Why do you (honestly) think that? Is real estate typically represented with shields/badges of that shape or motif?
The trend for these way over-simplified "we're just trying to be simple and twitter friendly" is killing the look. What's depressing is that they're getting worse, not better. KC was meh at first, but it was unique. The Cluster-F that is the Quakes logo was depressing, but I hate SJ, so whatever. But Man, this love affair with dead-space needs to end.
It may be "killing the look" in your opinion, but the overall business (in KC or SJ or MLS as a whole) seems to be doing quite well, regardless of what the logo/crest/branding is (or is not) actually doing. There are legitimate and good technological advances and communicative and business trends that are pushing these designs in the direction they are going.
Most valuable brand marks Can we get over the idea that somehow the logo needs to either a) Show a soccer ball so people know what we do or b) Say Major League Soccer because, god forbid people think we're a real estate listing service. The logo will get associated with the brand. When MLS takes hold, everyone will know who it is and what they do.
It's alright only because the teams will be able to put whatever they want in the blank space. You know they will. Then MLS will find itself doing the same. So no. Long term it will not be boring
shields are hardly exclusive to soccer or sports in general. harley davidson has a shield, so does ups, wd-40, and most car companies. there's really nothing to indicate that this is a soccer league
Yes. But that wasn't my question. (And real estate listing services don't seem to do that, do they? They don't even have a logo/brandmark, or one that is prominently displayed on their website, afaik.) The "MLS" part does a fairly good job of that, imo. (ymmv.)
Like I said, I was meh about KC, but it was unique. Also, there's only 500 other reasons why KC is doing well. SJ, well, it's doing maybe as well as it ever has, not sure if "quite well" is the right terminology. Should we do an analysis of merchandise sales in a year from now as compared to a number of other brands?
No, I just think we need to look at this logo/crest as what it is (and nothing more really). As you say, there are about 500 other things (and most of them "more important" ones) that are impacting the business of MLS and its clubs.
See, this would have worked: I'd have been fine with that. I still don't think the little dangly bit at the bottom left is necessary at all. So this would have been even better: There, sorted. Gets your colors, gets your slash, gets your two halves, gets your stars, gets your tradition, gets rid of your empty white space, gets rid of your dangly bit.
That's not Microsofts logo anymore. For me, its about the identity of the league and how it inspires people to be a part of it. I agree - the color-shifting is clever. It's integration of every team in the league may well end up being revolutionary. However - simply saying "look, its simple! like Apple!" is an insult to the folks who developed the brand identity for Apple over the course of 30 years. (And SJ's crest really bites the big one.)
Okay, I'm late to the party, but here's my take. Any logo that looks like it can be duplicated by a child using Microsoft Paint, while losing little to none of the detail, is not a logo worthy of a league that aspires to be one of the best in the world. For cryin' out loud, they couldn't even be arsed to create a custom font treatment for "MLS"? It literally looks like they positioned a cursor in that area, chose a generic san-serif font from the dropdown, typed "M-L-S" and called it a day! Not a single element of this logo has one bit of customization to it. Not one! Not the letters, not the stars, not the lines. They are all pure generic forms you should be able to find in any image drawing program. Do they focus test this sh*t at all? If they did, they must have misinterpreted the blank stares of disbelief as "awed into silence". ------RM
I have to admit, they really nailed the new #DCU #MLS logo #ANGRYJOEWILLIS. pic.twitter.com/zMgjZmpBzZ— Pablo Iglesias Maurer (@MLSist) September 18, 2014
So what I'm getting from this thread is that the new logo is better because... 1. The colors are interchangeable with team colors (which could be done with any logo that isnt overly complicated) 2. The white space (so we can add elements actually worth looking at) 3. No soccer ball (uhh....because why again?) Also the kickstand is pointless and the stars are already alienating some Canadian fans. I like minimalism but I like it only when its done right. And when you add superfluous elements like the aforementioned kickstand, which by the way no amount of marketing speak will sufficiently explain away, then you end up missing the point.
That's not what he was saying. He was responding to the earlier post said that a logo is a failure if it doesn't make a visible connection to what it is that a company does.
I think the kickstand is useful in that it gives the crest "something" -- and that "something," as weird or as useless as it may be, is useful in some real marketing (and "people talking about us") sort of sense. (But yeah, at some point, they could easily just remove that kickstand -- maybe when they are indeed among the best leagues in the world and don't need the support of SUM.)
Uhhhh ya, not only is this not applicable, but it actually proves my point. Apple. It's that simple, it's a logo that represents the company Apple. But beyond that it's tough to compare a simple logo like Apple's to MLS' new logo....because, well, Apple is the most valuable company in the world and EVERYONE knows who they are. MLS, on the other hand, is maybe the 5th most popular professional sports league in the US and is trying to grow it's product into something people can readily recognize. This logo doesn't help with that, it doesn't create a link between what the logo visualizes and what it's trying to represent.