NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
I’m a passive fan of game shows on TV: If one of them is on and there is nothing else, I’ll happily watch. But not complicated things like Deal or No Deal, I like simple things like Wheel of Fortune, The Price is Right, Family Feud and even that crazy 10,000 Pyramid show. I vividly remember when a channel, devoted solely to game shows, debuted in 1994. I couldn’t believe it. And I watched it. Couldn’t believe that either. But here we are, fourteen years later, and the Game Show Network is still on, even after different guises (abbreviated to GSN) and efforts to expand its programming with reality shows, it’s all back to basics with good, old fashioned fun.
The original logo was somewhat off target, the second one was trippy-goofy and the third one had gone way corporate and lame, so it’s nice to see this last iteration strike a good balance of its previous two incarnations. Despite that funky visual illusion where you see black circles between the corners of the squares the logo is simple, colorful and, more important, relevant to the content of the channel. It also animates nicely on the web site as a sliding puzzle. Nothing groundbreaking in this identity, but a nice update where one was desperately needed.
Thanks to Jake Hamilton for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Ben’s comment is:
Meh.
On Dec.03.2008 at 07:04 AM
Mrs. M’s comment is:
Is it brilliant? No.
However, I'm fond of the warm colors and the simplicity of the mark itself.
Ditch that cheesy tagline, though. Seems more fitted to the lottery or online mini-games portal than a television network, unless they've placed heavy emphasis on interactive programs.
Still, much improved over previous iterations. At least it's relevant now.
On Dec.03.2008 at 07:30 AM
Yeison Agudelo’s comment is:
i dont like the colors at all...i mean the logo yells 70's game show i dont like it very much....
On Dec.03.2008 at 07:44 AM
Eli’s comment is:
I think it's really good. With the closeness of the colors and the rounded edges, even the still image looks like its in motion. It makes the last attempt look almost grave-like in comparison. Tag line is an afterthought, and maybe a little annoying if you think about too long, but not bad at a glance.
On Dec.03.2008 at 07:52 AM
sanjay basavaraju’s comment is:
cliche!
On Dec.03.2008 at 08:15 AM
Andrew Harrington’s comment is:
Gotham is quickly becoming a punchline. One could probably classify each new identity update into either "Gotham" or "Not Gotham" and the two piles would be comparable in size, which is disheartening, considering the number of great typefaces we have available in this day and age.
On Dec.03.2008 at 08:41 AM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
weak. Zzzz.
On Dec.03.2008 at 09:39 AM
George - LogoDesign.org’s comment is:
Not really a fan, I love game shows, hate the new logo...
On Dec.03.2008 at 09:59 AM
Jessi Long’s comment is:
My first reaction was definitely, "this is Rachael Ray". You can see the color palette is virtually identical and if you visit the website you can see the use of boxes with rounded corners is prominent in their brand. Not to mention they use the same keyword "every day"
On Dec.03.2008 at 09:59 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I dont mind it. Not breaking any new ground, but it does the job. I like how the color scheme hints at cheesy 70's game show set. The 'Golden Age' of tv game shows...
I could stand to lose the tagline.
On Dec.03.2008 at 10:18 AM
Brian’s comment is:
I like the "70's" look of the logo. It's something fun and nostalgic... just like game shows.
On Dec.03.2008 at 10:54 AM
sra’s comment is:
I like it, it's upbeat and very Price is Right-y.
The tagline could use some work, making 'every' orange doesn't seem like a good choice, it just fades away.
On Dec.03.2008 at 10:55 AM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
One lame square, becomes nine lame squares.
Game shows are such rich material, and this is all they could come up with!
On Dec.03.2008 at 11:50 AM
Mary C’s comment is:
Obvious and forgettable.
jRod’s comment is:
when i think gameshows, i think reds, oranges, and yellows.. just like the logo. I can't help but think of those puffy fabric wrapped sets on TPIR with more gold glitter highlights than a Hanna Montana concert. good times...
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I could see it in motion as one of those "slide the tiles around to complete the picture" games… the possibilities are really interesting and I think memorability could easily be achieved through clever use. It seems remarkably appropriate to me, if not a little shallow. I say good work.
On Dec.03.2008 at 01:06 PM
Deg’s comment is:
I like it, though I like the "flat" version on your blog better than the "Web 2.0 glossy" version on their web site.
On Dec.03.2008 at 01:19 PM
JOe MOran’s comment is:
A real "Whammie." Ha! Tic Tac? NO?
VR/
On Dec.03.2008 at 01:47 PM
IhateDesign’s comment is:
works, only works, but its ok!
On Dec.03.2008 at 02:28 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Ha ha, didn't notice that it's in-motion on the web site. Agree with Deg that the Web 2.0 version should die… nothing nostalgic '70s about that.
On Dec.03.2008 at 04:00 PM
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
I like it in 2D and 2.0. When visiting the website, you see the logo animate and take on a nice personality. Moveable type and image is the future of identity design (it's already here)...so I like seeing someone take a real stab at it.
It solves the problem and is well done.
Will there ever be a mark on here that you people DON'T whine about?
Phillipine Emerson’s comment is:
To me it seems like a first idea, that should have either been progressed further, or left on the cutting room floor.
Apart from the color, there is not much else that grabs your attention, though I agree, it lends itself to animation well.
I like GSN, though this seems a little like a tentative baby step for their identity, and to be honest a little uninspired.
"Meh" sums it up perfectly.
On Dec.03.2008 at 04:10 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
How is this logo "well done" Wünderwoman? Please explain.
Andy’s comment is:
I love this blog, for real, but did you just call Deal or No Deal complicated?
On Dec.03.2008 at 05:34 PM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
I like it in general.
It will transfer nicely to look good on TV and it opens the door for future print materials to have a fresh, clean design style.
Definitely a good update.
Keep well,
Dale
T-Bone’s comment is:
it's non-offensive and not inspiring, (not UNinspiring…) but it does the job. the previous one made me think of online video games, so it's an improvement i guess.
On Dec.03.2008 at 07:34 PM
Mike’s comment is:
Looks like a corporate gift (from 1985)
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
seriously, does anybody actually call it G-S-N? it's ridiculous. let's take something fun and friendly, then give it some mysterious and ambiguous abbreviation, then put in a box, or maybe better yet, multiple boxes! yikes.
On Dec.03.2008 at 08:56 PM
Armin’s comment is:
> I love this blog, for real, but did you just call Deal or No Deal complicated?
Not complicated in the sense of "oh my god this game is so hard," but it is unnecessarily complicated for how pointless it can be. It's a very convoluted premise. Wheel of fortune? Spin the wheel. Boom. It's done.
On Dec.03.2008 at 09:21 PM
Jordan’s comment is:
If the play everday wasnt there that perfect!
On Dec.03.2008 at 10:58 PM
Roma’s comment is:
banal is an understatement. barely a logo. looks like it was designed in 5 minutes.
zzzzzzzzz
rickyaustin’s comment is:
Don't mind the redesign. Nothing wonderful but an improvement.
The Chiclet™ version needs to die.
On Dec.04.2008 at 01:43 AM
MeQuiz’s comment is:
Never mind "meh." "Feh!" is more like it!
On Dec.04.2008 at 09:08 AM
Jeunesse’s comment is:
"Meh, Meh, Meh, Meeeh"
At my "Meh" to the chorus of "Mehes"
Take away the color and you have one very boring logo.
On Dec.04.2008 at 10:04 AM
JD’s comment is:
GSN? isn't that a horse tranquilizer?
On Dec.04.2008 at 10:05 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Ahhhh, MUCH better.
Looks more playful and related to game shows, plus it looks a lot less like the Weather Channel logo.The old one was stale and boring,this new one looks better.
I like how the letters play around with the spaces between the boxes,reminds me a lot of the first Game Show Network logo.
Also sort of looks like the board on Wheel of Fortune.
DrBear’s comment is:
For what it's worth, the "green ball" logo was the second. This, nicknamed "Winnie" was the first:
Bruce’s comment is:
Nope, not doing anything for me. The colors made me think of that cheesy Gene Rayburn, with his hideous haircut.
It does look like a Rubik's Cube.
And if I saw just the logo, it might take me awhile to understand that "GS" is the Game Show Network. Is using the full name some sort of sin? I mean, it's a short name!
On Dec.04.2008 at 01:02 PM
James’s comment is:
Armin, I greatly appreciated your critiques. They are really the only reason I continue to come to Brand New. That being said...
Most of the comments are a joke. Regardless of the logo in question, most everyone just seems to bitch and moan about personal preference. Never mind how the real world, where most of these logos come from, actually functions. If the logo is to retro, it's accused of not being modern enough. If its Modern, its accused of being cliche. If it has a classic style, its accused of being yesteryear. I'm all for constructive criticism, but if this group were any sort of barometer, apparently nothing of value has been been produced since Paul Rand laid down his pen. If your looking to corporate logos to push the boundaries of contemporary design, your playing a fools game.
On Dec.04.2008 at 02:43 PM
Philip’s comment is:
I have to agree with James: the majority of comments on most of the posts at Brand New are so negative. If a logo communicates what the designer sets out to communicate, it is appropriate. I know not every identity is groundbreaking, but to trash an identity because you simply don't like it is absurd. Lets try to be a little objective with our criticism.
On Dec.04.2008 at 02:56 PM
cheetahboy’s comment is:
Good luck Philip and James convincing the contributors to this blog to ever change their ways. Your observation has been raised many times in the past, but the main direction of this blog continues down its mostly negative path.
On Dec.04.2008 at 03:59 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
Come on Philip and James, this is 'Brand New' not 'Little House on the Prairie'.
"If a logo communicates what the designer sets out to communicate, it is appropriate."
BZZZ, wrong answer!
The effectiveness of a good logo (according to Mr Rand) depends on:
1. distinctiveness
2. visibility
3. useability
4. memorability
5. universality
6. durability
7. timelessness
Lets mark GSN...
Distinctness:
Have I seen nine boxes arranged this way before?
Visibility:
Will the GSN logo stand apart from the competition? How many other television stations have logos in boxes?
Usability:
Should I align this centered logo on the left or right? Will the thin lines between the boxes fill in when reduced, or flair on-screen?
Memorability:
What makes this logo special enough to store away in my brain? Is it engaging and thoughtful?
Universality:
Can it be understood without a degree in Gameshowology. What does G.S.N stand for again?
Durability:
What happens if I pull apart the squares and rearrange them into a portrait of Lincoln? It it iconic enough to stand being fucked with.
Timelessness:
This category is too old school for me.
Television is ephemeral, luckily for GSN. ;)
James’s comment is:
A few reasons why I think this logo hits the mark.
Distinctness:
Have you seen nine boxes arranged before? Sure. But Here it actually applies and pays homage to old school game shows where answers/prizes are revealed behind a rotating box. I hope they play this up in their station tags.
Visibility:
I would argue, yes it does stand out from the competition. The colors again pay homage to classic 70s/80s game shows while still managing to feel contemporary. Is it Trendy? Sure. But this is TV.
Usability:
I think were ok here.
Memorability:
Any logo that we haven't grown up with since childhood is going to be fighting for space in our brains. Hundreds of new identities are released every day. For a logo to lodge its way into our everyday thoughts in this day and age is truly something special. That being said, I do think this has the potential to be memorable, depending on how they appropriate it in their station tags. If they utilize it as a game board, ala Wheel of Fortune, then I think it has great possibility.
As for the name GSN. I would have to guess they went this route to 1) make themselves seem larger and more established. I don't totally agree with this, but surely this wasn't the designer's call. And 2) To allow for other types of programming to air on the network without confusing the viewer. I know little about GSN, but someone mentioned that they now also run Reality shows, which aren't necessarily game shows in the strictest sense. So this makes sense.
Durability:
Few logos can still be iconic prior to being arranged in the likeness of Abe Lincoln.
Timelessness:
True. They'll more than likely change this again in 3 years. Have to stay fresh when you don't have 80 years of heritage to fall back on like the big networks.
Paul Lloyd Johnson’s comment is:
I'm sorry, but this logo doesn't tell me what the product is. there isn't even a hint of something. FAIL.
On Dec.05.2008 at 12:10 PM
Tom Kershaw’s comment is:
I am really enjoying this thread, especially the reference to Paul Rand's effectiveness of a good logo, extremely powerful stuff.
A few points to note about the logo - there are a few different color options, and also the idea behind the logo, (which is not fully communicated yet as it has only just been released) is that the game pieces of the logo can change into different objects, or be used as a window to another world for themes, promotions, seasons etc. The concept is intended to create a mark that lives on its own but can also be adapted, morphed and changed without losing its integrity. Definitely a challenge.
If anyone is interested, take a look on the actual channel, and see the tv graphics that show the logo animating. The logo is much more than just a static mark.
On Dec.05.2008 at 12:43 PM
Barclay D.’s comment is:
back in '99 i bought the official theme music of the Game Show Network. it was a collection of the music used in wheel-of-fortune, match game, dating gmae, and oh so much more.
why the hell did i by this! i was 11 years old. what a loser.
for the logo... i like it, better then the others. bit hollywood square for me. but it works.
On Dec.05.2008 at 01:39 PM
Eric’s comment is:
err...
Emily Charette’s comment is:
If your looking to corporate logos to push the boundaries of contemporary design, your playing a fools game.
James:
If YOU'RE going to make sanctimonious comments about this blog, please use the correct spelling of the contraction "you are." Thank you.
Emily Charette’s comment is:
PS:
I agree that this logo is cliched. BUT I think it is a very successful and appropriate cliche! I look at this and immediately think "game" and "cheesy 70s." I think the designer here took advantage of the cliche, I think a failure is when a designer relies entirely on the cliche.
On Dec.05.2008 at 07:16 PM
Eric’s comment is:
'Appropriate cliche' hmmm, I think I smell a rat!
This logo is not refined or artful enough to be clever, me thinks it's just an obvious idea, poorly realized.
Stop polishing the turd.
On Dec.05.2008 at 08:31 PM
dMullins’s comment is:
The new logo is pretty un-interesting – visually - to me, but at the same I "get" the game metaphor they're trying to achieve with the panels.
I think it's far more successful than the first rendition, and aside from get kitschy, I don't really have any ideas for improvements.
That said, I'd personally call it a successful mark for the channel.
On Dec.05.2008 at 08:52 PM
dMullins’s comment is:
@JessiLong: Until I read the tagline a second time, I didn't get the connection you were attempting to draw. On second read, I was actually a bit appalled, and even motivated to retract the good things I just said about the logo re-design.
On Dec.05.2008 at 08:54 PM
Roma’s comment is:
"On second read, I was actually a bit appalled, and even motivated to retract the good things I just said about the logo re-design."
I agree.
"Play every day"
Don't they mean "sit on your arse and watch TV every day", or "gamble away your savings every day".
Niiiice.
On Dec.06.2008 at 02:34 PM
Bruce’s comment is:
I think the letters-in-a-box idea would work better if it played off of, say, Wheel of Fortune, by giving me the whole name while referring to a game show everyone has heard of, in this manner (imagine each letter in a box, if you will):
G_ME SH_W
N_TW_RK
The blanks being colored boxes with no letter in them. I think that'd be a vast improvement.
On Dec.06.2008 at 04:52 PM
dMullins’s comment is:
@Roma: Haha, good call about sitting on your ass every day.
On Dec.06.2008 at 06:56 PM
Andrew Stone’s comment is:
Unremarkable and under-cooked.
On Dec.07.2008 at 08:44 PM
Omar’s comment is:
I liked the simplicity of the old one.
On Dec.08.2008 at 01:35 AM
Sheraton Kalouria’s comment is:
I like the cubes--very "gameboard".
"Play Everyday"--an albatross to the designer--is DREADFUL. It's a positioning line borne from a sales meeting: "if they watch every day instead of twice a week our ratings will double".
GAME SHOW NETWORK would have been better--GSN seems to bury the lead and the fun of the network is in celebrating the pure fun of playing along with tv gameshows.
I like the retro colors--they are bright and fun and fit nicely with some of the networks truly vintage programming.
On Dec.08.2008 at 10:14 PM
Darcy’s comment is:
Sorry, this is Very, Very, Very average work.
Colors are bright and fun, well that's a no brainer!
I predict they will change this one again in two years.
On Dec.09.2008 at 12:00 AM
XK9’s comment is:
Talk about an identity crisis. 4 network logo designs in how many years? I think ten. It seems that when a TV network isn't sure what it is, they change the logo. Blame your identity crisis on the logo, but the fault, dear Brutus is in ourselves. We capitulate to the disposable society and logos are abandoned on whims or changes of CEO.
I'd say the new one is marginally better. Is it worth the real cost of a re-brand? Probably not.
Not sure why they go with the acronym. Working in TV I've heard it said that it's because of TV Menus. Your network name is reduced to four letters. So Cartoon Network becomes CN, Game Show Network is GSN, Home Shopping Network is HSN. Either embrace your name and allow its ability to "brand" the network by actually calling it what it is. Or change the name, the positioning, the attitude, all together.
It's not the logo's fault.
On Dec.09.2008 at 02:36 AM
pedro rocha’s comment is:
I like it.
On Dec.12.2008 at 07:24 AM
Ken A’s comment is:
A lazy effort, soon to be forgotten.
On Dec.13.2008 at 01:14 PM
Steven’s comment is:
I get the panel idea, though I think the execution is a little pedestrian (or Meh! as so many have said).
I give this one a 'B' for concept, 'F' for effort. Shame, seems like a missed opportunity.
On Dec.13.2008 at 01:25 PM
Mongoose’s comment is:
Well, let's see what we've got here in this update.
Old logo was.. well, okay in the corner of the TV screen. Very tame after the gonzo green ball logo; I hope this one will be properly thin and transparent in the same space.
The 70's colors, the Tic-Tac-Dough/Press-Your-Luck shape, the roundtangles.. well, they're okay. I like that we have 'GSN' instead of 'Gsn', probably the sharpest bit of the redesign. but the way the colors are expressed look like a sort of odd 'Z', and I'm.. just not overwhelmed by it. Maybe with 400 + A Spin.
C+, for a more colorful but still odd update.
On Dec.15.2008 at 08:54 PM
SP’s comment is:
A step up from the old one, though I prefer the 1997 logo with the green and yellow ball.
On Dec.20.2008 at 11:07 PM
JvT’s comment is:
I thought hollywood squares immediately.
On Jun.03.2009 at 11:12 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
