NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
As was discussed in our recent UCF post, the state, style and aesthetic of sports logo design has changed dramatically. No longer are simple icons like the Chicago Cubs and Bulls or New York Yankees and Mets the desired goal for a new sports identity. Too simple and boring, perhaps. In return we have illustrations that act well enough as logos — as long as you don’t reduce them to less than a couple of inches. But this is not new, sports branding has been steadily changing in the last ten years to the overdeveloped design we know today and has become a niche within identity work. Firms like SME Power Branding and, at the core of this post, Phoenix Design Works have turned beveling and dimensionality into an art form, spread across leagues and sports. This is the way it is. But has it gone too far? And can we ever go back? Late last month the official logo of a new Minor League baseball team, the Northwest Arkansas Naturals, was unveiled. And if ever there was a logo that needed unveiling was this one, with so many elements involved.
Sometimes too much can be, well, just too much. In this instance Phoenix Design Works spared no resources when it came to adding toppings to this new identity: Thunder, waterfall, mountain, baseball and swooshes. From this news item, it may be that they were simply egged on:
Brian Nickerson, the organization’s operations coordinator, was credited by [Naturals General Manager] Edelstein for coming up with the idea to incorporate a waterfall into the logo. Nickerson researched the unique qualities of the region and found that more than 130 natural waterfalls exist in the state, including 90 in the region targeted for marketing by the organization.
“I think it gives a true sense of the natural beauty in this area,” Nickerson said. “That was something that was very important to us. I went into it wanting to find what sets this area apart.”
Nearly a dozen renderings of the logo were considered before a final decision was made. Other elements were considered for the logo, including rivers and animals, but Edelstein said the idea of using a waterfall struck him from the beginning.
I don’t see why PDW should have stopped… I wouldn’t mind seeing a deer drinking water, or a bear with a baseball cap swinging a bat while fishing for salmon. Sarcasm aside, it’s impossible not to be dizzied by the logo, and the general visual onslaught of sports branding. Tim Walker, founder and creative director of DOXA, an Arkansas-based design firm, who e-mailed me about this identity, asks:
What is the state of identities for sports franchises, anyway? Where are the simple and effective marks like the Yankees’ and the Cubs’ that have stood the test of time and become a part of our culture? At some point, there seemed to be a shift toward what I guess is thought to be more retail focused identities although I may be wrong about that. The local television news seemed to spend more time showing people buying hats and polo shirts than talking about the new Northwest Arkansas Naturals team or even the reasoning behind the new identity.
Well, Tim, with a nice polo shirt like this one, how could you not?
Jump to Most Recent Comment
smackfu’s comment is:
Seems like this has been the trend for 10-15 years.
On Jun.15.2007 at 10:59 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
Whatever happened to the notion of one logo, one idea? Sports teams typically have secondary (and even tertiary) logos. Seems like this was an opportunity to keep the primary logo down to one visual and add in the other elements via additional sleeve patches or road jerseys. I appreciate the illustration quality these types of logos have, but this is a real kitchen sink approach. Awful.
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:18 AM
Mark’s comment is:
AGGGHHH!!!!
Too many elements look away look away!!!!!!!
This is not a logo! this is a freaking landscape!
(thats not an endearing commment)
Whats with adding the baseball? It should be obvious that it is a baseball team, theres no need for the baseball flying across the logo, I don't see football teams putting footballs in their logo.
Also they could of left out the unreadable and ugly typefaced "Northern Arkansas" part of the logo also.
The should've went with the simple name and a waterfall and then STOPPED at that!
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:24 AM
felix’s comment is:
this is a nice illustration.
what i find perplexing in it's juxtapostioning; why sit a thunderous lightening bolt under a dark waterfall? it appears as if God has designated this a wet baseball trap, marking it's inevitable fall. why is the basebal shooting for the water?
it's such a striking (sorry) illustration... too bad theres no aim.
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:27 AM
Kathy’s comment is:
The red text on the blue background is killing my eyes.
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:36 AM
Kim Siever’s comment is:
"In this instance Phoenix Design Works spared no resources when it came to adding toppings to this new identity: Thunder, waterfall, mountain, baseball and swooshes."
I didn't think you could see thunder.
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:45 AM
Mark’s comment is:
What the weakness about this mark is while it's phenomenally illustrated it's complicatedness has made it unutterably forgettable.
It doesn't stick out no matter how hard it want to, heck even the ne 5/3 bank mark is more memorable than this, thats how bad it is. ;P
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:49 AM
krunk pony’s comment is:
I think my biggest problem with this logo is how the word naturals sits right on top of the suds. I think it feels awkward and creates a visual tangent. I'm not sure I know how to read which one is in front of the other.
The logo definitely conveys a sense of power. Id be scared to visit this dark-fall island of doom for fear of catching one from the orbiting baseball comet or getting cut on the jaggled beveled type hiding at the bottom of the only available water source.
On Jun.15.2007 at 11:51 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Check out the logo at the top of the ad, a lost opportunity?
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/clubs/t1350/images/ads/banner160x600.gif
On Jun.15.2007 at 12:01 PM
John’s comment is:
Just go to PDW website and check out their logo... that says enough to me about their design.
Does anyone else believe it takes years and the experience before something is truly branded... I think its a disservice to the client to say they are branding their team with a logo... especially one like this...
blah.
I am tired of every single sports team looking the same... with as many elements as they can add...
On Jun.15.2007 at 12:36 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
Gag.
To quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
On Jun.15.2007 at 12:47 PM
Dan’s comment is:
To add to Mark's point... This is a great name! Why did they have to confuse it in this logostration thing? I can see rationale for the lightning bolt (struck by rare talent, perhaps), but a waterfall, swoosh, baseball, AND a lightning bolt?
On Jun.15.2007 at 01:17 PM
b.king’s comment is:
As a long standing "admirer" of Minor League Baseball logos (I grew up with the Reading Phillies, so I lucked out), I feel it's necessary to point out that it gets much, much, much, much, worse than the Naturals logo.
On Jun.15.2007 at 01:28 PM
Spencer Fruhling’s comment is:
b.king, I think that SeaWolves logo falls into the so-bad-it's-good category.
On Jun.15.2007 at 01:51 PM
thatguy’s comment is:
it's boring and forgettable. just like baseball.
On Jun.15.2007 at 03:38 PM
drew kora’s comment is:
ahhh! in addition to what everyone else said...the red on blue hurts my eyes.
On Jun.15.2007 at 03:51 PM
rynot’s comment is:
that bisons character looks like a mexican wolfboy. freaky.
On Jun.15.2007 at 04:46 PM
rynot’s comment is:
they could save on mascot uniforms
On Jun.15.2007 at 04:49 PM
mattshu’s comment is:
Our local minor league team, the Spokane Indians, announced a new logo recently, and I'll be damned if it isn't a thing of simple, well executed beauty.
http://www.spokaneindiansbaseball.com/
On Jun.15.2007 at 05:41 PM
Josh B’s comment is:
I think the name of the team is a reference to the 1984 Robert Redford movie "The Natural". The lightning bolt thing would seem to suggest so.
So, named after a popular movie, a new overdone logo...
If it can get the Anaheim (formerly Mighty) Ducks the Stanley Cup...
(before)
(after)
... then maybe The Naturals will be bringing home the pennant. (That's what they win in baseball right? Pennants?)
On Jun.15.2007 at 05:59 PM
Mr. Baseball’s comment is:
Ain't nothin' wrong with that Mudcats logo. Perhaps a bit rough in the execution, but c'mon, who doesn't love a big ol' catfish smilin' atcha?
In defense of PDW, it sounds like they had a client who had an idea in their head of what they wanted, and dadgum if they didn't get it, good taste be damned. After all, PDW is responsible for one of my favorite baseball logos, the Florida Marlins. They can't be held responsible for the bad judgement of their client.
On Jun.15.2007 at 07:58 PM
C-LO’s comment is:
How do you fit so much crap into such a small space? I ask you HOW? I'm looking for a job where I don't have to eat canned store brand food every day, and some wacom pushing secretary is making a mint making a mockery of our entire field with this.
Guaranted whoever did this was probably harassed to add this that and the other thing, but as to what soemone said before. It's a baseball team. It shoudl be noticed as such. Althought the lettering itself works in a typical rah rah rah sports team lettering, At least let me know your playing a sport and not selling water that a satelite that looks like a baseball crashed into giving it it's "unique flavor"
On Jun.15.2007 at 09:40 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Silly name for a team if you ask me. What's a Natural? Is this team named for a bunch of nature boys? If we are so fully out of names (cougars, bears, etc.) why not just take European model and call the team Arkansas United?
On Jun.15.2007 at 09:46 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Craptacular!
On Jun.15.2007 at 09:57 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
I think this is a cool logo and I absolutely LOVE the play on NATURE in the NATURals. Very cool. I can think of a million corny ways a name like naturals could have been played, but the waterfall and the lightning boat are refreshingly cool.
I have to admit though, I am a sucker for intricate sports logos capped off with a solid, stroke effect.
On Jun.15.2007 at 10:20 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
@b.king: I have to disagree with you. While the logos you linked to are not executed well, they are all at least relatively simple (i.e., few elements) and memorable, important qualities for a logo, IMHO. The Naturals logo fails on all levels except execution. And whoever is responsible deserves . . . well, maybe not execution, but definitely a vigorous tongue-lashing.
On Jun.16.2007 at 03:03 AM
SBG’s comment is:
Is anyone concerned about the huge gap between what designers think is good and "regular" people like? Are we doing all this for ourselves in spite of "them" - or are we supposed to pretend we're saving the savages from themselves?
This isn't directly related to the particular logo on display but the constantly re-enforced concept that the public is to be held in contempt, as tasteless joe sixpacks who just aren't smart enough to appreciate all the minisule details that the design community revels in. It seems like a very intolerant postion to take.
Doesn't that get old after a while?
On Jun.16.2007 at 03:03 AM
John’s comment is:
Amen, amen, SBG. Preach the gospel, brother.
On Jun.16.2007 at 11:34 AM
Frank’s comment is:
I don't think it's so bad really.
After all, it's a sports logo and sports logos have a long tradition and different requirements/rules than corporate logos.
Sure the logo has maybe too many elements but so have a lot of logos that come from the 50's era or that are in the tradition of that style.
As a corporate logo i would say it's crap but as a sports logo i do think it works and is actually nicely executed.
On Jun.16.2007 at 02:22 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Ok the red text on blue background was a not so good idea maybe :)
On Jun.16.2007 at 02:24 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
SBG, I whole-heartedly agree. I wasn't going to say anything,, but I have hinted at my disdain for the haughty stances of many designers who hold concept and sociology above the human eye.
It appears that many designers are more concerned with seeping into the psyche of the viewer rather than pleasing them or rewarding them with something they like.
On one level it is necessary to be practical and conceptual about how a company's budget will allow them to display the logo across different mediums. Outside of that, sociology and design should be cousins at best; not husband and wife.
Here is a news flash for my design buddies who judge from a text book and not from their OWN visual abilities... Design concepts were established back at a time when designers carved logos into stamps. Since then the development of programs like Photoshop and Illustrator, etc coupled with the advancements in printing (not to mention new mediums like the web) have made more intricate designs FAR MORE PRACTICAL then they had ever been in the past. Unfortunately, there are too many dinosaurs running business and teaching at the Universities to let US think it is okay to push the envelope.
Do what looks good, and worry about the sociology and psychology behind it later.
Although I probably would have put a white stroke around the north Arkansas, this is a NICE LOGO. And BTW, so was the MS Silverlight logo.
On Jun.16.2007 at 05:00 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Edited spelling error.
What kills this logo is that it's has a great idea, but it's executed haphazardly, I mean it has a great thing going with the waterfall and the name and the lighting bolt, but then they has to add the swoosh and a baseball, just like 100s of other sports logos. The baseball and swoosh just ruins it.
It appears that many designers are more concerned with seeping into the psyche of the viewer rather than pleasing them or rewarding them with something they like.
Um, thats what decorators do, make pretty things for people, things such as logo or more than mere decorations.
As my painting teacher once said "theres too many mediocre paintings out there , our goal is to make something that isn't mediocre, something that the viewer won't forget about, something that will stick with them." In a sense, since graphic design is somewhat of an art, it's goal is somewhat similar. People want to make something different, thats unique, something that isn't what other people are doing. If you give somebody something thats expected, they'll get bored of it and walk away.
You're also talking about peoples jobs here, if you're wanting them to make pretty things that mean nothing or have no use, it makes their job pretty unimportant or useless.
Besides as they say, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
On Jun.16.2007 at 07:07 PM
JBIII’s comment is:
I really love reading the comments on this site and the amount/scope of input that everyone contributes.
As for the comment about the dinosaurs at the university level...... I have great respect for the mentors from my university and anyone that I have learned from in my career (good and bad). It is their job to teach us the foundation of design, composition, color and production, etc. It is our job to take that knowledge and build upon it as we wish and make it our own.
What is missing in this treatment and many others is the lack of discipline from those foundation courses and principles. Creative individuals today sometimes get caught up in all the bells and whistles of an application instead of focusing on the basics. I would love to see the concept sketches of this treatment above. The color studies. Did they do their homework? Tough for us to tell from just the product we see here.
? For everyone, do you show tight concept sketches to your clients before moving on to digital art?
In my opinion, the logo above looks like a three headed monster that we sometimes can get from showing a client 3 digital versions. "Well, I like the waterfall from this one, the baseball and swoosh from this, and the lightning bolt txt from this....Can you make it work?????"
At the end of the day though, the client is always right........right? Or is it our job to guide our clients to the right design decisions from the beginning ;)
On Jun.16.2007 at 07:17 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
SBG and other like minds.
The client may be king but they should never be the art director.
The art direction on this specific logo leaves a lot to be desired no matter how much the public may hug it. Clients will always tend to embrace a logo they drive the process for, they love the self-satisfying D.I.Y. wonderment they get from playing designer but it leads to a marginal design at best.
The logo is lame and even the illustrative qualities are at best cluttered and not simplified very well. I can't help but think the client gave a laundry list of cliche elements and the designer just shoved them all in. (He forgot the kitchen sink)
Designers are not merely extensions of a clients arm willing to do what they can't design or illustrate themselves. This design has all the tell tale signs of that happening though. I may be wrong in my above assumption but it would explain the end result.
On Jun.17.2007 at 05:46 AM
Maria’s comment is:
Maybe the problem is not the logo but the sports logos represent: their values are lost and only consumerism is percieved. Maybe a Cultural change rather than a new logo is needed.
On Jun.17.2007 at 02:31 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Indeed, franchising has played a part in dumbing down sports logos.
In a sense the same thing could be said for much of the movie industry.
Sad isn't it?
On Jun.17.2007 at 04:24 PM
SN’s comment is:
I don't agree with SGB completely, but he does have a point.
As a designer, you not only have to think about the how and what, but also about the why.
We've al been taught that a good logo is a simple logo. Why? A simple logo is instantly recognisable and people will remember it.
But if all logos are simple, they no longer stand out. And standing out is sort of the whole point of the exercise.
The same goes for all the other things we think we know. With every trick or rule or technique we apply, we have to think: does this still work?
Maybe the rule 1 logo= 1 idea simply doesn't apply anymore...
On Jun.18.2007 at 06:22 AM
Daniel Bertalotto’s comment is:
Just a brief note, The Naturals are named so because Arkansas's state nickname is The Natural State due to our abundance of natural scenery and resources. It is truly a beautiful state, especially in the northwest to central to north central areas.
It's understandable and admirable that most regional baseball organizations stake their identities to a regional theme. It's just a pity that it was felt the themes within this mark had to be so excessive.
On Jun.18.2007 at 06:37 AM
C-LO’s comment is:
Way I see it with thw whole "artists being holier then thou" when it comes to art..
It's our jobs to make things look better, Not everyone has great ideas on how things should look. Here, we're just learning from someone else's mistakes 8). Problem is with us we've seen peobably the best of the best ever designed, so when we see average stuff, we compare it to the top of the top, and it usually doesn't hold any water. If we didn't strive for the best every time, everything would fall apart.
On Jun.18.2007 at 08:50 AM
CJ’s comment is:
We've had our own sports logo controversy in Milwaukee over this team's logo:
Most of the arguements were over the type, which I agree is bad, but you gotta love the simplicity of the logo over the more complicated ones out there. I've worked on some of the more complicated ones and working out the graphics standards on those was a nightmare!
On Jun.18.2007 at 10:02 AM
Tim Walker’s comment is:
What I hoped to see happen as a result of this post was a discussion about the shift in identities for sports franchises from simple marks to more illustrative solutions like this Naturals logo or any number of similar ones that have appeared within the past few years. It seems to be evident more in sports than in any other area and this is, I think, worth studying.
I think this logo says more about what the designers are being asked to do than it does about the designers' execution.
Judging by the vehemence of many responses here, this apparently touches a nerve, or several nerves.
I understand and respect SBG's comment and thought it was a great topic to springboard into rather than simply critiquing this particular logo. I agree that sometimes designers can be arrogant in their assumptions about clients and the general public. I would offer, though, that the same can be true of the client making assumptions about the public's tastes while directing the designer. This issue can often result in work that's unsatisfying to either client or designer or both and unfortunately dilluted when it's reaches the public. I'd be willing to bet almost everyone following this thread has experienced that frustration.
Another interesting comment was made about the simplicity of marks being driven by the lack of rendering technology. That makes a lot of sense, although I would argue that limitation fell away long before software like Adobe Illustrator came on the scene. One can find dizzying amounts of detail in work that preceeded the ability to do it with the ease and speed allowed by today's tools. The issue this presents, I believe, is when and how we're relying on that ability and whether it's appropriate or not. Execution should only serve that and things like bevels and drop shadows shouldn't be done just because we can do them. Knowing what to leave out is as important as knowing what to put in. Again, though, this responsibility falls not only on the designer, but also on the client to exercise good judgement and to choose a designers well and trust their guidance as much as providing their own.
Another interesting point was made about whether the one 'big idea' behind an identity is perhaps a dead concept, and that's another thread (a topic I'm personally thinking about a lot lately). Regardless of whether you are trying to drive a brand identity with one simple big idea, every organization has a number of ideas and messages to get across and you can't communicate EVERYTHING with a logo. It's only one part of a whole brand language context. In this case, I personally feel like the organization tried to put too much into the logo, and many of the intended messages could have been better placed within other areas in the broader context -- color palette, imagery, type, textures, shapes, etc.
My perspective is that of the founder and director of a small firm doing much of its business in what many of you from larger markets might call 'flyover country', but I truly believe these fundamental issues scale from the largest to smallest clients. I genuinely appreciate reading the perspectives of everyone posting here.
On Jun.18.2007 at 10:56 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
whoa...The Admirals! I remember watching them as a kid. Didn't realize they were actually dead pirates with a lousy taste in type.
On Jun.18.2007 at 11:03 AM
Mark’s comment is:
I'd hate to see the Naturals logo on the front of a baseball uniform, on the other hand The Admirals logo I could probably tolerate.
On Jun.18.2007 at 04:43 PM
a non ee moose’s comment is:
yeah corey, just like the 2012 logo. give the people what they want and speak on their level and everyone will be happy.
anyways, i didn't realize that natty light had a team. they must have consumed a wide supply of the product in order to do this.
all sports graphics are horrible. just watch five minutes of a major football game and you will see some of the gayest gay theater in your life, and that's not putting down homosexuals in any way. i could care less what sports logos look like though i guess i really should be invested in some way. look at your demographic on things like this.
On Jun.18.2007 at 04:44 PM
Dave’s comment is:
If you want to see how to do it right, check out the team logos for The Golden League, Dan Simon and Joe Bosack know how to do it in the "new" style with proper restraint.
Dave
On Jun.19.2007 at 10:41 PM
diane witman’s comment is:
The Naturals have a new and very complex logo. They should have looked to the expertise of someone like Joe Bosack who designed the logo for my previous employer and has a reputation for designing some of the best sports logos out there.
His company has a real understanding of the sports industry and although he may not be following the recent trend of complex logos he definitely creates some of the finest logos around for that market.
One of my favorites and one that deserves the use of lightning bolts? Check it out here.
On Jun.20.2007 at 12:06 PM
Rob’s comment is:
For a team called the Naturals, the logo is anything but.
On Jun.20.2007 at 01:39 PM
NixonMedia’s comment is:
What ever happened to good ol' logos like the Milwaukee Brewers. *sigh*.
On Jun.21.2007 at 10:04 AM
Skye ’s comment is:
Hey guys, check out my site...www.skyedesignstudios.com. I'm a professional logo designer focusing on sports branding...Skye Design Studios. My approach is to give each team I work with a completely unique identity...iconic, timeless, and appealing to fans, as opposed to pumping out cookie cutter designs left and right...love to hear your thoughts!
On Jul.14.2007 at 10:36 PM
Jay’s comment is:
THIS LOGO MAKES SENSE BECAUSE ARKANSAS IS A NATURAL STATE, AND ITS WATER, WIND, LAND, AND THE LIGHTNING...U WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN ARKANSAS TO KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT
On Dec.25.2007 at 11:22 PM
Jay’s comment is:
OH YEA THE REASON WHY THEY PUT THE BASEBALL IS BECAUSE IN NWA THEY ARE SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY THAT HAS NOTHING 2 DO WITH BASEBALL BUT ARE SPONSORING IT SO THEY HAVE TO LET IT BE KNOWN IT IS NOT THE COMPANIES BUSINESS LOGO BUT ALSO A SPORTS LOGO!
On Dec.25.2007 at 11:24 PM
Dagwood’s comment is:
I know this is old and dead, but I just had to say, many people in NWA think this is a horrible name/logo. Then again, I voted for the "Thunder Chickens". A little too close to the Toledo Mudhens, but Springdale, where the ballpark is located, is the headquarters of Tyson Foods, a leading poultry supplier. The mascot could have been infamous...and with our massive hispanic population, how fun would it have been to have a "Pollos Locos" section in the stands?!?!? Merchandising would have been GOLDEN, I tell you!
On Jun.03.2008 at 10:56 PM
Phil Belair’s comment is:
Has anyone seen the new logos for the world baseball classic uniforms?
http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3481505&cp=2186225.3500408
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
