1) I find your numbers to be incorrect. 2) People who haven't heard of MLS would not have heard of it if it had a "better logo." You have to kind of be actively ignoring it to have never heard of MLS at this point as a casual sports consumer in the US.
Here's what Belgium was using And are we going to get into ridiculous names, too? Ooh buddy, this is gonna get REAL FUN.
The bad MLS names were kind of an artifact of the '90's, and most of the bad ones have been changed by now. IMO, if MLS teams had gone with more traditional Americans sports teams names, rather than trying to be '90's trendy, their names wouldn't have gotten so dated so fast. If the team had been the Kansas City Wolves or Tornadoes, they wouldn't have needed to rebrand, for example.
There is no comparable aspect of the league, to Apple in that regard. Oh wait, there is. On the field product ... and it is improving, shifting, and becoming much more attractive. That though, isn't the issue in this thread. The logo is. Apple's logo hasn't done anything significant to the consumer base to draw conclusions to its consumption of the Apple brand. You're trying to make the argument that it has. The comments you made above interchange "image" with "logo" ... this conversation is about the logo and the logo alone. Otherwise, it's about the total image. In that regard, the MLS is addressing and adapting. The vital point in the image though, is not the logo ... Apple's minimalist approach to changing it concurs with that. If you can't see that difference, I don't know what to tell you. Wait, so soccer fans didn't exist before the MLS ? Wow ... that's a new piece of history I was unaware of. There weren't leagues before that had people in the stands, players that were known world wide, or generations of people that played it growing up ? No, it wasn't .... "BOOOM HERE'S THE MLS, IT'S A LEAGUE FOR THIS THING CALLED SOCCER .. anyone heard of it, please buy .... If you think leagues around the world/major soccer leagues don't need to sell themselves even today ... I don't know what to tell you. Which is no different than leagues across the world, including the "major" ones. Why is it a sin for the MLS ? I'm sorry, but your assertation is seriously outdated.
congrats - you posted logos of leagues that are worse than MLS's. (and in the case of the 100+ year old belgian league - they've since wised up and changed it. which side are you on?) And when the discussion shifts to the team names, you can post the Joe Public logo you have saved on your desktop, ready to go for such a rebuttal. Noone in this thread ever said "MLS has the worst logo in the history of the world - PROVE ME WRONG!" which is what you seem to want to argue against. All I'm saying is - the MLS logo looks cartoony and childish, which is just another devastating hit to it's image. See my previous post about how MLS is in the unique position of 'selling' its product. Image should be everything to them at this point.
MLS is the most successful start-up sports league in the history of the United States after 16 years of existence. The logo has nothing to do with it. It's an OK logo, on par with logos for most soccer leagues.
It is, and they're addressing the biggest issues with it - on field product. Who needs Joe Public when you've got the roadrunner at Tottenham ?
sigh. Yes, I know. MLS, founded in 1996, is growing faster than leagues that were formed before TV existed. Next you're going to tell me that we should all jump for joy because the average attendance for the 18-team, 34-game MLS season is encroaching on the NHL with a 30-team, 82-game season (the fact that most NHL arenas are smaller than SSSs notwithstanding). The quality of the game and the stadiums are the only things MLS is doing right. Too bad nobody gets to see it. Why make the brand, and the idea of soccer in general, so repulsive (for lack of a better term) to the average American? I see - so you're just going to keep finding examples of other bad logos from other leagues around the world, and somehow that makes the case for MLS better? I suppose if I posted the logos of the other 18 EPL clubs that don't suck, would that somehow prove my point?
Seeing as but 20 years ago "top division" US soccer was played at high school fields and the best American players thought it was a great opportunity to play in the Third Division in England, yeah I'm going to jump for joy over that. Also, MLS is not the only league that's been invented since the dawn of the TV era. Other leagues that have started and either failed, or failed to achieve the success and stability of MLS: NASL, Arena Football, the XFL, the UFL, the USFL, the ABA, the WHA, CART, every rugby league ever, WUSA, WNBA, MISL, the NLL, MLL. Aside from the 4+ million people who attended MLS games last year, including 18Kish at most of these new SSSs, and 30K+ at Seattle each week... yeah, nobody gets to see it. If the Average American thinks soccer is repulsive (Debatable at this point) it's because it's a "low scoring sport for girls where everyone dives and they tie all the time." Not because of MLS's logo. The "average American" isn't watching EPL or the Champions League either, despite their awesome logos. No. The only point proven would be that success is generally unrelated to the logo, and related largely to the on-the-field product. If Man U changed their logo tomorrow to Barney the Purple Dinosaur, they would still sell out every game and draw a bigger TV audience than anyone else.
So changing the logo is a better way to to remove the repulsive stigma than improving the quality of the game and the facilities ? Not even going to get into how that completely poops on the Apple diatribe you posted earlier. Do you swing and miss on purpose, or do you ignore the real point just too be an ass ? The point, is that being good/respectable/world renowned/proper/whatever you want to qualify with has absolutely dick all to do with the logo. Also, the other 18 EPL logos aren't all "super" either. To be completely honest ... if it's merely the aesthetics of the logo that you can bitch about, the league is doing much more right than it is wrong. That's all that actually matters.
I'm really confused by this comment. If the quality of the game and the stadiums is attractive to Americans, how is the idea of soccer so repulsive to Americans? Are you really claiming that a less-than-inspiring league logo is what keeps people from going to watch a quality team like the Red Bulls play in their shiny new arena?
Amongst some other off-the-pitch things, yes. Are you really claiming that there are people contemplating, "gee, I love soccer, and I'd really love to go check out that local MLS team. But I'm going to wait until there are consistently crisper passes, better first touches, and more bicycle-kick goals." The quality of play needs to be improved, yes. But it isn't the most debilitating issue to the league's growth. RBNY: Original MLS franchise, beautiful stadium, easy to get to via public transportation, largest media market in the country, 2nd most (if not most) star power in the league. The stadium is rarely 3/4 full. Half on weeknights, bad weather, etc. Why do you think that is? And before you start foaming at the mouth, I'm not saying that just changing the logo will fix everything. The problem is the perception of amateur, kiddie-circus entertainment that the logo only reinforces. Changing it, as well as some other aspects of the MLS 'package' would go a long way in changing that perception.
....Yes. ... Yes. I hear that from people who don't even watch soccer. "Oh, the Revs. Yeah, aren't they horrible compared to teams in England anyway?" Not a good thing. Original MLS franchises really are hampered by the market damage done back in the Old Days, when it really was a Mickey Mouse operation. Now, nobody can watch an MLS game anywhere other than New England and suggest it's a 'mickey mouse' operation. You underestimate the provinciality of large city dwellers. People living in Queens or Upper Manhattan think of New Jersey as being somewhere in Iowa. Yes, it's easy to get to, but this is the attitude they're fighting against. This is why there's a "supporters club" for an NYC2 team that doesn't even exist. They want a "real New York team." (Where to put that stadium, they have no actual suggestions for.) Because selling soccer in the US is not always easy, and selling MLS soccer is even more difficult , especially in markets poisoned by the Bad Old Days. Fine. That's borderline-reasonable. But I realllllly don't think anyone cares about the MLS logo, dude. Except for people who get wood when they see the EPL lion.
I actually think that logo is quite sharp. The new font and the little 'gloss' they added to the old logo looks sweet.
I like a lot of the logos people are dissing in this thread. Even the lame-ish Crew logo has grown on me... the only truly bad logo in MLS is New England
Uh yeah, the perceived lack of quality is the biggest thing holding these league down in terms of new people jumping on board. What is then ? If you say logo, don't bother hitting the submit reply button. Erm .... with everything that has happened at this club .. really ? I'll give you a hint: "Metro forever" The fact that you used these guys as an example, shows just how lost in the sauce you are about what's happened in this league. Yet, the only thing you point out is the logo. So does the Bundesliga logo emulate the same feelings as the MLS logo does ? If not, why ? I do to actually .. and guess who else did those exact same things with their logo ...
Aren't we saying the same thing? "selling soccer in the US is not always easy" Exactly. The league is finally coming around to having a good product - why wrap it up in the same shitty package everyone associates with the "Bad Old Days"? Re: transportation in NYC - that doesn't really apply for sporting/entertainment events. Mets fans from jersey to queens, jets and giants fans from long island to the meadowlands, jones beach (LI) and PNC (way into NJ) for concerts. People make the trek all the time. Eurosnobs - yes. General public - no way. The quality of play is adequate enough to keep new fans entertained for 90 mins and to make some highlight reels for the local news and sportscenter. Sure it would be great if it were top-notch. Baby steps... Easy. The message should be something like: Come see the beautiful game in all it's glory. with the subtext: And if it's your kind of thing, join a supporters group and get shitfaced and sing and shout your brains out for 90 mins. Instead, the reality is, it's: Hey Mom, Dad! Looking for something to do during these dog days of summer??? After you pick up junior from soccer practice (thank goodness he didn't get hurt!) pass out those orange wedges and c'mon down to the stadium for some quality family entertainment. There's going to be a mini dribbling course, and a guy dressed up like a giant soccer ball! Free fluffernutters to the first 1,000 fans! I know MLS is trying to change that, but it's not sticking. They need to rebrand. Changing the logo would be part of that. The fact that you would bring up "Metro Forever" shows how lost in the MLS sauce you are. Seriously? Most people in the NYC are don't even know who the red bulls are. And if they do, it's from seeing some weird new logo on the sports grid schedule in the paper. Most don't even know they were formally the MetroStars (yes - five years later), or that they even play in the same MLS they remember from 15 or so years ago. You really think the attendance problems are due to disgruntled Metro supporters??? The club should be so lucky to have that many people even care. Not really. read back through the thread. This post, even. Also, the thread title is "Time for new MLS logo" Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Again - Bundesliga is not in a position where it's trying to sell a new league of a new sport to new fans.
Your points are all valid, and I'm in favor of a new logo, if not a new brand, but don't make fun of Fluffernutters. That's a quality sandwich
In your opinion it is, but the facts show differently. Nobody paying attention to, or not caring about the changes has nothing to do with the League. It has to do with the general public. That "reality" you talk about went out the window 10yrs ago. The league realized that wasn't the right approach and has more than changed it. Again, change can only happen in so much as it is accepted. If it isn't accepted, again not the league's fault. You're starting to blame the ignorance of the populace on the league. Again, outside of the logo what is sending this message ? Wow, talk about case in point. Thank you. It isn't the fact that they are "disgruntled Metro supporters." It has to do with what happened with the franchise. Corporate takeover and complete selling out. The fans hated everything about it (on the whole) and have major issues with the corporate branding and running of the club. 17,699 avg att as Metros 15,747 avg att as NYRB (including a franchise low season of 12,229) I'd say a good number of the fans from the "Metros" days oh so long ago are reflected in that. However, it doesn't have to do with how you implied that I meant it. Right, I'm the psychic on the hotline ... forgot, sorry. I'll do better at reading what you post before you post it from now on The sport isn't new ... wow guy. The league isn't new either (relatively yes, but an 18yr old business has passed the "new" stage). Also, if you honestly think that the Bundesliga has no need to sell itself then you simply don't understand business. More to the point, you didn't answer the question but rather, dismissed it. The Bundesliga is very, very similar in vein to the MLS logo. The issues that you're attributing to the MLS logo would most definitely apply to the Bundesliga logo and present the same "problems" to the league. That's relevant to the discussion.