From the Press Release: “The result is a strong, typographic mark anchored by a stylized “D” that echoes the image of a duck’s foot or footprint. The custom typography has a powerful forward momentum and is made up of metallic gold letters with orange drop-shadows and a black holding shape. The new uniforms are an evolution of the earlier sweater design but with gold, white and orange sweeping stripes influenced by the curves of the ‘D’ in the Ducks’ logo.”
The Milwaukee Bucks mix the new with the retro to create their new logo.
“With a nod to their early days and a look toward the future, the Milwaukee Bucks on Wednesday night unveiled their new logo and color scheme.
Out goes the purple. In come three colors: a red that is far deeper than Bucky Badger red, the traditional forest green and silver.”
I reviewed Cooper Tires getting rid of Cooper Black in their logo, and it looks like Payless Shoes is following their lead. While the Payless identity was in need of some work, the results are a bit uninspired. Armin has an good review on the new logo over at Speak Up. Maybe someday I will learn to love Cooper Black as much as Armin.
From the Press Release:“The new logo, the first redesign of the Payless logo in about 20 years, incorporates key design elements that leverage Payless’ rich heritage and communicates a “new and improved” Payless — a brand that is contemporary, fun, friendly and, above all, stylish”
MasterCard International becomes MasterCard Worldwide. I probably shouldn’t be this sarcastic, but can you count how many transparencies and gradients are included in this logo? Is it really that necessary?
From the Press Release: “The three circles of the new corporate logo build on the familiar interlocking red and yellow circles of the MasterCard consumer brand, and reflect the company’s unique, three-tiered business model as a franchisor, processor and advisor:”
Comments (40)
zjgray said:
Love the Bucks, hate the Ducks. The Bucks is readable, and references ’60s-era jersey lettering. The Ducks is hard to read, and the webfoot is obviously there, but too abstract at a glance to effectively accomplish what the unreadable text also fails to do: give the Ducks a memorable new identity. (“Anaheim” is even less readable than “Ducks”).
I do like the fact that Payless FINALLY updated their logo. They’d looked like a company ready to go out of business with that 20 year old mark. Having said that, the resulting logo is really nonspecific, which is no surprise, since the old logo is also nonspecific. Very readable, nice typography, all-around well-executed, and no gradients! That should get at least a few points, eh?
The MasterCard thing, though. What the crap? I was just thinking about the sweet use of the Venn Diagram on their old logo, and then they go and drop this pile of crap on us. Let’s see this new one reproduced in black and white! What a train-wreck!
And why on earth is that lens-looking shape off-center? This new mark is sloppy, über-trendy, and ruins the symbolism the preceeding mark referenced. I guess my verdict is that this is yet another formula for ridicule and a short, short lifespan.
But what do I know?
Posted on July 5, 2006
Criss said:
I’m also wondering what it’s going to mean to have that Mastercard logo on the front of many credit cards… eww.
If they removed the lens, and all it’s effects, it actually wouldn’t be such a bad logo. Can we hope that the lens was a digital error? A watermark, perhaps? :P Unfortunately, the press release mentions “three circles” so I guess this isn’t an error. We’re all really going to have that ugly thing in our wallets some day. Some of us may be looking at it every. single. day. Ouch.
I agree with comments on the others, but they don’t live in my wallet, nor do I expect to see them several times a week ;) It’s the difference between designs other people have to live with, and designs I have to live with.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Adrian said:
I heard that the the old Mastercard logo is still going to appear on cards and in their award winning television spots. I am not exactly sure what Mastercard Worldwide is, but I think it isn’t as big of a logo redesign as we think and it is only going to see limited use. I will see if I can find anything to support what I just said…
Posted on July 5, 2006
JonSel said:
You are correct Adrian. The MasterCard Worldwide logo is for their holding/parent company. MC Worldwide owns the MasterCard credit card brand (I know, confusing…). Your credit cards will still have the “old” logo on it.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Chad said:
That Mastercard logo is just complete crap. Look Mom, I learned how to use the gradient tool in Photoshop! I bet the CEO’s nephew designed it.
The Bucks logo, however isn’t half bad.
Payless. I’m torn. While I didn’t particularly like the old logo, it has been on there so long that it’s what you automatically identify with the business. The new one is just too plain. It looks like it could be the logo for anything. Granted, I haven’t stepped foot in a Payless since I was 9, so they probably don’t care what I think.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Kirk said:
Gay Bucks?
Did the designers really intend to surreptiously introduce the universal gay pride symbol, the pink triangle?
The new Bucks logo could easily pass for for a new gay subculture, just like bears and otters.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Rocko said:
Ok… so it has occurred to me that Armin Vit might be the most pretentious fuck-off design snob I have never met.
The Payless logo is marginal, at best… but they act like it is horrible. The old guard just seems to get pissed off about trends that have passed them by.
“Gradients don’t work in a fax machine… whaaaaa!”
Yes they do… it is not fucking 1994 anymore.
I know that good points can be made against new logos… but those guys over there just fucking run every single rebranding into the ground because they weren’t done by Paul Rand or Saul Bass.
You don’t like it Armin? That is probably because you are WAY out of touch with the demographic they are trying to reach.
Posted on July 5, 2006
DavidNYC said:
I admit that I am not in any way, shape or form a designer, or someone with any artistic or marketing skill - I’m just, in this context, a consumer. (Though perhaps that actually does qualify me, in a certain way, to opine on these logos.)
Anyhow, to the commenter above who said that Payless’s old logo made them “look like a company ready to go out of business” - LOL! I think you capture the geist of that logo perfectly.
However, I think the new logo has a particular problem - specifically, the “shoesource” is so tiny. In fact, it’s so small as to be unnoticeable or unreadable from most distances. That, combined with the very modern look of the logo, makes “Payless” seem like a financial services company and not a shoestore.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Bennett said:
Rocko, I have a feeling you are using your anonymity as a shield.
Please try to keep your language at a professional level. Most of all, personal attacks aren’t cool over here either. You could have voiced some of the same concerns in a professional and thought out manner, and people might actually take you seriously. Any more like that and I will exercise our right to delete.
Posted on July 5, 2006
Pete said:
The payless logo looks like a 10 minute logoworks job for a about to fail webstore. Its not very well balanced, and it leaves such a vague impression, i can’t even remember what it looks like. At least i can still picture the mastercard one.
Posted on July 5, 2006
zjgray said:
Does anyone know about the history of the MasterCard logo? Are they referencing a Venn Diagram there, as I guess? And if so, why?
Anybody?
Posted on July 5, 2006
Bennett said:
Here are a couple MaterCard links that I picked up from the Speak Up conversation. The Overview, The Evolution
More info from the Speak Up conversation.
Don Ervin designed the 1979 version.
1990 Redesigned by ListerBulter
1996 Modified by Interbrand
The new MasterCard Worldwide was done by FutureBrand.
Posted on July 6, 2006
James said:
Has anyone kept up with the Buffalo Sabres new logo? It is creating a stir with fans - they hate it.
http://www.sabresreport.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4919
http://wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=39341
Everyone loves this guys designs. http://www.celsiusdesign.net/sabres/jerseys.html
Posted on July 6, 2006
Bill said:
I agree with Pete’s comments wholeheartedly.
Say what you want about the new Ducks logo on its own, at least it is differentiating the team from a crappy Emilio Estevez movie. (Whose brain-child was that in the first place? Talk about short sighted branding!)
Emilioooooo!
Posted on July 6, 2006
Su said:
If someone would bother to actually think about it for a moment, it’s quite possible, even likely, that there’s a reason the “paysource” is so small: they’re eventually going to drop it. (Whether it’s too small isn’t for any of us to say without access to the branding guidelines, which would, among other things, possibly define a minimum size at which to present the logo)
Even the press release repeatedly makes reference to just “Payless.” So has the TV advertising for a long time now. So does probably any girl you ask. Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC, and Nike has reduced it’s brand to just a symbol at this point. Not significantly different.
This isn’t necessarily just about the logo. Nor is every logo redesign final. It’s not uncommon for a company needing to make big changes to use an interim rebranding on their way to the actual goal.
Posted on July 6, 2006
Armin Vit said:
Rocko: What Bennett said.
Posted on July 6, 2006
Bennett said:
Su, Ease up on the criticism of the person that says that “shoesource” is too small. DavidNYC said that he wasn’t a designer from the onset, so he isn’t actually going from the same knowledge base as you or I. Someone outside of the design and branding profession might not know what brand guidelines and interim rebranding is. I for one welcome the comments of people outside of the profession.
Posted on July 6, 2006
Andy C. said:
I’m fond of the Bucks new logo, the slight changes add just enough. The new Ducks logo leaves a lot to be desired, although its better than the Mighty Ducks previous logo.
The Payless Shoes logo is a step in the right direction. Uninspired, sure but better than their old, dated and frankly ugly company mark.
Mastercard. Well let me just say I think someone was drunk when they gave the go ahead with that one.
Posted on July 6, 2006
Andrew said:
The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim were originally owned by Disney, and debuted a year after their namesake movie. Not the first nor the last time Disney created “synergies” between products, but one of the more short-sighted ones. This is a natural evolution of the team name and branding, since the team was sold by Disney last year.
The logotype isn’t great, but it’s par for the course as team logos go. Short of creating a different duck character to replace the ducky goalie mask, there weren’t a whole lot of places they could go with it.
Posted on July 6, 2006
GCRaya said:
A while ago I did a survey to see which ducks logo looked the best. They picked the worse one. The logo they didn’t pick looked a little better, but it would have been great if the ducks were in Alabama. That logo looked more like duck hunting season tags(It reminded me of Elmer Fud and Buggs Bunny, weird). Probably not good for hockey.
Unless of course, it is Duck Season.
Posted on July 6, 2006
artbitz said:
Pete’s right…the Payless attempt looks like they bought the $195 logo package from a web logo shop. Utterly forgettable. At least the old one had some personality, albeit with a vintage vibe.
Posted on July 8, 2006
Al aka El Negro Magnifico said:
I keep thinking about how a logo design should work properly in black and white (see Rocko’s fax machine barb). School kinda beat that into me.
Posted on July 10, 2006
Bill Detty said:
I wonder what that Master Card logo is going to look like when it’s blind embossed, or embroidered on a ball cap.
Posted on July 10, 2006
Brian said:
I don’t hate the Mastercard logo. I really don’t. I know what y’all mean about it not bein’ all that versatile or anythihng, but I don’t really dislike the look. I think it just needs some tweaking.
Posted on July 10, 2006
Mark.S said:
Logo redesigns are like movie remakes. Sometimes you shouldn’t screw with classics.
Posted on July 13, 2006
Ruben Arakelyan said:
I’m not a designer or anything, but seeing some of the comments here has prompted me to air my own views on the new MasterCard logo.
Fair enough, you say that they have used a lot of gradients and transparencies, but in my view, I think that’s part of what makes it more pleasing on the eye. Of course, it retains the core brand image of the red and yellow interlocking circles which has been established for many years, but I do think that a “brand tweak” is required every once in a while (see UPS’ new logo for another example).
I may be an eye-candy man myself and I might even have Apple’s “using single plain colours with minimalism” syndrome, but nevertheless, I do see this as an improvement. Maybe Paul Rand created some of the most memorable brands at the time, but even his status as an great designer shouldn’t keep the brand’s pwners from being able to tweak or upgrade the logo later on. Some of the logos, while groundbreaking at the time, might be seen by some as too square, too plain or simply outdated.
Also, I don’t see why they can’t adapt a “downlevel” version of the logo by stripping out some of the gradients and transparencies in order to be able to use it in greyscale (maybe when faxing, using Rocko’s example).
That’s my 2 cents :)
Posted on July 13, 2006
Peter said:
Don’t mess with perfection.
The 1979 MC Logo is certainly the best.
The new version looks like a condom stuck on a logo. Rather unappealing. Maybe it’s to visually imply protection? It’s weak.
I’ve never liked the Ducks. And the new version is still unimpressive… the visual vocabulary of sports design since 1990 has been stuck in this serpentine font style. The whole industry could use a redesign.
Payless… sigh… what can I say. It’s very now. I’m not going to say I hate it, cause it could certainly win me over with some good usage. It doesn’t convey anything to me, but maybe they could do some good things with the circle part of the logo.
To be honest, I like the The Bucks. It was a simple fix, but it works. Much better.
Posted on July 13, 2006
tonepoems said:
I think folks are missing the point with the Payless logo. Its a horrible logo, but a great marketing move. Their target are teens and college kids. As a teen, you’re embarrassed enough to go into a discount store - with the new, bubble-gum logo…maybe its not so bad….
Posted on July 14, 2006
newbomb said:
Like Armin, yes, I do too love Cooper Black. I think it could have been wise to redesign the Payless logo around this memorable typeface, which by the way, is making a great comeback in music posters, fashion magazines and retro culture.
I have learned to never say never about liking and disliking typefaces. Years ago I would have never dreamed of liking or even using faces like Avant Garde ligatures, Tiffany Black Italic or Pump. But hey, typefaces are just the clothes words wear and it may be time to pull out my bellbottoms.
Posted on July 14, 2006
Robert said:
The new Buffalo Sabres logo is a total dissapointment. You might as well start calling them the Buffalo Slugs. I am sorry I will not buying a slug logo. I will stick with my older stuff. PLEASE DONT SO THIS PLEASE! GO SLUGS!
Let the people be heard!
http://fixthelogo.com/
Posted on July 19, 2006
Gloria said:
http://www.astra-design.com/corporate_identity.html I think the best way to choose a logo is to organize a country or worldwide contest. You’ll get more variants to choose from and they all be different as are people who invite them.
Posted on July 27, 2006
Bill said:
Gloria. oh my.
Oh my.
Oh my.
Posted on August 8, 2006
Curtis Chow said:
How do I obtain the Style Guide and CD-ROM of the Ducks? Also, is the type font available for purchase? I would just use it for home since I am a a remote Ducks fan.
Posted on November 8, 2006
PixelHustler said:
Curtis, you pay the NHL $60,000 for a merchandise license, that’s how you obtain it. Or, work in the inudstry for someone that has paid the fee, like I do. The NHL is extremely protective of its IP, so they don’t exactly make it easy to obtain. For a decent resolution raster version of the logo, you can always hit up www.sportslogos.net
Posted on November 10, 2006
smithchalland said:
The bucks looks better - subtle change. Old one was not bad.
The ducks - old one was bad…new one really bad too. Like really bad… both.
The old payless logo was way better. The new one is bad - cheap design. bad. The old one at least had a retro feel, should have been updated to look professional, not discarded and replaced with that.
Mastercard - so weird. what is the deal? The old one definitely needed to be corrected, but…what is the deal with the new one…seriously? what? WAHT? I dont even know if its bad, its just…hmm.. what???
worst design on this page - ducks. Worst drop in taste - payless.
Posted on November 14, 2006
Steve G. said:
The Ducks logo is a stretch. A webbed foot as a “D”, hmmmm. Okay I guess. Pro teams have all gone the route of some wiz-bang Toonami styled logo to imply action. Redesigns can occur with out all of that being a must.
Mastercard… I don’t give a damn how many fax machines this will pass thru. It doesn’t work as a logo. Redesign is not always necessary to get new messaging across. It can be done in many different ways in regards to marketing and positioning. The Bucks color shift is a good example of that. The Seattle Seahawks color shift did wonders for that franchise.
Posted on November 14, 2006
John Milligan said:
snif snif
Loved the Ducks old logo - never reminded me of the movie because I never saw it.
I agree with smithchalland about the old payless logo - if there was a way to retain the retro-feel but make it more present-day-retro (if that is such a thing) I think there was alot of equity in that brand image that they lost, the name may bring it along but the new image is a little unbalanced
Posted on November 14, 2006
Jeremy said:
Payless - It seems very smart to move away from their old logo (or at least color scheme) to stay relevant. The old logo was a very strong identity, but too many of their target market associate that logo with “the cheap place mom made me buy shoes from when I was little.” However, the new logo seems way more geared towards a Web store, the color scheme seems weak for use in, say inside a mall or on a big stripmall sign. The circular P makes no sense to me. What does it reference? Looks like a fertilized egg. Payless Fertility Source?
Ducks - Another lame sports logo that makes me SO happy my beloved Detroit Tigers dropped their redesigned look a few years back and stuck with the traditional Old English “D.”
Attention Marketing Gurus: Baseball is the only sport unafraid to use “boring,” traditional logos, yet look how many people you see wearing Red Sox, Yankees, and Tigers caps. How many people do you see walking around in some neo-con generic sports logo? Obviously part of that is due to baseball’s history, and larger market than any NHL teams. But a bigger part is people not wanting to look like douchebags.
Mastercard - Ugly, but could the “lens” be centered? At the very least? I sense an overbaring corporate involvement.
Posted on November 15, 2006
JonSel said:
Baseball is the only sport unafraid to use “boring,” traditional logos
You should see the new Arizona Diamondbacks logo for a rebuttal to that.
Posted on November 15, 2006
Kevin said:
Well where do I begin?
MasterCard: Very nice and visually pleasing when used in full colour. However, I think it may run into a small problem when using using it in a fax machine. In my experience with faxes, many of my clients are not up to speed with technology and end up photocopying a B&W fax. This makes the logo a black horrible blob. As old and boring as the old MC logo was, people could identify with it and knew what it was. It wasn’t the flashiest logo in the mix but it was simple and easy and ledgable on everything.
PAYLESS: Nice clean look with ledgable lettering. A large improvement from the old black box. Good Job!
Milwaukee Bucks: I really never was a big fan of the Bucks logo. Unfortunately I never saw where the purple and green came from? A new logo should improve the team and usually make a statement about where a team is going. With the exception of some classics like the Lakers or Bulls who have proven themselves with multiple championships. A new image is suppose to give a team (and a city) a new attitude toward making a push for a top spot. Unfortunately, changing the colours just doesn’t do it for this team who has always struggled. The Bucks need to loose the heavy logo and develop a new sleaker image that will increase merchandise sales.
The Ducks of Anaheim: Being a Disney Fan I became a Ducks fan right away. I loved the old look. However as cool as it was, it said Disney all over it and was never taken seriously. With Anaheims pick ups and their new ownership, even I agreed, they needed a new image. I think Frederick & Froberg Design Office did the perfect job in rebranding the team to improve the Ducks look for this season. This team looks like a champion and should improve merchandise sales dramatically. Wonderful Job!
Kindest regards,
Kevin Armstrong Douglas; Creative Director | Principal
ARMSTRONGDOUGLAS Communications Group.
t. 519.476.2825 | info@armstrongdouglas.com
www.armstrongdouglas.com
Posted on January 11, 2007