NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
This will perhaps come across as the laziest post I have ever written for Brand New. But there is an inherent familiarity and ubiquity with the NFL (and its logo) that I feel does not require any of my typical anecdotal set ups or concise briefings. What I like about this discussion is that it finally comes down to execution. The problem with the old logo is clear: It’s out of date and it’s hard to reproduce. The solution is even simpler: Make it more contemporary and relevant and easier to reproduce. Oh, and, yes, don’t fuck it up. Everything you need to know, and the only things there are to know, about the logo are in the hands of this heavily linked USA Today article. Enjoy!
Thanks to everyone who e-mailed.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Armin’s comment is:
I will jump into the fray on this one as a commenter: I love it.
I am not a fan of football, so I don't have any hardcore, nostalgic associations to the logo or the sport, or the sweat and tears that have been shed on its holy name. As a graphic designer, identity consultant, brand manager or whatever other fancy title I may bestow upon myself, this is as good as it gets when it comes to proper counsel and execution.
Changing the logo completely would, of course, be a stupid idea. Like the MLB and NBA, the NFL logo is a design landmark that should only be renovated while maintaining the structure intact. And the touch-ups in this logo are spot on.
Unlike other logos on this site, this one has to be embroidered on everything from knickers to headbands to shoelaces so minimizing the number of stars and opening up that space was the best thing to do. And to be able to justify it with the teams per division argument is even better.
Making the football look like the Vince Lombardi trophy is another excellent decision. The design firm (who I have no idea who it is) could have pushed their interpretation of what a football looks like, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if they drew a hundred of them, but using an immensely familiar (and coveted) shape in the logo was a very responsible decision.
And, lastly, the type. One could argue about the value of the previously loopy, vintage letterforms, but no one draws letters like that anymore, unless they are trying to be ironic. On the other hand, the new chiseled letterforms are representative, in a very constrained way, of the look of sports design.
These all amounts to a somewhat imperceptible change that brings the NFL's seal of approval to its current era, and in the process manages to solve serious technical problems.
On Sep.01.2007 at 10:26 PM
Gavan Michael’s comment is:
'At the NFL's annual meeting this spring, commissioner Roger Goodell talked about the NFL Shield as the "envy of the sports world." '
Bah-Hahaha! Oh, I don't know what Americans see when they look at things, but it's obvously something different to the rest of us.
If Americans can tell the difference between the various football, baseball, basketball, hockey and presidential candidate logos then more power to 'em.
Still, it's been improved here. The type sits in the shield way too un-easily for my liking tho.
On Sep.01.2007 at 11:00 PM
Bone’s comment is:
While it is the league that needs a complete makeover, that is another discussion for another water cooler.
Here, I am markedly impressed and would say this is probably the best logo refresh ever.
Interesting to note that the change will not occur until the 2008 season. Rare to see such an early announcement.
- Bone
On Sep.01.2007 at 11:09 PM
J Maxfield’s comment is:
erm, Armin - what's with the cussin' in this here post? I use your stuff in my design classes. Or, I did. How about a little couth?
On Sep.01.2007 at 11:55 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
I love logos, and I love the NFL even more. Still, I probably wouldn't have noticed the change probably without the writeup because the two are so similar. It would have been a few years down the road when I bought a new Vikings Jersey and hung it side by side to my previous ones. I probably would have looked at the collars and said, "Hey, when'd they change the logo." I only wish that the bottoms of the letters fit the form of the shield, but that is completely opinion. Other than that, good job on giving more of the same and not messing up the logo of my league.
On Sep.02.2007 at 12:12 AM
TY’s comment is:
Pretty solid update.
Though I second Gavan that that the "type sits in the the shield ... un-easily". The gap between the baseline of the type and the enclosure seem uncomfortably nonparallel. The "chiseled letterforms" beg for a chiseled shield enclosure.
On Sep.02.2007 at 12:12 AM
Ty Halasz’s comment is:
I love that the stars actually mean something now. I would have liked to see the L follow the curve in the shield like it did in the 1980 mark. Although I don't think the text sits "uneasy" as others have noted, I think it could be improved by following the curvature of the shield. Other than that, a welcomed change.
On Sep.02.2007 at 12:58 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
It's a solid update; two thumbs up and kudos all around -- except, of course for the aforementioned "uneasy type." I'll go a step further than the others: the lower edge of the type absolutely blows chunks. It kinda-sorta follows the contour but mostly doesn't. Distracting, ugly and can substitute for ipecac. While offhand I don't see a solution to the design challenge, I can't accept this as "good enough." Go back and keep trying until a solution is found, wimps.
On Sep.02.2007 at 01:25 AM
Armin’s comment is:
J, sometimes a feeling can't be captured with proper words.
On Sep.02.2007 at 09:58 AM
Phillip’s comment is:
While the Football looks less static after the redesign, I don't like the way "f" and "l" don't quite fit in the shield. Just pulling and squeezing a few more curves would've made it even better. Good redesign nonetheless.
On Sep.02.2007 at 11:44 AM
felix’s comment is:
I think its fucking great. Kids, go to bed.
On Sep.02.2007 at 12:56 PM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
They certainly left good enough alone – which seems a hard thing to convince folks of these days. The revision is handled pristinely – nice work.
On Sep.02.2007 at 01:25 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
An improvement over all but the "NFL" type wasn't finessed too well within the shield.
Now they need to update lame team logos.
On Sep.02.2007 at 01:33 PM
Folksy’s comment is:
Does anyone know who designed this?
Was it Landor?
On Sep.02.2007 at 04:20 PM
Shane’s comment is:
While I think this is a textbook refresh, I have to agree with everyone above about the type. It just screams "dear God let me out of here!"
On Sep.02.2007 at 05:07 PM
roy brown stinker’s comment is:
One nice thing about the old logo is the left to right movement in the typography and ball. The letters N-F-L are almost like three positions of the punter as he's kicking the ball. I agree that the new one is better though.
On Sep.03.2007 at 09:16 AM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
Better colors, much better graphic, still iffy typography. Nice overall, though.
On Sep.03.2007 at 10:43 AM
John’s comment is:
I'm going to agree with the favorable comments save one: I think omitting the swash finale on the "L" is an error. While I like the more blocky ("more blocky"?) serifs, I would argue that the swash "L" is as much a part of the recognizablility of the mark as the shape of the shield itself. Doing away with it takes away a part of the character, the voice, of the mark's equity. Without the swash, there is a diminishing of distinction.
And I think I read somewhere that it's an in-house job.
On Sep.03.2007 at 09:32 PM
Doug’s comment is:
I think they could've easily left the type alone and simply updated the color and star/football elements of the shield. The change in type extracts the character of the wordmark.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:20 AM
Geez’s comment is:
A slightly different (and better) version of the shield was proposed by Landor two and a half years ago. The new football, eight stars, and cleaner slab-serif type were part of that design. The letterforms were set on a straight baseline (less awkward looking), on a flatter shield base, which made it resemble the goalpost. For political reasons, the NFL decided to postpone its release...and obviously the internal design team felt the need to tweak it.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:31 AM
LKM’s comment is:
The L looks out of place. Floaty.
On Sep.04.2007 at 11:13 AM
Patrick’s comment is:
Geez wrote: "A slightly different (and better) version of the shield was proposed by Landor two and a half years ago."
Do you have a link to this redesign? It would be nice to compare. Thanks.
On Sep.04.2007 at 04:44 PM
Doug’s comment is:
I heard rumor the shield type was designed by Michael Vick...
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:52 PM
Ben Hutchens’s comment is:
While I like the refreshed look of the logo. It appears they scavenged elements from last years Super Bowl logo.
John’s comment is:
Ben, thanks for that post. I was reading about that very logo when I read the NFL was doing an inside job on the shield. I believe it's the same designer. Unfortunately, said same designer is also responsible for the hideousness that is the SB XLII logo as well. Oy.
On Sep.05.2007 at 08:59 AM
Geez’s comment is:
XLI logo was actually designed after the new NFL shield (hence the same football). The type used in the new shield is modelled after a new NFL proprietary typeface first used in SuperBowl XL (Landor's design) and in most NFL applications since then.
On Sep.05.2007 at 02:43 PM
DrBear’s comment is:
No go on this. The letters are blocky inside a curved space; the old logo had the stars and football together; this separates them as average fans and rich ones are separated at stadiums; the football is really ugly (and inaccurate; it only has five laces, a regulation football has eight).
On Sep.05.2007 at 03:45 PM
exigent’s comment is:
You have missed the point DrBear. This new logo will be much easier to reproduce in all mediums. By going to eight laces, it would be harder to stitch... which was a reason for eliminating the many stars. You come off as a football hater... sad. Go Vikes!
On Sep.06.2007 at 05:12 PM
eighthave’s comment is:
I like the football (the laces really aren't that big a deal to me), it gives the logo some more dimension, reducing the number of stars doesn't really bother me, as I can see the problems with reproduction.
The lettering, though, is the proverbial square peg in a round hole. It is clear that they did not spend a great deal of time making the shield shape and lettering congruent like the original. And now where once there was a bigger-than-you'd-like-but-it's-acceptable space in the upper right corner of the lower section, now there's a huge hole in the right side doing exactly nothing other than upsetting the balance of the whole thing.
The tail on the L was distinctive (in a good way or bad that's up to you) but it also served to give the right side some weight. The serif on the new one just doesn't do enough to make up the difference. This feels like it needed two more rounds of revisions before it was ready.
I don't hate it, but at the same time I don't understand why anyone thinks it's great or some big improvement over the old one (save for reproduction issues). If their job was just not to fuck it up, they failed - the type and shield don't work together like they did before.
As for the Super Bowl logos, SB 30-37 were great, but since then it's been going downhill. The NFL closed the west coast office and the guy in charge of this stuff, and they have gone downhill since. Last year's (pictured above) was bad, and this year's is equal to that or worse. Bland and no ties to the city. Don't try to tell me they are tying in Phoenix's new stadium with that logo, it's weak.
Dave
On Sep.06.2007 at 05:44 PM
Louhead’s comment is:
Subtle but improved. I must agree with the posts about the NFL looking a bit odd in the shield though. However, the 3-D form of the ball brings it into the 21st century and the new NFL font is more formidable. It's doubtful most fans and non-fans alike will even notice the changes.
On Sep.07.2007 at 02:47 AM
DrBear’s comment is:
exigent:How can I hate football when I insist it be correctly depicted? Imagine baseball's logo with a sawed off bat and the batter's hat backward, or the NBA logo with the player dribbling a football. This is just as bad - it's almost as bad as a misspelling.
And the NFL logo has been in existence for so long, it would seem that by now they should know how to do the stars. If they can get 50 on a tiny flag, they can get 25 stars on a logo.
Otherwise, I don't see what was wrong with the old logo - and if you're going to change, then CHANGE, and don't bother with minor tweaking.
On Sep.07.2007 at 06:47 AM
jj’s comment is:
If I were the NFL, I would have demanded to keep the shape - it is so recognizable by the average NFL fan. Even If they were aware enough to realize that the shape makes the relationship with the type awkward, that still should have been a client mandate. They were justified on this issue.
Is there a way to adjust the type within the shape, and still change to the slab serif forms? Maybe. But, I think they fixed most of the evils of this logo and that deserves some recognition. Is it good-enough and therefore bad? I don't think so. I think it's a solid update, and I like the balanced solution.
On Sep.07.2007 at 11:16 AM
jj’s comment is:
Oh, and since when does a logo have to be accurate to be representative? Five laces. Six laces. Eight laces? It doesn't matter as long as it still graphically depicts the football. (And the Lombardi Trophy at the same time, nice.)
On Sep.07.2007 at 11:18 AM
cothran’s comment is:
DrBear, you've got to be kidding me. I think you've taken every good point about the redesign and proclaimed it a negative. From your website:
"What isn't meaningless is the NFL's plan to change its logo for next year. It's a disaster of Vickian proportions.
The number of stars has been cut to 8, one for each division. The football has been redesigned to look like the one on the Lombardi Trophy. The color blue is darker. And worst, the iconic, curly NFL lettering has been blockified. Dare I say it looks like it's on steroids?
They've taken a classic design and flat out ruined it. Typical of the NFL these days."
In what way is the fact that the stars now actually mean something bad? In what way is making the football look like something iconic to the sport bad? I'll let you have the lettering, even though I personally find it to be a more modern looking mark with the slab serifs. There is a difference between refining and redesigning. This is clearly the same logo - the NFL isn't losing any of it's brand equity by introducing a completely new mark, yet they now have a more modern, more easily reproducible and more meaningful mark.
On Sep.07.2007 at 05:25 PM
Matthew Dunn’s comment is:
Nice ideas, not as nicely executed. I like the change to 8 stars, while the type is uncomfortable as everyone has mentioned. . . and nevermind the number of laces depicted, the football is sloppy. The connection to the Lombardi trophy is tenuous, and it's akward looking.
On Sep.08.2007 at 11:53 PM
Chester Jenkins’s comment is:
The logo redraw was done in-house by Shandon Melvin, the NFL's creative director. He also designed the SuperBowl logo shown above, and the new San Diego Chargers logo. (I have been working with Shandon on the typographic end of things, including completely redrawing the NFL's corporate typeface, Endzone, the new version of which is used as base material for the new logo.)
The NFL is a huge brand; something I hadn't really considered a few years ago. As the huge viewership of Monday Night Football and the SuperBowl attests, it needn't matter which teams are playing — the one you support or not — there is huge interest in all games. I can't think of another team sport which can boast the kind of "general" interest the NFL enjoys.
Shandon and his team do a great job of maintaining a strong brand voice across many NFL activities, and I'm happy to see the (mostly) positive reaction to the new logo here.
On Sep.09.2007 at 09:56 AM
Chester Jenkins’s comment is:
Just noticed that I used the word "huge" with abandon in my post. I apologise hugely, massively, greatly.
On Sep.09.2007 at 10:04 AM
rynot’s comment is:
As someone who works with this logo often in very limiting situations, I find the refresh to be very well done.
I could nit-pit the type/shield relationship just like the previous posters, but for the most part it is very successful, and well overdue.
Jamsta’s comment is:
@Gavan Michael, I agree 100%...
The logo is improved but the txt is sloppy. The logo itself is still BOGAN! for those not familar with the term Bogan, how about "Red-neck"?
Jam
On Sep.11.2007 at 09:22 AM
Joe’s comment is:
I loved the old lettering and the shield shape was great. Now the letters are blah and the shield is dull looking with no fine curves. Lifeless. For me, the only thing that needed simplifying was the ball on the stars - kind of like what they did but maybe a few more stars (why just 8 stars? Was the original number the number of teams? Maybe too many teams now so, why not number of players on the field or one team on the field?) also a better looking simple ball. The new ball is too cartoonish - which is the problem with all junky sports logos these days. Who started all this high contrast imagery with perspective junk for teams anyway? I can't wait for it to end and everyone to come to their senses.
On Sep.21.2007 at 12:11 PM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
It was a great logo, it still is a great logo, enough said :)
On Sep.26.2007 at 07:41 AM
Matheus’s comment is:
this logo is not being used either by NFL website and ESPN
is this a REAL redesign or just concept for future use?
On Dec.30.2007 at 11:07 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It will be in use sometime soon in 2008.
That's what I've read, it's definately legit.
On Dec.30.2007 at 11:20 PM
Mark’s comment is:
according to the USA today article it will be in use starting in April.
On Jan.11.2008 at 01:04 PM
Herbalife’s comment is:
In some ways the new NFL logo looks leaner and stronger. The colors are definitely bolder, at the same time more simplified without losing its original feel.
On Apr.08.2008 at 05:39 PM
Pan Demonium’s comment is:
One of the best re-designs I've seen in years.
Although I'm a sucker for the old-school letterforms on the original, I have to agree that the new look is streamlined and simplified in ways that make sense. Well done.
Herbalife’s comment is:
One of the best redesigns I've seen.
On Aug.22.2008 at 06:57 PM
Niall Fagan’s comment is:
8 stars = 8 conferences AFCN etc
On Sep.29.2008 at 06:22 AM
Susan’s comment is:
According to me the new logo is more bold and bright, and yes I did like the change in letters as well as the numbers of stars.
On Oct.07.2008 at 06:12 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
