NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Guest Editorial by Von Glitschka
As a kid I grew up collecting baseball trading cards. I never worried about getting the entire set, I just collected the players I liked best. As far as the product was concerned it was pretty low-grade card stock, cheap full-color printing on the front with a one spot color uncoated back. The rock hard stick of chewing gum that came with each pack would often ruin the card next to it, or stain it with the white powder that coated the gum. This went on year in and year out throughout my childhood with a few new companies coming on the scene but still using the same tired methodology. In 1989 a new rookie company entered the trading card game. Its name was Upper Deck.
They created a new breed of trading cards, high-grade card stock, full color both sides, unique die-cuts, foil stamping, holographics, jersey insert cards and no lame ex-cuse for gum. Simply put they changed the rules of the game to their own liking and soon became the favorite of collectors everywhere. (Having the Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card in their premiere set didn’t hurt their efforts either.)
Upper Deck was the first trading card company to sign specific athletes as spokesper-sons for their product, first to offer high-end specialty cards featuring actual pieces of player jerseys and other game-used memorabilia. Upper Deck has not only created fun collectible content they have also pioneered technology to prevent counterfeiting and forgery to ensure that the collectibles they create retain their value.
When I first started collecting cards it cost me about $.05 per pack and when I stopped it was at $.50 per pack. Now serious collectors can buy ultra premium packs that guaran-tee you’ll get game-used insert cards for $100 a pack. Needless to say things have changed and as collectors grow up and become more sophisticated new product lines are developed to cater them.
Since Upper Deck is now the world’s best known creator of sports collectibles it was time to update their own identity. But unlike other large corporations that turn to big branding agencies to solve this problem, Upper Deck looked within, to their own lineup of in-house designers to step up to the plate.
Up Close and personal with Upper Deck’s new mark.
VP of Creative Martin Welling led Upper Deck’s re-design efforts for the new brand logo and shares their design direction on this project.
“Not wanting to diminish our brand promise of authenticity, superior content, innovation and quality, we knew there was a visual legacy associated with our mark that we did not want to walk away from. We determined very early in the process that several visual cues needed to be retained in the new solution; that the assignment was more of updating and not replacing,” said Welling.
“Specifically in the design process, we wanted to accomplish three things: make our branding more contemporary to create a stronger emotional link with our customers; make our mark more legible to improve our presence at retail; and make our mark more prominent and bold to stand out against our competitors.
“Although we considered outside resources in helping design the new mark, we came to the conclusion that only we had the history and insight necessary to accomplish the redesign.
“We feel our new logo successfully improves and updates our branding. Most importantly, it unifies the sports, entertainment and collectibles business groups under one mark.”
Secondary logos.
Like a professional athlete that continues to play well beyond his prime, the old logo simply needed to be retired. It’s static, the interaction of the type and shapes cause vis-ual tension, the color palette had become antiquated and the type itself was hard to read at smaller sizes due to the interior areas being too small. And, like a new all-star rookie prospect, the new logo reflects what Upper Deck has become. Active, bold, pro-gressive and powerful all the while retaining enough equity from its former incarnation to remain recognizable.
The same designers that have facilitated Upper Deck’s success over the past 20 years stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park. There are a lot of so-called branding agencies that can’t say the same with the multi-national brands they’ve re-designed of late. Like the Yankees, a big budget doesn’t always translate to success.
Upper Deck is now a seasoned pro and has moved well beyond mere sports trading cards. They are an entertainment company too, designing limited edition collectible toys — think Kid Robot — developing their own brands of trading card games as well as licensing some of the best known fantasy brands like “World of Warcraft”, “Yu-Gi-Oh!”, “Hell Boy” and “Marvel.”
One color, spot with gold metallic and an etched version for foil stamping.
With so many diverse product lines and levels of consumer cost, Upper Deck needed a new logo that was flexible enough to adapt to each. The Upper Deck designers created a logo that could easily work into any design context whether it was being knocked out of a color background, printed in metallic spot colors or foil stamped. (The etched art above is used on foil stamping at around .25 inches in size.)
Upper Deck’s brand positioning is now well equipped to further the company growth for at least another twenty years. I may no longer collect trading cards, but if I did, I’d buy Upper Deck if for no other reason then because they are so well designed.
Von Glitschka has worked in the communication arts industry for 20 years. His modus operandi is that of a hired gun for both in-house art departments and medium to large creative agencies working on projects for such clients as Microsoft, Adobe, Pepsi, Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Major League Baseball, Hasbro, Bandai Toys, Merck, Disney, and HGTV.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Michael Tyznik’s comment is:
Just a quick usage comment: .05¢ means 1/20th of a cent, and .50¢ means half a cent. You either want to use $.05 and $.50 or 5¢ and 50¢.
On Jan.02.2008 at 11:24 PM
Tim Chambers’s comment is:
Great write-up, and great brand refresh!
On Jan.03.2008 at 12:15 AM
Willis’s comment is:
I loved, loved Upper Deck growing up. I had two '89 Griffey rookies and admired the way the company completely changed the game. Their mark was never special, really, but their design aesthetic in terms of card design was breathtaking. Nothing was whiter than the borders of that first set of UD cards. Their photography seemed as crisp as cameras could possibly achieve. And they used some radical design ideas - a thin vertical picture on the card back was a huge success; they used foil and holograms to great (but not garish) effect.
Anyway, I'm not in love with the new logo. What really bugs me is the curvature of the sides, as if the logo was a stretchable, animated thing. It suggests something much less authentic and authoritative; something more childlike and fun. It honestly reminds me of a kid's food product, something that would be on, say, a Mac and Cheese box.
Of course, baseball cards used to appeal to that market, and Upper Deck's laser-focus on the adult, "serious" collector helped completely change the hobby. So maybe a sillier logo is a good thing.
On Jan.03.2008 at 12:30 AM
Scott’s comment is:
I am in Australia and am not familiar with Upper Deck at all so I am approaching this new logo with completely fresh eyes.
I find the choice of colours quite generic, to me bold primary yellow and blue, even with the orange gradient, say cheap and generic. I prefer the green and think that would be worth carrying through. I do like the black and one colour variation here though.
I also find the angle quite odd. I like the attempt at making it more dynamic but to me it looks like it might fall over. Especially on the large version here, the diamonds don't seem to line up, even though I assume they do.
I think it would have been great to see the redesign pushed a little further from the original on this one.
On Jan.03.2008 at 05:49 AM
Dave Klonke’s comment is:
I, too, recall seeing the first Upper Deck cards and wondering how Topps, Fleer and Donruss could have missed the mark for so many years. Anyone remember that first Donruss set in 1981 where the photos were so bad it looked like they were taken with a disposable camera? The back of an orange Orioles jersey was all you could really make out on Tim Stoddard's blurry card — I don't know why that sticks out as my favorite horrible Donruss card, but it does.
Anyway, back to Upper Deck. I like that this logo isn't a drastic change and it is still a very familiar feeling identity. Something about the movement and slanted lines in the logo bugs me a bit. Baseball cards typically have very straight lines and frames around the photos so maybe this is to draw attention to the logo and the company. After all, Topps has put forth a pretty solid effort in trying to emulate Upper Deck over the past decade. High gloss finishes, much improved photography, 4-color card backs and better color schemes. From a distance it's harder to differentiate between the two products.
Unfortunately, I haven't really taken a close look at today's baseball cards. As a kid collecting baseball cards in the 80s, it was fairly possible to collect all the cards and have complete sets. Now, there are so many varieties of cards and "limited editions" the hobby is no longer for the collector who looks long and hard at the cards both front and back.
Collecting cards used to be a hobby. In the early 90s it became more of a business. Hmmm, right around the same time Upper Deck came into the market. No matter how you look at it, Upper Deck changed the game by creating a solid brand and product from the start. I'm interested in seeing this identity rolled out on the cards and marketing efforts. Maybe that movement in the logo is symbolic of Upper Deck again taking a step ahead of Topps in the sports card industry.
Great post, Von!
On Jan.03.2008 at 05:59 AM
Tom Smalling’s comment is:
Great post Von!
I like the mark and I think it works well given the overall market they are serving. There are serious collectors out there, but I'd say the majority of them are reliving their childhood passions through collecting cards - which is exactly where this logo falls in. At first I didn't like the slant to it, but the longer I look the more I like the movement it implies - almost like a kid pulling on both ends to get inside. Makes me want to dig through my mom's closet and find all the cards from my childhood!
Armin’s comment is:
Michael, thanks for pointing out the cent thing. Fixed.
On Jan.03.2008 at 08:44 AM
Blake’s comment is:
Wow. I remember Upper Deck in the early 90's when I was a lad collecting baseball cards. There was run-of-the-mill Topps, slightly hipper Fleer, and the elite Upper Deck. Maybe a smidge pretentious, but it oozed class. I collected the whole series for '91 and '92.
I'd agree the logo definitely needed to brought into the present. Thankfully it didn't lose it's personality too much. I'm not convinced slanting it was totally necessary, but it's not necessarily an evil move.
On Jan.03.2008 at 09:49 AM
Doug’s comment is:
Good move on the part of Upper Deck. The new logo is flexible, dynamic and more representative of the company's business in collectibles in and outside of sports. I'm glad to see a company trusting its in-house artists for the identity, as well.
On Jan.03.2008 at 10:13 AM
Joachim’s comment is:
As someone who never collected baseball cards, looking at this new mark, it appears to fit very well with the bubble-gum low-quality cards. While the mark is better than the old, it doesn't convey the quality it's known to separate themselves from their competitors.
Normally a mark like this would be crucified on Brand New (gradients, stretching), so it's interesting to see more praise than criticism so far.
On Jan.03.2008 at 10:36 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
Upper Deck is a direct competitor to the company I've been at for the last decade or so. I've often admired their commitment to innovation and now with their new products they are demonstrating that they're flexible too.
That said, I'm surprised their new mark seems to fall precisely between what they were and what they're becoming. Below is the mark of one of their competitors which I am none too fond of. However, it features some unpleasant similarities to the new UD mark.
Sorry that logo is so ginormous. I don't know how to size it down.
Their property group's logo seems to already address much of what they seem to be expecting of their consumer logo.
Although the dividing lines between gamer geeks and sporty jocks is eroding away thanks largely to a generation of parents who've dropped thousands of quarters into arcades as kids, the mistrust between "outcast" Dungeons & Dragons players and the entire football team is still tangible. So that Upper Deck produces a trading card game for the World of Warcraft property is evidence of a strange kind of bizarro earth.
Note that the logo used on the Warcraft packaging is of the Upper Deck Properties Group and not the corporate logo.
Begs the question: Why move away from the sports-laden logo? What's wrong with being baseball?
On Jan.03.2008 at 11:48 AM
Monostereo’s comment is:
Sure, there are some improvements (legibility for instance), but overall this seems to me to be generic, ugly, overly complex, dated, and weird (curves create an unpleasant optical illusion). A step up? Perhaps. But to say the designers 'hit it out of the park' is hyperbolic at best.
On Jan.03.2008 at 12:04 PM
5000!’s comment is:
I'm totally surprised how much people like this, and I can't help but feel like nostalgia is encouraging some folks to cut more slack than usual. I'll second Monostereo's point: it might be an improvement over the old mark, but it's by no means a homerun. If nothing else, I would've liked to see them take the opportunity to excise the ridiculous bullets in the word "deck."
On Jan.03.2008 at 01:33 PM
Tory’s comment is:
Not a huge fan of the new logo, but man did this post bring up some memories. I remember opening every pack of Upper Deck cards hoping to get the Ken Griffey rookie card... Those were the days!
Armin’s comment is:
This rebrand reminds me a little of the ArmorAll logo, where the old logo was kooky enough to be memorable and not messed with and just in need of a good polish to bring it up to speed. But where the ArmorAll succeeded, I think this one doesn't. In bringing out the shadows and added dimensionality the logo lost its kookyness and turned just into a very slick version of itself. The old logo was a baseball diamond, right? While too specific at least it referred to something. For some reason -- perhaps because the overall shape of the new logo resembles the Star of David -- I immediately thought of the Hebrew National logo when I saw this new version.
I can't decide if UD would have been better served with a more drastic departure, but I'm not sure this was the best solution either.
On Jan.03.2008 at 02:21 PM
Tom Lewek’s comment is:
My first thoughts as well: just a slick version of its previous self with very boring colors; leaves me wanting more. If Upper Deck is now far more than mere sports trading cards, why retain ALL of the visual cues from the original mark? Does not make sense from a marketing standpoint to me.
This would have been a great opportunity for something drastic if there ever was one.
On Jan.03.2008 at 03:15 PM
Mario Alejandro’s comment is:
I run a baseball card blog and just found this website. You did a great job with the Upper Deck logo. What are your prices for branding?
On Jan.03.2008 at 04:31 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
When I first saw it, I thought "Well at least I can read it better." But after a few minutes reading, and then looking at it again I do like it better. A simple "update" as it were, but still a fresh one. Better color palette and layout also help.
On Jan.03.2008 at 04:40 PM
Chris’s comment is:
Ugh, bad logo. Why all the praise? Reminds me of this. Squish it, skew it and turn it all around.
Something I loved about the first UD cards is the little hologram on the back. Made it seem authentic and special. Would've been cool to take a cue from that.
On Jan.03.2008 at 05:10 PM
Tony K’s comment is:
Having a little personal history with the Upper Deck design department, I know that an evolutionary redesign of their mark was something that has been in the works for a very long time. The challenge was that the owner of the company created the original logo (don't you hate that) and was not looking for a drastic change.
I agree that they could have done something much stronger with the logo. While I know that they have a staff of solid designers I feel like they took the safe route not hiring an outside agency. At the minimum, it could have given them a fresh perspective to compare too. Also, outside designers would not be compelled to "please the owner" but would interpret the challenge and come up with solid recommendations.
g-sppud’s comment is:
Great post. This does bring back great memories. I don't think it's all the nostalgia talking either when I say I'm not a big fan of the redo. The old logo definitely out-classed those of other baseball card brands. It is still crisp and clean, and I think with a simple color change and a tweak here and there it would have been great. The angle is completely unnecessary in my opinion - brings too much cheese to the table.
On Jan.03.2008 at 05:24 PM
David’s comment is:
I actually think the one color gold and the etched foil work the best. The full color is just so-so.
On Jan.03.2008 at 05:58 PM
Roy’s comment is:
I like it. Thank goodness they didn't go with the current trend of clean and simple, and instead left it essentially the same.
On Jan.04.2008 at 09:37 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
It sucks.
Its a wonderfully polished turd! Those dots betweene the letter D-E-C-K..? it still screams "I live in 1979, kill me now".
What surprises me most about isnt about this mark, its the fact that neither Armin nor Von preferred to disclose the huge COI here. Is Brand New accepting advertising revenue from Upper Deck for this stunt?
Get real folks. Theres a golden shiny turd blossom in mid field.
And this aint callled criticism. Its cronyism.
Armin’s comment is:
Felix, always on the prowl!
I didn't know that Von had done work for Upper Deck and, you are right, that should have been disclosed. But, even if disclosed, the only thing that it would reveal is that he has insider knowledge and is chummy with someone there more than you or I. But, from the review itself, this was somewhat evident, and I didn't find it cloying at all. In fact, next time I see you, the beer is on me, as I will have expendable money from the cut Von and I got from Upper Deck : )
On Jan.04.2008 at 11:12 PM
K. West’s comment is:
Despite the nasty gradient polish on the full color and spot versions, I like the shape and bounce it has. It feels appropriate, and seeing it's original incarnation makes it more impressive.
On Jan.05.2008 at 01:07 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Wow Felix your a genuine Woodward. But contrary to your combined assumptions and deep throat searches on LogoLounge, I wasn't trying to hide anything. I thought about including that information, but it had nothing to do with the review so it seemed out of place. Nor did it play any part in my review regardless of what you may think my motives are. That would be your mere speculation at best.
I had noticed their new logo a few weeks ago and asked them if I could get the files for a review I wanted to write on it. Nothing more to it then that period the end. I thought for an in-house project it came out really, good compared to the crap multi-national branding giants have churned out of late.
There are some aspects to the mark I personally wouldn't have done myself but I didn't feel it was warranted enough to mention in my review, it would have just been nit picking and I knew the mark would be thoroughly vetted anyway by the readers of this blog and it has.
BTW that logo link you posted was designed about a decade ago so other then establishing that I worked there from 97-2000 it doesn't pertain to this review at all? For the proper context to that logo you can read this true story.
The slogan for this site is "Opinions on Corporate and Brand Identity Work." Mine happened to be the positive variety and you have every right to share an opposite opinion regarding the mark that's what this blog is all about.
When I do get my kick-back check from Upper Deck Felix, I'll buy you a nice fruit basket to show you I mean no harm.
On Jan.05.2008 at 03:08 AM
Sam’s comment is:
I haven't seen it explicitly stated that the old logo, with the green diamond, screams "baseball." I think the logo change was spurred not by the company's other product lines - but by its other sports.
The new logo is consistent with the old enough to be recognizable, but no longer identifies with a single sport.
On Jan.05.2008 at 12:15 PM
G-Money’s comment is:
Not very refined or thought out on any level. Ugh.
On Jan.05.2008 at 02:04 PM
JasonP ’s comment is:
I think the logo is just great. I was an avid collector and their new brand refresh still keeps consistent with the company message while modernizing for this century.
On Jan.08.2008 at 11:38 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
As a young artist & baseball card collector I remember boring my friends with discussions on the aesthetics of each of the different company's cards. Let us not forget The company that might've truly been responsible for the post-Fleer/Donruss baseball/sports card revolution—Score.
Though they lacked the hologram and finish their 1989 competitor, Upper Deck, proudly displayed they shook the industry in 1988 with with a full set of spectacularly colored cards with thoughtfully designed backs, set up to house loads of delectable baseball knowledge.
Dreadful logo though.
nicelogo’s comment is:
Almost everything VG has commented on in this site has been an enjoyable, wit filled ribbing. And this logo is the worst of all! I feel riped off!
I did enjoy the fresh competitive designer cat fight. And I agree with Felix but without the angry eyebrows ""
Both of you are, in my opinion, Logo Gods and I'm glad you're both down to earth humans.
Ands that my .50¢ worth of criticism.
On Jan.08.2008 at 04:39 PM
Ryan Dyck’s comment is:
Personally, I like the cheap, low grade cardstock and 1 color backs of old sports cards.
I remember being so excited to get a pack of upper deck cards when I was little, but have you looked at any cards in the last 10 years?
It seems a little ridiculous for these little pieces of cardboard to be artificially limited into being worth something. 99% of the cards upper deck designs are not very well thought out or valuable on any level. At least classic trading cards have a nostalgic value that cannot be replicated by holograms, die cuts, jerseys, or any other expensive fancy stuff that they throw on there. If they really wanted these cards to be interesting, they would distribute them only to children under 12 and then collectors would have to try to salvage what they could before they were destroyed in bike spokes or thrown out by a mom.
PS: check out this blog for some more cynical views on sports cards...
http://highonhockey.blogspot.com/
Randy Hill’s comment is:
Well, I like the new logo better than the old one for sure. The green on the old logo makes more sense symbolically, but maybe that color was a too-in-your-face, "this is a green grass baseball field." I like the playfulness of the new logo. I don't think I like the dots separating the letters themselves. All in all, much better, but maybe not super-dilly fantastic.
On Jan.16.2008 at 03:26 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
