- Last post
- 22 Responses
I've never used the term before and hope it's in the right context but what a load of Bullocks!
WORDMARK: MLS stands for Major League Soccer.
SLASH: The slash refers to soccer’s speed and energy. The slash begins outside the perimeter and drives upward at a 45-degree angle to illustrate both the nonstop nature of our game and the rising trajectory of our league. It bisects the crest to create a “first half” and “second half.”
STARS: The three stars represent the pillars of our brand: For Club, For Country, For Community.
PERIMETER: The perimeter represents the lines that mark off the field of play.
FIRST HALF AND SECOND HALF: The first half contains MLS and the three stars. The second half is an open white space that brings you in and out of the MLS world.
Being that their previous logo was so bad, and had been around for 19 years, I'm happy to see a change. But this feels so ordinary and weak.
And the justification for what everything stands for is such bs. "The second half is an open white space that brings you in and out of the MLS world."
"The development process was driven in-house while also engaging some exceptional talent from the brand strategy and design worlds. We worked with the following agencies: Gigunda, Athletics and Berliner Benson."
wow what part represents the game, soccer?
OSFA - you are very much wrong my friend
nylon - How so?
I'd prefer not to say but I know for a fact they put the rebrand out to pitch - I know the agency that won it.
Looks too much like a teams crest
Really? From their site: ""The development process was driven in-house while also engaging some exceptional talent from the brand strategy and design worlds. We worked with the following agencies: Gigunda, Athletics and Berliner Benson."
Maybe they do watch the sport. Still, it's probably the worst rebrand I've seen this year. Totally disconnected from the subject and audience. Sorry to be so harsh, but it is terrible.
at first glance, as many reacted, it seemed like a big mess, forcing the crest onto teams which may have different shape logos and/or rivals with crests.... but the colour adaptation thing probably works out in favour of a bunch of teams. In a league with a lack of identity this is a risky step removing the 'soccer' cleat and ball and going generic...boring IMO, but maybe allows other aspects of league/individual teams to step up. You know there's a push for giant corporate entity conglomerate teams like NYCFC etc to become the driving forces so....
I see what you mean, BUT, still doesn't make sense.
Let's just say that there's a game tomorrow. NYC Red Bulls vs. Portland Timbers. For broadcast, do you use NY colors? Portland? For stadium materials, do you use NY's colors on collateral and advertising? But, at the same time, you have the 'original' version present at stadium, scoreboard, etc. You know what I mean?
It's a big fucking mess. They probably saw other brands like AirBnB logo adaptations and thought "hey, that's pretty neat. We should do the same..."
Aesthetically, it's not THAT bad - but certainly doesn't really seem like it "fits" into the North American sports market/genre, but some of those explanations are just weird nonsense. "Pepsi-esque" almost.
It looks like it'll get dated really quickly.
its what happens when you spend most of the budget coming up with post-rationalisation BS rather than putting in the time to develop a decent mark that needs no explanation