NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Less than 24 hours after Super Bowl XLII aired on FOX, NBC (which will air the next Super Bowl) unveiled the logo for the XLIII edition of the Super Game in Tampa Bay during a commercial break of American Gladiators, hoping to get their audience excited and their DVRs programmed 364 days in advance. There are a couple of firsts for this logo: The first, and the somewhat ridiculous, is that it’s the first logo unveiled a year in advance, which Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports and Olympics pegged as simply “an initial indication of how excited we are to broadcast the Super Bowl”; and, second, it’s the first Super Bowl logo to use green — something that I found quite amazing actually, given that for three hours straight you are looking at a couple of dozen figurines (including the zebras) battling on a giant field of green, so go figure. The logo is meant “to reflect the natural elements of Tampa Bay, including the blue and green hues of the regional waterways and landscapes” and if you are wondering what the towering numbers in perspective represent, it’s “an abstract representation of a stadium and field.” Emphasis mine: Just a stadium? Any stadium? Okay. Like any major sports event logo, this one is meant to look bigger than life and exciting beyond belief, and it does so as well as the rest. The obvious critique is that this Super Bowl could take place anywhere, as there is nothing specific to Tampa Bay — maybe there is nothing about Tampa Bay to be specific about? — to make it unique, and neither did the last one, where at least something could have been made out of the Cardinal’s shiny new stadium… Maybe we are just seeing the start of the latest trend in this category: Perspective + Dimension + Stars +/- Slab Serifs.
Thanks to Daniel Peck for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Chris Weems’s comment is:
wow too bad... the new NFL logo was nice but this is awful... very forgettable.
On Feb.09.2008 at 09:36 PM
Clovernook’s comment is:
The logo for Super Bowl XLII is rather plain but at least it has a stylized outline of the State of Arizona.
On Feb.09.2008 at 09:38 PM
Christian’s comment is:
Not to pick nits, but they would be programming their DVRs 365 days in advance, not 364; this year is a leap year.
On Feb.09.2008 at 10:08 PM
Garrison Reid’s comment is:
Is anyone put off by the different color stars?
On Feb.09.2008 at 10:53 PM
ACoolie’s comment is:
I thought the color scheme and shape of the logo looks a lot like the Patriots. Here's a quick overlay..
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/628/superbowlpatriotsic9.png
A little skew and it would be a perfect match.
On Feb.09.2008 at 11:02 PM
Rachel’s comment is:
I'm confused why III comes after II and IIII. And shouldn't that be IV? Or am I reading too much into this?
On Feb.09.2008 at 11:04 PM
2fs’s comment is:
Rachel: the "II" and "IIII" are not numerals - they're yard indicators (in other words, you're seeing the last two yard indicators between one set of five-yard markers, and the four in between the next set). Garrison Reid: I think the two different-colored stars represent the two conferences (National and American).
Maybe it's just me (who actually doesn't care much about the Superb Owl generally), but aside from folks who live near the locale, does anyone actually care where the game takes place?
On Feb.09.2008 at 11:21 PM
J.Y.’s comment is:
There is, in fact, nothing about Tampa to be specific about.
On Feb.09.2008 at 11:41 PM
Rachel’s comment is:
2fs, I know they're line markers, I just wasn't sure if there was supposed to be any symbolism in the fact that there are two and four lines, with three lines behind them (standing for games XLII, XLIII and XLIV). Totally over-analytical, though, I apologize.
And J.Y., are you kidding me? It has the world's largest bowling pin!
On Feb.09.2008 at 11:53 PM
K. West’s comment is:
Aside from the red star, I like it. I like how it's a very symmetrical shape with asymmetrical content. That's a good trick in my opinion.
On Feb.10.2008 at 12:45 AM
Ep’s comment is:
I actually like this new one. Moving away from all the dimensional crap and back to simplicity. XLII's was just ugly.
On Feb.10.2008 at 02:21 AM
erica frye’s comment is:
Yes, the different colored stars are distracting but unavoidable. 2fs is right: the red star is for AFC and the blue star is for NFC.
I like it. Modern, simple, and doesn't look like too much like a "sports logo". Of all the many things I dislike about sports, the logos are up there at the top. I like the arrow made by the field, although I'm not sure an arrow down is a good thing, and how the roman numerals create a Coliseum-like structure. I also like that it has motion but is still really stable; it reminds me of facing a solid defensive line.
I disagree that it's not memorable -- I just looked up past Superbowl logos, and this one really stands out as the best one in at least 2 decades. Granted, the standards aren't high but this one struck me right away as better. But even so, it's a one-time use logo so forgettable isn't such a huge sin. (Better forgettable than ugly.)
I do think it's a good question: is it important where the game is? That certainly isn't conveyed in this mark. For local pride, maybe. I can't imagine it's a big deal, but, hey, I can't figure out why football is a big deal either.
On Feb.10.2008 at 03:05 AM
Phillip’s comment is:
It's quite fascinating to see the fundamental difference in European and American logo design.
There are really a lot of american logos with perspective, distorted typefaces or some kinds of gradients, whilst the european logo design seems to value what could be called a minimalist approach to logo design: don't stretch type, don't use gradients, no outlines please and make it simple.
Both design philosophies produce great logos from time to time, so I'm fine with it.
On Feb.10.2008 at 06:26 AM
Dave Klonke’s comment is:
I wonder what the eight yards symbolizes? Going the extra yard would have given them "the whole nine yards."
On Feb.10.2008 at 07:01 AM
Leslie’s comment is:
I just see "XLW".
On Feb.10.2008 at 11:10 AM
Brian’s comment is:
ACoolie, thats exactly what I was going to say! It looks very similar to the Patriots logo! the lines and angles...I dont think it presents enough of the "big deal" image that the superbowl event is....
On Feb.10.2008 at 11:36 AM
Armin’s comment is:
If we are making comparisons, I think it looks more like Bank of America than the Patriots logo:
Jeunesse’s comment is:
I really don't get the point of reviewing something like this.
The logo is obviously under considered, the designer, or printer, probably only spend a few hours creating it, there is not love or craft here. This is just designer navel-gazing.
Raise the standard please.
Lauren Jean’s comment is:
1992's logo uses green. Admittedly it's a different shade of green, but...that's green dude.
On Feb.10.2008 at 01:02 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Every SuperBowl logo from 1967 through 2006, just to round out the critique. It's like the entire history of visual trend in sports marketing in wrapped up in one image...
Nothing I'd really call green, but definitely a lot of teals...
On Feb.10.2008 at 03:38 PM
DG3’s comment is:
The new one certainly blows away this years version. I like it!
On Feb.10.2008 at 04:22 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
I actually like this one much better than recent years. It doesn't scream as intensely (Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!), which all sports logos tend to. I like the flatness of it, no shadows or unnecessary strokage.
The one point that bothers me is the one red star. They should either be blue or both be red. Yes, I get the AFC/NFC thing, but it's distracting and breaks the balance. Does anyone else notice that the perspective, especially of the III, makes the type look like the profile of a stadium. Is that the point?
And is anyone else reminded of the Giants' blue jerseys? I like solidness and flatness of those as well, reminds me of rugby.
On Feb.10.2008 at 04:25 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I feel like a Dos Equis.
On Feb.10.2008 at 04:28 PM
DONALD BRIGGS’s comment is:
Maybe we are just seeing the start of the latest trend in this category: Perspective + Dimension + Stars +/- Slab Serifs.
uh, the new one does not have slabs. :(
unless by Slab you meant Sans??
On Feb.10.2008 at 09:19 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
It's like they saved out the file with a few layers turned off. Feels like it's missing something.
I agree with Armin, it's the "Banker Bowl."
On Feb.11.2008 at 12:08 AM
Irvin Cheung’s comment is:
This is more of a comment on this past XLII Superbowl logo and how it caught my eye during the actual game in the endzone. I thought it looked great on TV (high def no less) as the game progressed and the turf in the end zone started to get chewed up... this gave the logo a distressed quality which made the logo work as it gave the aesthetic a retro quality that spoke of all the Superbowls that preceeded it... I wonder if next year's version will work the same (or if this was even considered) with the green and blue... will the colours just simply blend in with the green turf?
On Feb.11.2008 at 01:55 AM
Gm’s comment is:
I've always liked the Bank of America logo. I don't like this... but I don't hate it.
I think the most interesting thing to come out of this discussion is – does it matter if this is memorable?? his can be completely trendy, expendable fodder, and it could still do it's job perfectly well, right?
On Feb.11.2008 at 05:28 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> uh, the new one does not have slabs. :(
Which is why I said +/- (plus or minus). It's an optional feature : )
On Feb.11.2008 at 08:11 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
I would expect better from a scalper selling tees in front of the football field. I didn't mind the XLII diner logo. I'd expect to see that on the side of the road in jersey. But this... Well they do have a whole year to dress it up. There is potential, but this logo is far from done.
Also I think they do have to use different stars because of the two leagues, but that's completely shoe-horned.
On Feb.11.2008 at 09:14 AM
Blake’s comment is:
Only element I really like is its simplicity. They were getting awfully complicated with layers, shadows, stars, etc. This is better. In that sense. But that's about it.
It's awfully... roundy... isn't it?
On Feb.11.2008 at 09:19 AM
zz’s comment is:
"Not to pick nits, but they would be programming their DVRs 365 days in advance, not 364; this year is a leap year."
lawyered.
and i agree with armin. bank of america was the first thing i thought of and he beat me to it.
On Feb.11.2008 at 10:04 AM
Richard’s comment is:
The last 3 Super Bowl logos have been so disappointing. There was a dynamic and colorful city like Miami ('07), a groundbreaking new stadium in Arizona ('08), and now a fun, historic, diverse city like Tampa... all with incredibly generic and forgettable identities for what is the biggest event in the year.
The first thing I thought of when I saw the Tampa logo is Amtrak. That's not a successful brand association if you ask me.
Jak’s comment is:
I also think its nice that they finally left out any shadows or highlights. Clean, simple, imposing. I think the city name would be value ad, but thats more of a preference.
On Feb.11.2008 at 11:01 AM
Nick’s comment is:
does anybody else think that that curving/bulging state of arizona resembles a sliding door on a minivan? maybe im looking too hard.
nothing to say about XLIII that hasnt already been said. meh.
On Feb.11.2008 at 11:40 AM
Kim Siever’s comment is:
I have to agree with those who said they like this logo. I love it. I like the freshness of it and the fact the use a field and a stadium to represent football rather than . . . well, a football.
On Feb.11.2008 at 12:02 PM
eighthave’s comment is:
Last year's, this year's and next year's have all been duds. The red and blue stars are a fine idea, but are really unnecessary. The Arizona shape is pretty well-hidden, but I think it was also intended to simulate the sides of the stadium to some degree. What bothers me about it more is that "Super," the star and streak and the numerals are in the same perspective, but "Bowl" and the blue star and streak are not. I also don't get the white lines between the X, L and I.
Next year's is just so generic. I look at the logos for 1992 to 2002 and they fit the venue and host city so well - save for 2000 and 2002, but even then they were well-rendered logos and the 2002 one was riding the patriotic wave of post 9/11, so it was in tune with the fans at the time. I just don't think that the Super Bowl logo needs a literal football graphic in it.
Look at the last Tampa logo XXXV. I'll grant that I'm slightly biased because the Ravens were in and won that one (I'm from Baltimore), but it had style and tied in tightly to the city and football tradition there. 38 and 39 were good, too, but to me, not quite on the same level.
You could say XLI & XLII tied into the city, but only barely. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like they put nearly as much thought into it as they had been. I think this one could have potential, given more revision. They need to ditch the red and blue stars. If they want stars, fine, keep the two stars, just stop requiring red and blue, it's gumming up the works!
And as for revealing the logo, I'm fairly certain that recent SB logos were revealed prior to the Super Bowl preceding it. In particular I remember the reveal of the SB XL logo taking place the week before SB XXXIX. They didn't get the fanfare that NBC gave this one, but they were out earlier. So the green and timing are bum info. Weird. I have seen this in other places, so I know it's not on Armin.
I vote to let Studio Simon do them for as long as they are around. ;-)
Sorry, sports logo geek here...
Dave
On Feb.11.2008 at 01:02 PM
Eric Strohl’s comment is:
While I'm not up on the entire history of SuperBowl logos, I think this mark is better than the previous years.
It still has that "sports-like" perspective without too much distortion, and no gradients or 3D garbage.
I think it shows signs of a better trend in these types of logos.
On Feb.11.2008 at 02:35 PM
DONALD BRIGGS’s comment is:
green was also used in 1992.
On Feb.11.2008 at 03:03 PM
patrick’s comment is:
it's still more visually pleasing than the ugly .
On Feb.11.2008 at 07:16 PM
patrick’s comment is:
tru2way
On Feb.11.2008 at 07:17 PM
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
I could sit here and go through every single logo entry and find logos that are similar... and guess what?... it won't make a damn difference. People even go as far as correcting the number of days this year is going to have, hahaha. I love/hate this forum, but it's very addictive.
Is it effective or not?... that's the real question.
Sport logos are a formula, just how Armin said. It's meant to make you excited and that is precisely the department in which this logo fails. I don't think that sense of excitement, competition, sport passion and beer-in-hand is NOT translated successfully. Where's Tampa Bay here again?
What could it make it better?
I think sport logos should start moving away from all this Illustrator-vector-crazy look and approach more organic looks. Tampa Bay and Florida have so many vernaculars that they could've extracted inspiration from. It's a lazy design. Those 2 stars are not noticeable after you had 4 beers and ate half of the pizza pie.
It could've been worse... it's could've looked like this:
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
Sorry, like this:
http://www.tomnikosey.com/images/logos/superbowlXX.jpg
On Feb.11.2008 at 10:03 PM
ElKid’s comment is:
It's not good, but still not bad. My main concern is the one red star on the left - it's the only red element. I think the star on the right should also be red.
My favorite SB logo is 32...
Chris’s comment is:
I kinda feel like the E-Trade baby. I stared at the screen for a while then felt like I had to throw up a little. This logo has an awful awkward curvature to it that literally symbolizes nothing to me. I'm totally unimpressed.
Am I the only one that actually likes the 3-D Super Bowl logos? It works the same way as the American Gladiators. It's an in-your-face and larger-than-life game. The most televised sporting event in the world, right? Why wouldn't the logo be huge and jumping out at you?
I actually love the XLII logo. It's a simplified version that still has a lot of impact. XLIII looks like it added complexity and lost all of it's impact by making it look soft and curvy. This feels like it must be an unfinished version pushed out the door by an insignificant promo.
On Feb.12.2008 at 09:03 AM
SCocchiere’s comment is:
Isn't the shape grounding this year's logo a perspective rendering of the state of Arizona? That was my assumption...I thought it was a nice, subtle nod to the site.
"The obvious critique is that this Super Bowl could take place anywhere, as there is nothing specific to Tampa Bay — maybe there is nothing about Tampa Bay to be specific about? — to make it unique, and neither did the last one, where at least something could have been made out of the Cardinal's shiny new stadium… Maybe we are just seeing the start of the latest trend in this category: Perspective + Dimension + Stars +/- Slab Serifs."
On Feb.12.2008 at 09:46 AM
Paul’s comment is:
I like the new one much, MUCH more than this year's.
This years was over-the-top 3D... (What's that? TWO drop shadows?!) And I never once got the connection that the words were flying over the state of Arizona until reading the comments here... I always thought it looked like some strange airplane wing... especially with the stars whizzing by it.
The green is a welcome addition - the new logo screams football, while the old logo screams 'ugly flight show logo'.
On Feb.12.2008 at 03:13 PM
Von K’s comment is:
I appreciate the attempt to make a (the?) sports logo without all the beveling and shadows that have been creeping in over the years, but I also think this could've been better.
The '09 mark's heavy blue shapes sitting on the lighter green, combined with the open shape of the field (the huge gashes of space cutting up the green) make the mark feel comparatively light--not well-grounded.
Representing the host city would be a nice touch, but as a long-time resident of St. Petersburg (The "other" bay-area city), I've seen it all. Palm trees, state-shape outlines (AZ has it easy compared to us), minarets, pelicans, dolphins, waves, the Bayshore columns, suns, rays (manta, sting and light), palm trees, palm fronds, oranges/grapefruit/tangelos/citrus leaves, palm trees...
Point is, it'd have to be a pretty great, new and probably very subtle solution.
I like the overall shape and use of perspective. The sans is nice, too. In the end, though, I think it still needs work.
Oh, and ditch the stars. I mean, come on--it already says "SUPER BOWL" across the top in what I assume is the mandatory font for setting "SUPER BOWL."
The '08 mark toned down the production somewhat and seems more successful to me. Maybe we need beveling and visual heft, just not too much.
BTW, anyone want to post who did this mark? I'm curious to know if they're local.
On Feb.12.2008 at 09:16 PM
Paul C’s comment is:
I'm really irked by that second star being the exact blue that the type is.
Really i mean...balance it out!
On Feb.13.2008 at 05:04 AM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
I really like this. But along with all the others, the two colored stars are wonky--seems like an accident.
It's hard to believe green has never played a role in a Super Bowl mark until now.
On Feb.13.2008 at 10:39 PM
brentano’s comment is:
I wish they had made "Super Bowl" fit within the width of the numeral instead of hanging the L off the end.
Also, I think bleeding the roman numeral into the blue field below is problematic. This very nearly reads XLW.
On Feb.14.2008 at 06:44 PM
Peter McRae’s comment is:
XLIII moves in a direction of more simplicity, without being a radical departure from the past. I think it is successful.
It does not look very Tampa related, but most people would agree that the Super Bowl is an international event, an international brand.
Most of these kinds of marks try to do too much (be American, be big, be Tampa, don't forget NFC and AFC, work in all media, refer to the past while being fresh, be international, have a really big roman numeral (and have we not all dreamed of using those in a logo) at least consider putting an actual football in the (for the people who don't know that the Super Bowl is a football game), look like a trophy, be colorful, be unique, look NFLish, and be creative.)
Given all this, I think simple and clean is a good idea.
On Feb.15.2008 at 11:00 PM
Derrick’s comment is:
Correction: Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and XXXI all had touches of green in their logos.
And this new one sucks.
On Feb.16.2008 at 10:44 AM
John L. Hoh, Jr.’s comment is:
Hmm, green has never been used in a Super Bowl logo before. I wonder how visible that aspect of the logo will be on, well, a green field? Or will the Boise State "smurf turf" be brought in for the SB? Oh, wait, then we won't see the blue elements!
On Feb.18.2008 at 10:50 AM
John L. Hoh, Jr.’s comment is:
Hmm, green has never been used in a Super Bowl logo before. I wonder how visible that aspect of the logo will be on, well, a green field? Or will the Boise State "smurf turf" be brought in for the SB? Oh, wait, then we won't see the blue elements!
On Feb.18.2008 at 10:50 AM
greg’s comment is:
i immediately thought of the patriots logo when i saw this as well. i'm surprised that didn't come up in the crits while they were developing it.
On Feb.18.2008 at 06:23 PM
Polly’s comment is:
The mark was designed by Landor San Francisco.
It's interesting to read critiques of this mark. I know who the creative director was on this project. I'm not a fan.
On Feb.19.2008 at 06:27 PM
Joseph DeSetto’s comment is:
As a Tampa area resident, NFL season ticket holder, and design educator, I think this game logo is pathetic. The logo is generic and does not convey the either the excitement of the game or the buzz the game will create in this town as it did for Super Bowls 18 and 25.
As to the comments here, including by the author of this article, that would suggest there is nothing in Tampa "to be specific about," I would suggest visiting before making such an inane comment in writing. The stadium itself would be a good place to start, featuring a huge, Disneyesque pirate ship in the endzone. The ship is not only a reference to our home team but to the Spanish sailing ships of the town's past, as glamorized in our annual parade of drunken pirate-clad lawyers and other town residents called Gasparilla.
If you skip over the pirate motif, you still have obvious images around here - the world renowned beaches and the sun that will allow us to host a January game outside in 70 degree weather. You also have the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, as well regarded here as the Golden Gate is over Balco Bay.
If you really wanted to dig for an abstract and interesting logo, the area also houses the largest Salvador Dali art collection anywhere in the world.
Super Bowl XVIII with melting game clock, anyone?
Armin’s comment is:
> As to the comments here, including by the author of this article, that would suggest there is nothing in Tampa "to be specific about," I would suggest visiting before making such an inane comment in writing.
Please let the record show that I stated "maybe". It was not an assertion, but a doubtful assumption. However, nominating "A stadium [...] featuring a huge, Disneyesque pirate ship in the endzone", "world renowned beaches and the sun", and a bridge that may or may not be as recognizable as the Golden Gate Bridge as distinguishing elements, may answer my original doubts.
On Feb.20.2008 at 12:03 PM
Mark ’s comment is:
I couldn't even find a Super Bowl logo that even liked, or even stuck out as something brilliantly designed.
What a shame.
The only one that sort of liked was the last one, maybe because it was more simple than the others.
On Feb.20.2008 at 07:17 PM
Paul Rand’s comment is:
Sister Jean Kenny, S.P.’s comment is:
I like the logo--simple and attractive!
Let's lobby for Indianapolis to get the Super Bowl in 2012.
How do you like "Hoosier Daddy" or
"Hoosier Hospitality" for the theme?
Corey’s comment is:
The red star would be fine if there was a hint of red in another part of the logo, but right now it doesn't fit in very well. I also agree that "SUPER BOWL" should not have extended past the numerals' perspective. It can read as "XLW"...maybe the "III" should have been red also??...that would have balanced out the color.
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:48 PM
John’s comment is:
Designed to look like Raymond James Stadium??? Since WHEN? To be honest, the field looks like the stylized love child of the New England Patriots and Bank of America. It looks so bland it would be better suited for a stadium in CANADA!!!!
What about the Skyway? What about The Pier? Hell, our SKYLINE makes for a better logo backdrop. This looks like something you'd see in Super Techmo Bowl!!!!!!
On Jul.29.2008 at 03:58 PM
Van Klimetz’s comment is:
Someone may have already pointed this out, but Super Bowl XXVII had green in it. It was used in the stems and leaves of the rose behind the crest. 1992 Super Bowl on the same page as your link to this year's logo.
http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?id=593
On Jan.09.2009 at 02:08 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
