NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
These Girls Rock is the “brand platform” launched in 2005 to support the positioning and five-year plan of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), and mid-way through that plan the LPGA has unveiled a new identity. Well, in addition to being a little chauvinistic by labeling the women of golf Girls (or is that just me?) the new identity developed by SME doesn’t necessarily Rock.
While conceptually a new image that projects “power, strength and athleticism” and “highlights [LPGA’s] international membership and global business” seems like a good idea, the resulting “swinging lady” identity reminds me more of an Olympic Games logo than that of a professional golf association. And it is difficult to get over how amazingly similar (and ironic) it is to Greg Norman’s “Shark” logo (the highly successful businessman and professional golfer from Australia). The new brush strokes are much more feminine than the old, but something is not quite right.
The brush strokes look a bit forced in some areas, or as if they were drawn by different people. For example, the hair, arm and highly accentuated backside have all been rendered with very elegant curves and careful attention to the thickness of the strokes. The golf “swing” and legs, in addition to being a little disproportionate and stubby-looking, are very mechanical and perfectly computer-generated. And what exactly is that supposed to be for the head? The unkempt hair (that resembles more of a mop top or even a duck’s head) seems to contradict the association’s professional and polished image.
Typographically, the LPGA’s new brand represents a huge improvement over the old. The serif LPGA within the green box has given way to a more contemporary sans serif typeface that is unique and forward-thinking, but not too cheesy or “futuristic.” My only complaint is that the strokes appear to be too thin—making them bolder would aide in reproducing the brand at small sizes.
Speaking of reproduction issues, one of the goals of the new brand, according to Bill Susetka, the LPGA’s chief marketing officer, was to create “a logo that we could easily reproduce on merchandise, billboards and signage” — and judging from the amount of stuff in the newly minted LPGA Pro Shop (do note the These Girls Rock badge there) — then I think they picked a very difficult one (anyone who has ever sent a multicolor job like this to an embroiderer can tell you that this is no picnic to stitch onto hats, polos, etc. and if anyone is into hats, polos, etc. it’s golfers).
All print collateral, even their business cards and letterhead, will have to be printed in full color as opposed to just one or two, meaning more expense (granted, in the quantities that they produce them, this probably is not an issue). And then there are consistency issues when dealing with different vendors and different versions of the logo: when printing on a white or light background, the logo uses blue strokes and type; when on dark colors (see the new LPGA site), the blue is reversed to white. The resulting logo loses its effectiveness as the white overpowers and competes with the other colors.
These Girls Rock might be an appropriate description for the ladies of professional golf, but unfortunately it is not necessarily the case for their new brand: Too Olympic-like, too similar to another male golf icon’s brand, the LPGA’s mark could have been a little more refined in its execution. Granted, it is a dramatic change and long overdue (the previous iteration had been in use since 1992). I will even go so far as to say that it is an improvement over the old, but definitely not a hole-in-one.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Reed Reibstein’s comment is:
I think you may be being a bit overly harsh. I certainly agree that the use of "girls" is a poor decision, that it looks more like an Olympic logo than a professional one, and that the component lines are a bit overly diverse, but it's not that terrible. Nothing original, but it does keep the LPGA in line with the current trends, and the red swoosh has a really nice sense of motion in it. Also, I'm pretty sure that the "unkempt hair" you describe is actually supposed to be a hat, although if it didn't read to you immediately than it's not a very successful rendering.
On Oct.10.2007 at 09:59 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
I agree with Reed. I think you're review was a little much. I think you touched on some good cues but the overall effect (at least on me) is impressive for the most part. I really like what they were able to improve upon here.
On Oct.10.2007 at 10:41 PM
Ty’s comment is:
I appreciate the LPGA's desire to move in this direction, but I agree that the execution is a bit weak. I think with minor design changes, this would be less similar to Greg Norman's brand and much better over all.
On Oct.10.2007 at 11:49 PM
Slava’s comment is:
Umm... yeah, I guess. In as much as refering to the baseball players as "boys of summer" is chauvinistic - which is to say, not that much.
And I can't believe that anyone would not realize that she's wearing a hat with a ponytail sticking out of the back.
On Oct.10.2007 at 11:49 PM
Doug Avery’s comment is:
I think the critique of the printability is a little off...this logo would translate decently to a dark background, and it's remarkably cheap to print full-color stationary these days. The logo itself is simply bland; too many colors and no real motion suggest a committee-driven design. It's not a logo to write home about, but so middling that it's almost not a logo to write about at all (much like the logo it replaced).
On Oct.10.2007 at 11:49 PM
Jeunesse’s comment is:
Doug Avery’s comment is:
"and it's remarkably cheap to print full-color stationary these days"
Well you are obviously not paying the printing bill!
The illustration would work just as well in two colors.
Either way the new logo is mind numbingly predicatable, why even comment on it, it's just white noise.
On Oct.11.2007 at 12:03 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
I agree its a little too Olympic-feeling, but i think its far more visually interesting than the previous logo.
Too many colors, could have been more coherent with a 2 or 3 color treatment.
On Oct.11.2007 at 01:05 AM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
This whole brand feels a bit off. "These girls rock?"
They don't rock, they play golf. I understand the idea was to add energy and excitement to female golf, but it seems poorly articulated. This translated into poor design.
Clicking on SME's link above takes you to a page filled with LPGA visuals. One of the most pronounced visual elements in the brand's look and feel is a sparkly, glowing, halo-like mass. Composed of stars and orbs, it surrounds silhouetted, female golf figures and fans.
This treatment is reminiscent of a Barbi Doll box, or a 4th grade girl's trapper keeper. This visual element is not only trite, but detracts from the professional and athletic integrity of these woman, packaging them up with the maturity level of a happy meal.
This whole sparkly, lip-gloss, cosmetic treatment comes off as demeaning, not empowering. There had to be someone somewhere demanding "We need to make it more girly!"
While I'm not concerned about reproduction (the LPGA has enough money to print in however many colors they want), I don't understand the rainbow of colors in the logo. The LPGA owned the color green. The PGA owns blue. What better color than green to own for a golf association? The only assumption I can make is that the spectrum of color is a further attempt to make the brand feel more happy and fluffy. The only remnant of green remains in the figure's arm and hair. Is this giant figure "she-hulk?"
The type feels like it was pulled from the wordmark of a hip car like the honda civic or a rave dance club. This only goes further to reinforce the already apparent visual "dumb-down" of this brand. Type and golf have a long history. There are kinds of type we associate with golf, historically used out of used out of both necessity and utility. It would be nice to see more of that influence.
These reasons, coupled with the loss of any and all seal-like containment shape (which would have lead some degree of integrity or authority), makes this brand feel far too artificial, cosmetic, immature, and consumer oriented. I feel like I just watched a Hanna Montana Video.
On Oct.11.2007 at 02:07 AM
WORK, Oslo’s comment is:
I completely agree on most in this review. The execution is ok at best. Being a scratch golfer myself I know that golf is not a sport that "rocks", but that is not the weakest part of this. I find the overall attempt here to be uninspired. It is as if they went in with all the stigma and never shook it off.
On Oct.11.2007 at 04:15 AM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
Not being a dire professional golf follower myself, I'm having some difficulty understanding the structure.
There's the PGA which is the "Association":
Then there is the Men's PGA Tour:
And also the PGA Senior Tour:
It would seem to me that on the men's side, there is the Association logo and then the respective tour logos.
So, following that same structure, is the LPGA logo the Ladies' Association (definitely out of line with the Men's Association)? Or is it the Ladies' Tour logo – if so why is it missing the "tour" descriptor? Or is it serving as both – in which case why? Is there a Senior Ladies' Tour logo coming?
On the logo itself, I think Ryan articulated well the downfalls of the logo (regardless of how you see production issues these days). Overall It lacks a strong visual presence given its rendering. Not to mention that this visual styling is dated already (was a popular approach in the 90's – thinking of corporate conferences – will need to find some good examples). The typography, while updated, is shameful, it will fall out of date faster than the past typography did.
Given the silhouette that was being used for the past Ladies' logo and is being used by the Mens and Senior Mens logos (I really like the attempt that the senior logo makes at more "traditional/past" attire), it seems to me that there would have been an obvious opportunity to build a system for the tour logos based on updated silhouettes. New respective containing shapes (if still needed), color coding system and typography across the board.
On Oct.11.2007 at 06:58 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
I agree with most of the criticisms — Too Olympic looking, stubby legs, Greg Norman looking — but there are little nuances that I find compelling. The golf "swing" has a double purpose of the energy of the stroke as well as completing the form of the woman's body.
But past all aesthetic judgments, I feel there is an appropriate impression that the new logo portrays. To me, the woman in the previous logo looks like she was taken out of a nostalgic 50's advertisement. While the previous boxed in translation of an athlete is more fitting of a sports league logo, the figure did not portray the young, powerful women that play in the league today. The new woman wearing a baseball cap and ponytail is more to date than the previous visor wearing, high-waisted pants.
On Oct.11.2007 at 08:11 AM
Josh Emerson’s comment is:
The thing that feels really "off" to me about the logo is it doesn't seem natural. I can't figure out what position she's in. When her body would be in the semi-twisted position, her club head would not be facing where she looking. It looks like they are trying to show her, just after hitting the ball and completing the follow through of the swing. In that case the club would not be where it is. The club is always behind you when its in the air. Maybe I'm just looking at this thing wrong.
On Oct.11.2007 at 08:59 AM
Jason’s comment is:
I totally agree with it not being cohesive. The parts don't read well as a whole. I'll go ahead and disagree that the type is correct. It might be right philosophically (representing the goals of the brand) but the hard angles don't fit with the curved strokes in the icon.
I'm surprised you didn't mention what they did carry over, similar dimensions.
On Oct.11.2007 at 09:10 AM
smellingoranges’s comment is:
As a helpful comment to Doug Avery, a letterhead, envelope system is "stationery." Notice the "ery."
"Stationary" is an adjective meaning: (from good old Webster's dictionary)
1: fixed in a station , course, or mode : IMMOBILE
2: unchanging in condition
A lot of designers get this wrong and get mocked for it. Just trying to help you out.
On Oct.11.2007 at 09:31 AM
Ty’s comment is:
Josh,
In regards to the figure's position, she is in a textbook finish of a golf swing. The next time you watch golf, notice how Tiger Woods finishes with the clubhead pointing towards the target. While most amateur golfers like you and I aren't developed enough for that to be a part of our swing, the professionals finish like that every time.
In regards to the slogan, I think it is pretty clear that SME is trying to build off the already-equitable "These guys are good" slogan of the PGA. This, of course, is a shameless attempt to try to benefit from the PGA's success, which could be good, but also could not.
On Oct.11.2007 at 10:05 AM
damon’s comment is:
I think it's pretty 80's lame, also, how can you have so many brush strokes and still have something that seems to have zero movement?
although I agree, the type is a major improvement.
On Oct.11.2007 at 10:18 AM
kleid’s comment is:
I try to positive, I do. But it just looks to me as if she's launching the club like a javelin and is a leg amputee.
On Oct.11.2007 at 10:28 AM
John’s comment is:
In general, I very much like this mark. It's a nice update (dare I say "refresh") of an otherwise painfully stiff logo. It announces a new attitude and perspective, which I'm going to guess is what they were going for.
My only quible is with the overall gesture of the figure. The strokes are obviously intended to indicate motion, but my thought is that the long red stroke that defines the curve of the body is also being read as a "motion line" indicating the movement of the club. Clearly, the motion of the club should be up and around the figure's head. The red line, though, makes it appear as though the club is moving up the length of her back, which seems painfully awkward. What is intended to be a dynamic gesture gets blocked by itself, it seems.
My two cents.
On Oct.11.2007 at 10:49 AM
dave’s comment is:
In response to Josh:
"It looks like they are trying to show her, just after hitting the ball and completing the follow through of the swing. In that case the club would not be where it is. The club is always behind you when its in the air."
and Ty:
"...notice how Tiger Woods finishes with the clubhead pointing towards the target."
The problems seems to be that she is in her back swing BEFORE hitting the ball. However the red stroke gives the feeling of having hit the ball, in which case the club is facing the wrong way.
And kleid wasn't the only one to notice the look of a javelin throw. Now that i see that, i don't see a golfer at all. This is a good "initial" comp logo that needs to be re-illustrated in my mind.
On Oct.11.2007 at 10:50 AM
Kim Siever’s comment is:
I have to agree on the cap; I immediately recognized it and did not mistake it for odd-looking hair.
I don't like the red stroke, but for reasons different from what others have mentioned. The position of her club makes it look like she just finished her swing (a much more powerful looking swing than in the previous logo, I might add, and which I love about this logo). However, the red stroke makes it seem like she just lifted it form the ground. If the red stroke is meant to act as both an outline of the right side of her body and the motion of her swing, then it should have wrapped around her. The stroke and the club position are too incongruent, and it really affects the logo in general.
I also have to agree on the choice of colours. It doesn't make sense.
I don't mind the font they used for the text.
On Oct.11.2007 at 11:10 AM
Kim Siever’s comment is:
I guess others did notice the same thing I did while I was composing my comment. :)
On Oct.11.2007 at 11:13 AM
Ty’s comment is:
Dave,
As a veteran golfer, I can tell you that she is in her finish with 100% certainty. If you'll notice the older logo, you will see she is also in her finish, only with a short iron, so it's not the full finish that she has with a longer iron in the new one. Look at any pro golfer's finish on their tee shot with a driver and you will see this view.
The problem with the red stroke is that it has no shape or definition so it doesn't match the yellow or green, both of which are less abstract.
On Oct.11.2007 at 11:20 AM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
The hand/arm is rendered awkwardly, the club has too much detail (handgrip) for the style of the rest of the image, and the hand and red swoosh touching the club don't seem to fit with the loose and broken style of the other elements. It's all just awkward to my eye.
On Oct.11.2007 at 11:39 AM
Diane’s comment is:
Ty,
As a veteran golfer, I can tell you that she is in her finish with 100% certainty. If you'll notice the older logo, you will see she is also in her finish, only with a short iron, so it's not the full finish that she has with a longer iron in the new one. Look at any pro golfer's finish on their tee shot with a driver and you will see this view.
It does not appear in the new logo that the golf club is a driver. Therefore I do not feel that her finish would look like this. It appears to me that the club angle is much too high and that her head would not be facing in this direction.
http://daryld.com/2006/07/nike-golf-swing-portrait/
http://www.improvegolfperformance.com/image-files/embroidery2.jpg
I feel that the logo above looks like she may be leaning backwards too much? It is almost as if the body is being viewed from a different angle as the head would be. It feels awkward to me.
On Oct.11.2007 at 12:10 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
I "rainbow" color scheme may have been more appropriate. ;P
On Oct.11.2007 at 12:46 PM
BWJ’s comment is:
I understand the desire to make women's golf seem as appealing and exciting as Tiger has made the PGA, but this logo just strips the class and prestige out of the sport.
This looks like it came right out of the Logolounge.
Nothing original, but it does keep the LPGA in line with the current trends –Reed
The last thing Golf needs to represent itself is something trendy. The sport is timeless, classic, and prestigious...this logo is none of those.
On Oct.11.2007 at 01:00 PM
zedzedeye’s comment is:
I agree that it looks like a group of people took turns adding strokes. A design orgy with the board! how fun!
The "left" leg really is awkward, almost unneeded. Took it off, really improves the movement in my eyes. One color is actually not that bad, ties it in together as a single image. I did move the pony tail a tad, then ended there, thinking it needed TONS of tweeking...
C-Lo’s comment is:
I like the old logo better (looks distinguished & classy.) This looks like extreme putt putt golf gone to the Olympics. I can understand what they were thinking of when they made this, but yeah lets rework those lines. The main problem I see is that the position of the girl itself is impossible. Anatomy people anatomy. Is she swinging wildly in the air? And I know your trying to make the front of the girl, but don't put a movement line in the middle of the club. You totally lose which direction the club goes and it makes the club go straight up and not in a circle like an actual club.
To Digress, what hurt this logo more is that they needed to actually go onto a golf course and see how people swing a golf club. Maybe then they can draw the girl right, and make everyone who looks at it uneasy and not know why. The end of the golf club should be pointing down when she is at the end of her swing. Stand up in your office and try it.
On Oct.11.2007 at 02:29 PM
rynot’s comment is:
looks more like a women's javelin club.
On Oct.11.2007 at 02:44 PM
Josh Emerson’s comment is:
After thinking about it more.. i think the reason I was so confused, was because of the hat... the hat makes you think you are looking at a profile. We are actually looking at her from a three-quarters view.
On Oct.11.2007 at 03:55 PM
Mark’s comment is:
At first, I was impressed, but on second look further it looks like she's launching a club with one hand, my second thought was she was an archer launching a golf club like an arrow, which makes no sense at all.
I think what really throws it off is the fact they only have one arm drawn and those two swooshy lines at the bottom make it looks like a stick figure.
What a shame.
On Oct.11.2007 at 03:59 PM
exigent’s comment is:
Zed- love your rendition 100% more than the garbage design up above. This is about as cheesy as logos get. Any sense of motion is lost due to the akwardness of the lines going this way and that. I agree that to remove the blue "leg" would be a vast improvement.
Horrible design. The original trumps this tacky wannabe.
On Oct.11.2007 at 04:01 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
C-Lo,
Her position is not totally contorted and unnatural, the clubhead points up like this when you come out of your finish. The actual finish leads you to hold the club nearly parallel to the ground, only slightly toward the ground, and then after that, the natural movement of your body comes out of the position by releasing the club to be almost parallel to the ground only slightly toward the sky.
Josh,
I am quite sure that her head is a full 90˚ from us. Think of the target as being perpendicular to us, we are looking at a direct profile. The older logo is not a direct profile, but the new one is.
On Oct.11.2007 at 04:23 PM
Ty’s comment is:
C-Lo,
Her position is not totally contorted and unnatural, the clubhead points up like this when you come out of your finish. The actual finish leads you to hold the club nearly parallel to the ground, only slightly toward the ground, and then after that, the natural movement of your body comes out of the position by releasing the club to be almost parallel to the ground only slightly toward the sky.
Josh,
I am quite sure that her head is a full 90˚ from us. Think of the target as being perpendicular to us, we are looking at a direct profile. The older logo is not a direct profile, but the new one is.
On Oct.11.2007 at 04:24 PM
Jackson’s comment is:
brand ≠ logo
On Oct.11.2007 at 07:41 PM
Mark’s comment is:
On the other hand the type looks very nice, and is indeed an improvement.
I wonder what typeface it is it looks nice and clean.
On Oct.11.2007 at 09:24 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:
the thing that bothers me the most about it is that it doesn't look like a natural golf swing anymore.
it doesn't even look like a golfer. where's the other hand?
I just don't see how the club goes back up and how this logo even works in terms of golf technique.
if it more resembled a somewhat possible follow through, i think i would be more open to it, but, the typography is quite nice.
maybe this should be their new logo:
Shane’s comment is:
I am enjoying this logo, to answer some of the concerns or questions in my opinion, the confusion of the head is that she is wearing a hat, it seemed clear to me. Also I am enjoying the movement of the logo it seems very elegant and femenine. Which is the same reason I like the weight of the font as well. I think making it bolder would lose some of that and make it more masculine.
However I do prefer the changes that "Zedzedeye's" made. The second leg seems awkward indeed, or somewhat forced.
I do see some of the problems you have pointed out, and agree that perhaps the logo could of been tweaked to make it stronger, but the concept and idea seems to be much stronger and more appropriate than that of the logo they had before.
So I suppose my only real stance is that I am seeing A LOT of improvement.
On Oct.11.2007 at 11:32 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
This is a terrible illustrative design.
On an illustrative approach if something looks awkward then it's a good bet you're not done refining and working out the art and thus removing problematic areas. This looks like they just said "Good Enough" and went with it.
It feels like a rough comp to explore a possible style direction more then it does a final mark.
I bet if you asked the designers about the pose of the figure they'd argue that they went off of photo reference and I would suspect they did. But a photo is a far different read then an illustrative mark. With an illustrative mark you have to think iconic and stereotypical you can't merely execute a design in a given style based on a photo no matter how real life that pose may be in the photo it just won't translate right.
So what we have here is both a poor choice of style to begin with (For all the reasons listed in previous posts) and a poor execution of that style in this illustrative mark.
Problem areas IMO:
- Face (Looks like she's a burn victim)
- Appears nude (Other then hat)
- Arm looks lame (Can you say atrophy)
- Truncated legs look unnatural
- TM placement creates a club foot
- I like flat buns! (Carl's Jr. Cross promotion?)
- Visual tension (Club meets red swoosh)
Ty’s comment is:
Okay, raise your hand if you actually golf.
Then, keep your hand raised if you read golf magazines, watch pro golf, and know what a golf swing looks like.
A textbook swing looks like this:
Notice how Tiger finishes with the clubhead pointing toward the target. There are 15 million reasons why in one picture or another, the golfer may not be doing just that; there are a lot of different ways to manipulate a swing to achieve a desired shot. There are also many good reasons why when you golf, or when you see your friends golf, you don't see swings like that, mostly because only the most skilled golfers can finish correctly. In fact, I have been playing for years and I can't even do it right. But when you get down to what it is supposed to look like, Your shoulders are perpendicular to the target and the clubhead is pointing toward it.
As I said earlier, there is something to be said for her club slightly more than parallel to the ground, but her body position is very close to accurate.
On Oct.12.2007 at 07:57 AM
Shane Guymon’s comment is:
Ok some of ya'll are taking this way way too far in the over analyzing game...
Ed McKim's is asking "Where's the other hand." Are you seriouse? while on that note why don't we ask where her feet are, how about eyes, and other missing body parts?
On Oct.12.2007 at 09:59 AM
andrew miller’s comment is:
its just too confusing.
Von Glitschka, you said it all.
On Oct.12.2007 at 10:03 AM
zedzedeye’s comment is:
Ed, I dont know where you found the Glass Penis shot, but classic.
On Oct.12.2007 at 10:47 AM
AL’s comment is:
Zed, with your amendments it's nearly perfect. I'm just not sure the proportions of the visible arm are okay.
It reminds me my own design :)
On Oct.12.2007 at 10:54 AM
Tim G’s comment is:
If the designers went to the trouble of depicting one hand on the club, "where is the other hand?" is a perfectly valid question.
On Oct.12.2007 at 12:49 PM
PaddyC’s comment is:
Let's cut to the chase...the "position" of the golfer in this new logo is completely indecipherable to a non-golfer, and, it appears, even to some who play golf. If we are working this hard to understand what is going on wouldn't you say it's a failure?
Ty—based on the Tiger photos if the golfer in the logo has finished her swing her club head should be facing the target pointed towards the ground. In the icon it's facing the target and pointed towards the sky. What am I missing?
Worst example of this type of graphic treatment I've seen since design school.
On Oct.12.2007 at 12:54 PM
Smackfu’s comment is:
The problem I have with zedzedeye’s redesign is that it looks like a genie golfer.
On Oct.12.2007 at 01:42 PM
Mike’s comment is:
It's an improvement over the old Microsoft Publisher style clip art, but I have to agree that the woman's pose could be somewhat confusing. The first time I looked at it I thought she was about to throw her club like a spear.
On Oct.12.2007 at 02:15 PM
Seymour’s comment is:
I think it is horrible. It looks like a poorly rendered piece of clip art. The relationships between the elements all seem awkward to me as well. Let's hope that in another year they will decide to create yet another identity, and this time they do it right.
On Oct.12.2007 at 02:20 PM
Diane’s comment is:
I believe part of the reason the body is confusing is the relationship of the swing and the club. If she is in her finish, then the club is coming from around her head; however the motion of the swing seems more appropriate to as if she had just hit the ball. PaddyC made a great point that the form is indecipherable to a non-golfer.
On Oct.12.2007 at 06:11 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
Beside the other obvious flaws that everyone had made abundantly clear, the first thing I thought was that it looks like golfer Greg Norman's Shark brand logo from the 80s.
Kevin Chan’s comment is:
The awkward proportion/position of the arm says javelin/spear tossing, or even pulling back aslingshot, more than the follow thru of a golf swing.
That's quite a nose there too. It's about as big as her fist!
On Oct.13.2007 at 01:54 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
My problem is the woman looks so darn masculine. Wide "shoulders" (I know, the red line is the swing, but I can't stop reading it as part of the body), minimal curves on the back definition, short straight legs, top-heavy design... that ponytail (and *why* is it in the same green as the arm when every other element has its own color?) is the only thing that might make the character female.
I wish I could post a picture of the logo from Paradise Surf Shop in Santa Cruz. Very nice feminine logo.
On Oct.15.2007 at 03:33 PM
felix’s comment is:
agreed, its very 80s....
On Oct.15.2007 at 04:44 PM
krys’s comment is:
You too can have your own LPGA bling!
On Oct.15.2007 at 06:18 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
It says "hockey" to me. Or field hockey? Not seeing it.
With the advent of good looking LPGA golfers today, too. Way too forced.
Forced? NOT GOING THERE!!!
Fore!
VR/
On Oct.15.2007 at 07:08 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:
Ed McKim's is asking "Where's the other hand." Are you seriouse? while on that note why don't we ask where her feet are, how about eyes, and other missing body parts?
OK. where are the rest of the missing body parts, wise guy?
Of course i'm serious. Who finishes a golf swing with one hand?
And while we are talking in the realm of seriousness, are you seriously suggesting that a strong concept and a weak execution are a good solution to an international sports league that is already struggling to find it's identity? At least the old logo somewhat fit in with a lot of the sports logos out there for other professional leagues. OH, and it looked like a human swinging a golf club. So in terms of that, which design had better execution of the same concept to begin with?
On Oct.15.2007 at 10:05 PM
tobias krotz’s comment is:
it looks to me like a farmer going home from a hard day on the fields, his scythe across the shoulders.
On Oct.16.2007 at 10:51 AM
darrel’s comment is:
I like ZedZed's art direction.
On Oct.17.2007 at 01:55 PM
Johnny Holeva’s comment is:
I think she looks "horsey."
D.F.’s comment is:
There's no doubt that the logo is based on Michelle Wie's finishing position
Rachel Campbell’s comment is:
I think you guys are all far too old to appreciate this. I am not a big golf fan, but the new logo feels fresh and young. The old one feels stifled and too uptight.
I expect the new logo will attract more young women, which I think was the goal.
On Nov.19.2007 at 12:31 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I don't know about "fresh and young..." I think "trying too hard to be fresh and young" is more accurate, and young women will look through it like it doesn't exist.
On Nov.21.2007 at 02:32 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
hi there
On Feb.06.2008 at 06:08 PM
Mark’s comment is:
ahhh! I can't take it anymorrrrre!!!!!!
that's it, I had enough, I'm going to try to fix it.
there, that's better.
On Feb.06.2008 at 06:32 PM
Yeison Agudelo’s comment is:
are the 90s making a comeback?
On Apr.10.2008 at 09:53 AM
Woke’s comment is:
I think the idea was right - the execution is terrible.
While looking for some positives in the design, I thought there might be an attempt to put the letters, L, P, G and A in the figure?
L - The green arm
P - The club and the swing
G - Oh well, the rear
A - Where the leg and the swing connects
Never mind.
On Apr.25.2008 at 10:38 AM
Jon’s comment is:
My first thought on seeing this logo on TV recently for the first time was - no good. It looks like something from the seventies with the rainbow colors and the poorly executed drawing. Would have been right at home on the side of a cheap sailboat circa 1978.
...and I love watching LPGA.
On May.08.2008 at 02:23 PM
Guest’s comment is:
check the pic, compare to logo
Mark’s comment is:
the red swoosh ruins it.
On Dec.07.2008 at 02:41 PM
Shauna ’s comment is:
I agree with zedzedeye it looks a lot better with one color and without the leg.
It looks a lot like every other new brand that has been trying to add colors, often sacrificing a good design.
On Mar.17.2009 at 11:08 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
