Under Armor
Under Armor
Out of context: Reply #9
- Started
- Last post
- 37 Responses
- jtb263
Regardless of the logo's quality here are the important things to consider, and I'm sure they have at this point.
Success + Millions spent on advertising and endorsements = Equity in the mark.
Changing it at this stage would be like throwing money out of the window and then necessitate an even bigger spend to recoup that equity. Best case scenario they make it suck a little less every few years, but even this doesn't matter.
Missing this point is why some people don't take designers seriously.
That said, the logo could have been better, but it functions in all the ways a logo needs to function. You're wrong for wanting it to be better, just for thinking that it matters.
- You're not wrong*jtb26
- agreedmonospaced
- The mark isn't that bad compared to a lot of the industry.dirtydesign
- except I always want everything to be better, no matter :)monospaced
- Reebok for example.dirtydesign
- I don't mind it. So many horribly offending logos out there, their's just looks blah but doesn't offend.formed
- Google is one of the most valued brands in the world, nuf saidyoungdesigner
- google is love hate frenemy brand.yurimon
- I hear you Mono. This is why designers should fight to the death to bad designs up front. Best way to avoid being stuck with something terrible.jtb26
- *against bad designsjtb26