You can’t blame people confusing the logo with other things in the market solely on the logo? I mean, there aren’t many real estate companies in Naperville that I’m familiar enough with to confuse their logo for the new one, and the old logo specifically uses imagery associated with municipal fire departments, so while I get you were throwing something random out there to compare to the new logo, the issue that the old one has had was caused more by specificity than randomness. FWIW, if a real estate company in Naperville was using the teams current logo they’d probably be dealing with similar brand confusion, too. Hell any entity using the team’s current crest would have to deal with that, so I can see why they want to make something that says “soccer club” (of football club lol) but this ain’t it. And yes, sucking and playing in Bridgeview and all of the other stuff has contributed to brand apathy (that’s a thing suit-wearing people say, right?), but it’s hard to blame those things for people thinking the team is associated to the fire department or show or whatever. Again, if the team wants to stick with that name, great (saves me some cash)- deal with the ambiguity and maybe at some point years after we’re all dead the team just might be at least one of the first things most Chicagoans think of when the hear the words “Chicago Fire”. But the logo isn’t the problem with the brand- it’s 100% on brand and I think the team just has to reconcile that they can either deal with the good and bad of the brand or ditch it rather than trying to.... ******** man I still don’t what this is an attempt after seeing that thing.
People say this a lot, but I don't think it's true. The idea that the badge has anything whatsoever to do with the total irrelevancy of the team is a very bizarre notion to me. It's not confusing or unrecognizable at all.
Not what I'm saying though. @Old Man! is right that it's a multifactoral problem. I'm simply saying it's not well recognized for a number of reasons, both in design and the fact the team has been in the wilderness, but the design has its own challenges that haven't gone away and existed even in the earlier glory days of the team.
Again I just fundamentally disagree. The idea that the Fire logo would be confused for a generic fire department logo is exactly as relevant of a concern as RBNY's logo being confused for an energy drink or Philadelphia's being confused for some local pipe-fitter's union. It's just a really bizarre claim. As opposed to the very concrete issue with the club's name that it appears nowhere on the landing screen when you search it on Google. THAT'S a problem.
I've seen it confused for the fire department logo with my own eyes on more than one occasion and have seen others mention it here and on reddit. Is it keeping people from cheering for the team? No, but it is an element of brand confusion that's going to stick around if you use that badge as a logo for a professional soccer team, especially one with 'Fire' in the name. I've mentioned SEO being an issue before- also a problem in this day and age, and it doesn't help eliminate brand confusion at all. The soccer team shows up for me when searching google, but it's still half way down the results, and that's despite the fact that BigSoccer, MLS, World Soccer Shop, et al are all very prominent in my browser history. For someone that's not browsing soccer sites, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the team didn't show up on the first page. Again, not the be-all-end-all, but not optimal in as crowded a sports/entertainment market as Chicago.
I mean, no other team in MLS has felt the need to do this to any of their standalone merch as they were doing a few years ago. And yeah, @harrylee773 it's happened to me quite a bit too with my Fire crap. It's frustrating when you're trying to be an evangelist for the team. Also from a business standpoint it's something that will frustrate the sponsors when "official whatever of the [logo]" doesn't immediately get the point across when you flash it across an ad. I do disagree with you that the team "Chicago Fire" has to directly refer to a fire department though. You can still have all the mythology of the rebirth of the city and whatnot without that.
Again, a zero-information person would make the same confusion with the Philadelphia Union (or RBNY, but in some sense that confusion is part of the point of that sponsorship, so I guess that's kinda different). You don't know what a thing is if you don't know what a thing is, that's inherent. This reminds me of an old clip I once saw of Red Grange talking about meeting Calvin Coolidge at the White House with George Halas and upon being introduced as "with the Chicago Bears" Coolidge replied "I always like animal acts".
And the idea that someone would look at this new thing and clearly understand "ah yes, this is the local soccer club", pretty far-fetched.
I am agnostic about a "logo change" and even a "name change." I do not believe it is necessary, but I can understand and accept the concept I see @harrylee773 's point about confusion and I see @Old Man! 's point that this is a multi-focus problem. Prior to the move to Bridgeview (and the NBC tv show) there was little confusion. It was well known in Chicago and generally seen as an homage to the City and its history (as opposed to, say, Dallas Burn and their weird flaming-nostril horse-"The team was given its name for the burning in the Texan oilfields and the state's hot weather"? Nonsense). The big problem is not the name and the logo, but that the Fire have largely been forgotten outside of a few thousand soccer enthusiasts, their friends/family and a bit of recognition in the parks/youth soccer world. There is no general perception of the team and they have had almost no presence outside for a decade. If a "soft reband" up to and including a logo and/or name change are required to jump start the Fire to regain a modicum of relevance, I am okay with that. However, that ridiculous, meaningless and disgustingly colored monstrosity is not the way to go. It has no resonance and no relevance to anything. Pairing it with the name "Chicago Fire" makes no sense, either. I won't buy any bull crap about the "red and yellow" reflecting the Great Chicago Fire or any such nonsense. It is amazingly 1990's (in the way Tampa Bay's logo was and the Fire's logo is NOT), it flies in the face of the trend of improving names and logos throughout MLS' brief history: Columbus, people may think the new logo is "Euro poseur" or something, but it is a damned sight better than the construction crew. KC-I don't have to remind anyone of the "Wiz" and "Wizards." San Jose-the ridiculous scorpion thing to a classy blue and black. I have pissed away the past half hour or so looking at MLS logos and I still think the Fire's logo is one of the best. This new thing would rank as the worst: The color scheme makes no sense. The graphic is idiotic. Pairing it with "Chicago Fire FC" makes no f'n sense at all.
Yeah, those are a little more abstract and tougher to pull off, but sure, you can refer to those and leave it to the evangelists to explain how those should inspire one to cheer for a soccer club just as they have had to with the cross. I just don't know that you could do better than the current logo with either of those concepts either. I'm pretty sure I saw many RBNY fans make that same claim when they rebranded, and as for Philly, that goes back to the random/specific binary I mentioned earlier. Maybe if there were a specific union that used a similar logo and was widely-known it would cause confusion, I dunno - but the Fire's current logo shares elements with one of the city's fire department logos so it almost asks for confusion. I mean, I guess if you're telling me that you don't think it's being confused for the local fire department even though I've seen it happen we aren't going to find common ground here. Well, okay, except for this - no disagreement from me here.
They could have added "Soccer" vertically to the left side of the logo and "Club/Team" vertically to the right.
Plus, I wouldn't really model the Union as a model franchise in terms of getting their brand out there, though they at least have the snake element that's unique and stands out that they can use. Their badge is kind of a mess and I wish they overhauled it more when they updated it two years ago.
I would have increased the width of the circle on the inside and popped it in there. I wish I had photoshop skills.
You said "many RBNY fans" ! That is pretty funny in its own right. And, yes, Red Bull New York/ New York Red Bulls IS a brand identification and it sucks. It is 95% confusing for the average person, but Red Bull probably does not care, since it all goes back to them.
I want to add a caveat that I absolutely do not believe that the "leaked" logo is what will be revealed this week. Having pissed away a half hour looking at MLS logos, and spent a bit of time staring at the abomination that has been leaked, I would prefer that we keep the logo and change the name, if it comes to that. I have pissed away the subsequent half hour looking at the USPTO office and have gone through pretty much every live entry under Boolean searches for "Chicago" "Fire" "Soccer" Football" etc. Chicago and Soccer had 423 hits. I looked at just about every "live" entry. Chicago and Fire had over 900 hits. I scrolled through and looked at what appeared to be relevant. I do not see this logo having been trademarked. They would not reveal it without trademarking it. By the way, this one has been abandoned. I would be okay with something like this. Not thrilled with "Chicago City" but the rest would be acceptable.
I just want to focus on this, because there's a lot to unpack there and I'm just taking a wait and see as to whether the leak is real or fake or other or whatever. I'd absolutely be okay with this, too - there's the overlap of confusion caused by the fact that the name and logo make it easy for disinterested parties to be confused. I'm sure people would still make the connection to the fire department even without the word 'Fire' in the name, but I think it would be reduced if there was a history of the symbol being related to "Chicago Soccer" somehow, without the name 'Fire' attached to it. Plus, I wouldn't have to go out buy a bunch of new merch. Also, the fan concepts of the logo with the elements of the cross dropped would be acceptable to me as well - just dropping everything outside of the six pointed star from the logo while ditching 'Fire' from the name AND keeping the kits would work, too. Plus, I wouldn't have to go out and buy new merch. Basically, I wan't something that's different enough to signify big change but similar enough that I don't have to go out and buy new merch. (yes, I'm aware that I don't HAVE to, but, you know ...)
I showed this to my wife, who doesn't really care about soccer/the Fire but for my emtional investment in this, but is a serious booster of Chicago, and her reaction was "Whaaa...., what is it supposed to be? How does that relate to Chicago?"