NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
It seems everyone knows the brand “AstroTurf” but what many might not realize is AstroTurf has not been used in any major U.S. professional surface since 2005. AstroTurf has become as ubiquitous in language and common use as other brands like Kleneex, Band-Aid, or Q-Tip — yet AstroTurf owns no market share in the United States, even as a category creator. AstroTurf hopes their new identity and marketing campaign will put them a step above their competition and cut into the market share, mostly held by FieldTurf.
It’s tough to compare and contrast AstroTurf’s logos. The prior looks like it was done in-house and a rush job where as the new mark, designed by French West Vaughan, is elegant and thoughtful. I like how functional the mark is: able to stand alone yet flexible enough to be incorporated into a successful marketing campaign. It should be noted that the new logo is only for the U.S. market, hence the unapologetic color scheme. It is hard to dismiss the obvious correlations between this new mark and Amtrak, Bank of America, and the New England Patriots but, whatever inspired the new mark, it should still function as a great identity to attach to fake turf.
Other tail-ey, flag-ey logos.
Make sure to check out the new marketing campaign and check out the new website which is amazing. FWV hit a home run with this one.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Well, I certainly think the new logo is MUCH, MUCH better than the previous one. The only problem is that it is not memorable at all. The wavy lines have been soooooo over used this logo seems to be more of a copycat than an original.
It looks as though they said, "give me something American for the American market." So, this kind of bland, common application was probably what they were looking for, so in that instance it works.
But, to be honest... As is pointed out in your example, if some guy stopped by to drop off a delivery wearing a polo shirt with that design over his heart I probably would just think he was wearing a Patriots polo.
The best part of this logo is that it takes the mind AWAY from the worst aspect of AstroTurf. I have played on it and it is sticky and awful on the knees. The old logo was a constant reminder of it. This new logo takes the mind off of the product and places it on the brand; which in this case is a GOOD thing. Sell me on the company because you would NEVER sell me on the product.
On Jun.18.2007 at 10:41 AM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Well, I certainly think the new logo is MUCH, MUCH better than the previous one. The only problem is that it is not memorable at all. The wavy lines have been soooooo over used this logo seems to be more of a copycat than an original.
It looks as though they said, "give me something American for the American market." So, this kind of bland, common application was probably what they were looking for, so in that instance it works.
But, to be honest... As is pointed out in your example, if some guy stopped by to drop off a delivery wearing a polo shirt with that design over his heart I probably would just think he was wearing a Patriots polo.
The best part of this logo is that it takes the mind AWAY from the worst aspect of AstroTurf. I have played on it and it is sticky and awful on the knees. The old logo was a constant reminder of it. This new logo takes the mind off of the product and places it on the brand; which in this case is a GOOD thing. Sell me on the company because you would NEVER sell me on the product.
On Jun.18.2007 at 10:42 AM
Joe’s comment is:
I immediately thought of the old USA Network logo:
Another tail-ey, flag-ey to add to the list!
On Jun.18.2007 at 10:47 AM
Marc Cohen’s comment is:
I like the logo but it tells me nothing about the product (fake grass) or how it is used (in sports). At least the old logo did that.
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:12 AM
Colin’s comment is:
Well, Marc, the function of a logo is not always to tell you about the product. It's just an identity. The Starbucks logo says nothing about coffee, but it has come to mean coffee. An apple has nothing to do with the personal computer on it's own, but the Apple brand has changed that.
The purpose is to be memorable at the least and hopefully somewhat unique. This logo is neither, and although it is an improvement in design, I don't think it's going to get them the lead in market share on its own.
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:30 AM
Kim Siever’s comment is:
I have to agree with Marc. The new logo looks nicer, but says nothing about the company other than it's American. Then again, so are thousands of other companies.
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:31 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
Marc & Kim,
A logo's primary function is to identify a company, not explain the company – Colin pointed out some excellent examples. Explanation comes through marketing and advertising. If you look at their website, it is tough to say this new logo won't help them. As much as everyone loves to hate logos (myself included), the purpose behind the marks needs to be addressed instead of personal tastes. The new logo might not be the most original or unique but when push comes to shove this is miles beyond their old mark.
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:47 AM
Frank’s comment is:
"A logo's primary function is to identify a company, not explain the company"
Only partially true.
It all depends.Mostly on the marketing and advertising budget.While bigger companies with a bigger budget can afford a non-explaining/descriptive logo because the marketing and ads will do the explaining-the-product part, small companies often are better off with a logo that at least hints at what the company/product does.Simply because it can make potential customers/clients aware of the company's core competencies and as such can be a critical factor in terms of decision making and in the end, market share.
Especially when it comes to relatively unknown products/brands/companies that gain bigger market share it can be wise to *not* try to appear all corporate when the company has a limited marketing budget.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:25 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Meant to say "non-explaining/non-descriptive logo" in the above of course :)
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:26 PM
Colin’s comment is:
Could your logic be backwards, Frank? I don't think Apple made it huge then took the monitor and mouse out of their logo. It was never there. It's always been an apple (with scan-lines at one point, I believe).
Maybe the larger, more successful companies were just smarter in the beginning and weren't afraid to go with a unique mark. Perhaps this encouraged their success, rather than the other way around.
And I agree with Fieldhouse: This logo is far better than the previous, and its impact will be helpful, if only a little. Also, I disagree that the web site is wonderful. It looks outdated to me.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:31 PM
danny tanner’s comment is:
They really missed the mark here.
I don't care if my fake grass rug is all-American or if it has communist ties. I don't see who would.
All the comparative examples above are service based/action oriented organizations. They aren't a product.
1. The other examples need to be imbued with some sort of personality because of this. They aren't material.
2. The other example's names have something to do with America.
Astroturf has one big piece of equity, one thing important. It's name. Everyone knows Astroturf, what it is, and well... associates it with the color green, not he U.S. Flag. I sure they have some Astroturf and love it in North Korea. This remarkably bland everyday identity completely camouflages the name to a point where I don't even read it in passing, of associate anything about it with the product.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:36 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
Enh. Too generic. Clean and professional, which is a good thing, and the old logo definitely needed an update, but this is very bland. Maybe it was a LogoMaid $79.95 special?
The website? Ugh. The tiny Flash type looks awful. The banner re-animates for every page? Lame. (Banner didn't appear at all on any of the Project pages.) No "you are here" indicator except for oddly-placed breadcrumbs. And considering that the last World Series played on AstroTurf was in 1993, I'm not sure it's real smart shouting that fact to the world.
On another note, the progression of SuperBowl logos was interesting.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:36 PM
Colin’s comment is:
And I'll just add that it doesn't hurt and it's not wrong for a logo to represent or explain the company or organization's function. It's just not ALWAYS necessary.
My logic could be taken way out of line and be harmful, too. Like, you probably wouldn't want a silhouette of a guitar as your mark for a lawn care company.
So, representation is relevant, just not required.
(Long-time BrandNew reader, BTW. Love the site)
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:36 PM
Colin’s comment is:
Agree, Splashman. That site looks like it was done 5 years ago.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:38 PM
Frank’s comment is:
My logic really ain't backwards.
The reality is that many small companies try to look like a big corporation with a general not-saying-anything logo while they're targetting a limited or niche market anyway AND have a limited budget.
I'm not favouring in-your-face descriptive logos like mouse and keyboard for computer companies.That would be ridiculous and that's why i said a logo for a smaller company should maybe "hint" at what the company does and if possible, in a clever way.
Even the Apple logo has at least a hint towards the company's name whereas Astroturf's logo deson't hint anywhere, be it the name or the product or the values.But then again i have no idea about their marketing budget and chances are they are not a small company really (i'm not from the States).
As an example I made quite some logos for landscaping/lawncare "companies" in my earlier days.Typically these firms consist of a few people and their target market is limited geographically to where the company is seated and on the income of their potential clients.Also typically their marketing budget is very limited as well.
Now, for most of these landscapers it would not be the most wise decision to go for a corporate type of logo that says nothing about their business.In fact, a more descriptive logo (without being blatant) suits most of these companies better.Just because the lawncare van that has a more descriptive logo can be the awareness factor for many of the potential clients when they spot the van waiting in front of a traffic light for instance.
As said, totally different for larger companies or even small companies that target bigger audiences but that's why i said it all depends.
On Jun.18.2007 at 12:54 PM
Colin’s comment is:
Well, we both agree Astroturf slipped on this one. And I think we aren't far off about what a logo should say it given circumstances. You're right that it varies from company to company.
Any designer should not approach a logo design with either our arguments in mind, without understanding the company, and its audience, first.
On Jun.18.2007 at 01:05 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I immediately thought of the old USA Network logo:http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/fake_grass_with_new_life.php
You beat me to it!
I think the new logo is fantastic and more readible than the previous logo, however I don't like they concept nor the use of artificial turf, it is known to do more harm to the football players with more serious injuries, and plus makes the game a whole lot more boring, but thats not what we're here to discuss.
I'm still questioning how the previous logo ever made it to the drawing board in the first place.
BTW I see the stripes as representative as blades of grass, just tilt your head 90 degrees to the left and you'll see them.
Also anyone noticed how they cleverly kept some of the elements of the previous logo intact?
On Jun.18.2007 at 01:16 PM
drew kora’s comment is:
much better, but missed the mark. seriously, that's as creative as they could get with a name like astroturf? so many images and colros and emotions come to mind when i think astroturf, but all that logo says to me is either bank or politician.
it's not bad, but it's a missed opportunity for greatness.
On Jun.18.2007 at 01:27 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
A great improvement would have been made by injecting GREEN into the logo. Granted, I have seen Blue astroturf... but as an all-encompasing logo, they should have considered this line of thought.
On Jun.18.2007 at 02:37 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
Mark wrote: BTW I see the stripes as representative as blades of grass, just tilt your head 90 degrees to the left and you'll see them.
Exactly. French West Vaughan could have easily tilted that mark to communicate more grass and less taily flagy.
On Jun.18.2007 at 02:51 PM
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
it looks more like a logo for america than for a company!
On Jun.18.2007 at 03:16 PM
erica’s comment is:
i have to agree with those who've said the logo is nice but missed the mark. it's so generic! you could substitute any company in there and not even blink, and some of the companies you could substitute would fit the logo much better (bank of america, amtrack, etc.) thus, it's failed one of the requirements of a good logo design, which is memorability. there's nothing that sets the company astroturf apart from anything else in that logo; therefore, nothing that makes it memorable.
it's like a flashy, visually stimulating commercial during the superbowl for which later you can't recall the point or the advertiser.
As sorry as I am to say it, the previous logo was much more effective. Much more ugly, but at least I can picture it in my head and recall it clearly, and link it to the company AstroTurf.
On Jun.18.2007 at 03:25 PM
Mark’s comment is:
A lost opportunity perhaps?
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Man, what does that say about a company when they dramatically improve their logo and it still misses the mark? Think about it, it's rather sad...
On Jun.18.2007 at 04:43 PM
Mark’s comment is:
They could do without the sportsy italicization of the letters oh, I give up this logos hopeless...
On Jun.18.2007 at 04:50 PM
Ben’s comment is:
This is a classic example of Follow vs. Lead.
I think the new logo is a nice departure from existing turf logos that all have either green or a grass reference within them. Though the color green and/or a grassy element would visually tie the logo to the industry a little quicker, ultimately it would risk blending in.
To me the logo says that AstroTurf is about more than fake grass and I think that statement would be muted if you changed the color to green or added a few blades of grass.
Is it perfect? Nah.
Is it better? Absolutely.
rynot’s comment is:
astroturf inherently says 'american', so i see the whole flag waving thing as a misstep of redundancy. this mark should just be type.
On Jun.18.2007 at 07:09 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I'm with anonymous...at LEAST use green...if you aren't even going to give us any other hints, at least give us green...something.
On Jun.18.2007 at 07:18 PM
rynot’s comment is:
good news is field turf's logo is somehow infinitely worse.
On Jun.18.2007 at 07:37 PM
rynot’s comment is:
bad news is their namesake now plays on grass..
On Jun.18.2007 at 07:40 PM
Liz’s comment is:
On the new marketing campaign link I noticed a webpage with a different mark on it that looks even better typographically - check it out...
Mark’s comment is:
On the new marketing campaign link I noticed a webpage with a different mark on it that looks even better typographically - check it out...
Oh, yes I saw it and it's light years better than the final logo.
Probably the client-rejected logo.
AHA! I caught it!
http://www.fwv-us.com/files/shared/astro/ASTRO6.jpg
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:29 PM
JtotheB’s comment is:
My first thought was the new logo looked more like a toothpaste brand. The flaggy tail = freshly squeezed Aquafresh.
On Jun.19.2007 at 12:15 AM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
I like but I would like it more if the text was black and the stripes were green, something which said grass more then America...
I agree about the site as well, from my European perspective it just screams America which I personally think is a bit pointless for a brand like AstroTurf which the whole world associates with fake grass.
On Jun.19.2007 at 06:11 AM
Vernon’s comment is:
The first thing I thought of when I saw it was "New England Patriots". Of course I move my eyes down a bit and... hey hey!... there it is!
I agree with Tony's previous comment in regards to the colors. It's a 'fake grass' company but the colors scream something totally differently.
It just seems like a more natural color scheme (such as Tony supplied) would make more branding sense. Perhaps I'm wrong, but shouldn't (if possible) your logo tie in to the sense of your business?
I would just like to understand why the colors were chosen ONLY for the American audience. Do we really respond better to red, white and blue colors?
On Jun.19.2007 at 10:32 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
This is only the US version of the mark. The international site still has the old mark: www.astroturf.com vs. www.astroturfusa.com.
On Jun.19.2007 at 10:40 AM
Mark’s comment is:
I would just like to understand why the colors were chosen ONLY for the American audience. Do we really respond better to red, white and blue colors?
Good question, the choosing of those colors seems to feed into the patriotic stereotype and frankly I find it annoying.
Would they do the same if they were doing it for Russia, Japan, Britain, Spain, or Germany?
On Jun.19.2007 at 10:45 AM
Chris’s comment is:
May the red lines are supposed to represent sun-scorched trampled-on real grass blades?
Mark, all the countries that you mentioned all have red in their flags.
On Jun.19.2007 at 12:06 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
They couldn't do anything about the flash-based pixelation of the football player? I mean seriously, USE A BIGGER PICTURE! Click Here to see it.
It is starting to look as though they hired a newbie to rebrand them... Maybe a nephew of the CEO or something, this is awful!
On Jun.19.2007 at 09:17 PM
Joe Brander’s comment is:
It's a beautiful logo, but in my opinion, it's not memorable at all, and furthermore it is irrelevant to the category. A simple association of colors could have solved that problem, but alas, red white and blue preside.
We all know what AstroTurf is, but this brand says anything but. Maybe that's the point. Kleenex can do whatever it wants to its brand mark, but we'll still know what it is...
On Jun.20.2007 at 03:52 AM
Elizabeth’s comment is:
CEO's nephew > Corey Buckner
On Jun.20.2007 at 11:41 AM
david’s comment is:
I'm glad you didn't specify how 'amazing' their website is...because I think it's amazingly bad, lol.
Flash for main navigation? Come on! How does black, charcoal and red say 'we're the original artificial turf experts'? Hey, I just gave them a new slogan!
If they want to be the leaders in artificial turf, those colors aren't the answer. :)
On Jun.20.2007 at 05:32 PM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
David – Keep in mind the audience. The people they are speaking to want to see something exactly like this. It might not be ground-breaking in the design industry and we can all bitch and moan that it's an awful logo and awful website, but bottom line is this will help boost Astro Turf USA's sales. It says that they are concerned about their image and serious about business. It's so easy to dismiss these types of re-brands but actually consider the needs of the client and it starts making sense to why they chose what colors and what typeface.
On Jun.20.2007 at 11:48 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Feldhouse, with all due respect to this posting, to the statement "The people they are speaking to want to see something exactly like this."
- This is something we can't know. Even if focus groups existed for this logo, they are limited, and can never be taken for face value. What people say is not what they mean. Data has to be interpreted, and usually at the end of the day, it can mean whatever you want it to.
The statement "It might not be ground-breaking in the design industry and we can all bitch and moan that it's an awful logo and awful website, but bottom line is this will help boost Astroturf USA's sales"
-Of course it will. The logo no longer looks like it was drawn with a crayon.
What it seems to me...is that the attempt was to associate the brand with sports...not just fake grass...but all american sports? But, the problem is that is comes half across like the Brady Bunch back yard covered in Astroturf. It got too wrapped up in America, and not enough in pure sport. Check out Gatorade. They have a pretty similar black/gray scheme but don't pander to the LETS GO USA!
The whole patriotic thing may have been an important part of the brand, but it comes across too strong. Sports/turf should be the primary focus, then the USA. Probably should not have had a flag logo. The USA stuff could have been implied in the brands look & feel rather than an overt statement in the logo.
On Jun.21.2007 at 01:02 AM
JBIII’s comment is:
Does anyone else think that Jimmie Johnson on the Gatorade site is cropped way too tight? Whats up with chopping off the top of his head and his arm?
Not to get off topic........
On Jun.21.2007 at 09:13 AM
Matt’s comment is:
Logo = bad
Website = worse
Lordy...
On Jun.21.2007 at 07:01 PM
Gavan Michael’s comment is:
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This is an improvement? The old one has severe legibility issues, but it is a MILE better than the cliched one-size-fits-all tripe that has replaced it!?
I suspect this is actually a case of my Australian sensibilities being out of step witht he loud brashness that American Design seems to get off on. I see no saving grace in this new design -- as mere legibility is surely a given in a redesign process?
On Jun.22.2007 at 06:00 AM
LKM’s comment is:
Wow, what a bland logo. The old one is at least recognizable.
On Jun.22.2007 at 08:02 AM
Zeek’s comment is:
I am so voting Astroturf 2008.
On Jun.26.2007 at 02:46 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Zeek, you owe me a couple grand!!! I spit coffee all over my laptop laughing at your comment. You have to warn us before you say something that funny.
Anyway, I agree... Astro Turf will get my vote in '08 as well.
On Jun.29.2007 at 10:55 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
