15 Comments Add your own

• 1. Todd Falkowsky  |  July 25th, 2011 at 08:56

  This looks like student work…was there an agency involved? Who did the brand/design/communications work?

• 2. Abel  |  July 25th, 2011 at 09:36

  i agree with todd….doesnt look that profesional.

• 3. gdurrell  |  July 25th, 2011 at 09:37

  good article can be found here:

  http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/winnipeg_hockey_gets_bellicose.php

• 4. Carry NA  |  July 25th, 2011 at 10:17

  I agree, “lost design opp” and I also do not like the military reference. This is a dangerous design direction and hopefully will not spread outside of Manitoba.

• 5. Cam Hoff  |  July 25th, 2011 at 11:09

  I think the primary logo is more suited as a secondary logo / shoulder patch. Though it does need some refinement. It’s overly busy and the individual elements blend together into a messy jagged blob. What bothers me most though is where the jet nose breaks the circle, the white release is way to thick and my eye just gets stuck there.

  The script is also poorly rendered and obviously the work of an inexperienced typographer. That might be the source of all the “student work” comments.

  I think a lot of people, including myself, were hoping for an evolution of the old classic Jets logo. Bringing that old mark into 2011. Hopefully with enough backlash they’ll rethink this and maybe go in that direction.

  It’s the same deal as it was with the team name, people didn’t want something new (Monarchs etc.) They wanted their Jets back. You’ve got to tie it in with the old.

• 6. Matt Warburton  |  July 25th, 2011 at 11:39

  As an avid hockey player/fan and a designer, I actually don’t mind the basic jet/roundel symbol. Sure it could be better resolved, but rather like mainstream beer labels, the design can’t be too good otherwise it won’t look “authentic”. I like the connection to Canada’s aviation history and the name of the team (Jets). What I really like is that it doesn’t have a hockey stick in it, which is what the NHL’s designers usually do, but perhaps that’s due to the majority of new logos being for sunbelt teams where people don’t even know what hockey is. Winnipeg is an educated market so they didn’t need to dumb it down with a puck or a stick.

  I really don’t think they spent enough time on the shield or the script, both of which look like they were done by different design teams with no communication between any of them. The script especially is very poorly done. I made a comparison on the GDC Listserve (http://www.gdc.net/designers/listserv.php) to the Toronto Blue Jays wordmark which is beautifully rendered. This is not. Maybe something that looked like the scripts that are used on fighter planes or jets would have been more appropriate than this?

  I do feel (slightly) for Cargo Collective as this whole design reeks of their spec proposal, down to the layout of the pages from the presentation. Serves them right for doing spec work and publishing it online the way way they do!!

• 7. J-Ray  |  July 25th, 2011 at 11:47

  It’s a bit premature to judge without seeing the applications: jerseys, etc. The primary mark is pretty good: nothing groundbreaking, but still better than some of the NHL teams out there.

• 8. Justin  |  July 25th, 2011 at 12:09

  Speaking as a very recent student designer, I agree with Todd’s analysis of the logo & supporting logos. If this was my work, it would not be in the portfolio-worthy pile. At every turn it’s missed opportunities, visual messes, and amateurish typography.

  The Jets have a reasonable amount of history for a designer to draw on, and it’s clear that either the people behind this have very little understanding of that, or the project ended up like this thanks to the curse of “design by committee”.

  For a glimpse of the missed potential, check out what James White put together for fun: http://tinyurl.com/3n8cjtr (using TinyURL because G+ has ridiculously awkward URLs…hopefully folks can see the work without having to have a G+ account).

• 9. Cole  |  July 25th, 2011 at 12:15

  Speaking of “hot air from the peanut gallery,” all this catty back-and-forth isn’t furthering anything but the speaker’s sense of self-worth.

  Furthermore, comments like “[put] a name on the comments and we can gauge design comment value” is just design-ego-stroking. The idea of a team logo has more to do with creating something of value for the team’s fan-base than it does with impressing elitist designers. I hate hearing comments that attempt to elevate the designer as somehow superior to the viewer/user. Nonsense.

  On with the discussion.

  I love the sober tone that has been evoked by this design. The primary marque, while perhaps a little too packed with ideas, responds to what I presume the brief was in a fantastic way. Yes, at small sizes it becomes less comprehensible. But a brief examination of other team logos (L.A. Kings, Buffalo Sabers, Columbus Blue Jackets, Nashville Predators, Minnesota Wild) reveals that this is not uncommon. Team logos traditionally have a lot going on visually (as is usually the case when the design has to be approved by a committee).

  Having said that, I think that there are elements of the design of the primary marque that will save it even at small sizes/distance viewing. The “notch” pointing North (wonder where that came from…) and the generous interior white space will definitely contribute to recognition (just as large counters in type design aid in legibility).

  Another comparison to other NHL team logos reveals, to me, that this is an incredibly tasteful design among a sea of atrocities. We’re usually given rampant/rabid-looking animals, furious neon colours and heavy-handed strokes all over the place. By contrast, the new Jets insignia is calm, considered and entirely relevant to the team name. And let’s be honest — no one would have cared for an identity system for the Winnipeg Jets that did not involve the rendering of an actual jet somewhere in the logo.

  I think this was handled entirely professionally, and the reference to the RCAF adds to the romantic, historical aspect of it (when was the last time you could attribute the concept of romanticism to a sports logo?). This identity is a bold move, and such executions usually meet a tidal wave of backlash — people generally dislike drastic change, even if it’s for the better.

  But I, for one, congratulate those who developed this identity. Well done, indeed. (Except for that word marque… somebody get a typographer in there.)

• 10. Justin  |  July 25th, 2011 at 12:17

  Matt—do you have a link to Cargo Collective’s spec proposal? I use Cargo for my portfolio, and all I can find on the Cargo site for the Jets is a joint spec proposal from Fraser Davidson and Brian Gundell…hosted on Cargo, but not affiliated with the Cargo crew itself in any other way.

• 11. Cole  |  July 25th, 2011 at 12:33

  For the record, it looks as though the argumentative posts I first mentioned have been removed. No, I’m not hearing voices!

• 12. Justin  |  July 25th, 2011 at 12:39

  Quick note: James White has posted his case study to his blog at http://blog.signalnoise.com/2011/07/25/my-winnipeg-jets-logo/

  I agree with his assessment that the official logo isn’t a worst-case situation…but I think the flack it’s taking is entirely appropriate given the designs.

• 13. Brent  |  July 26th, 2011 at 04:32

  I don’t think I will if this will become the standard. The community has an opinion and chooses to voice it here, good or bad. If I wanted censorship, I’d call the CRTC.

• 14. Winnipeg Jets New Look | &hellip  |  August 31st, 2011 at 09:33

  [...] the game the morning after at the office, or debating the merits of an athlete while over a beer. The CANADIAN DESIGN RESOURCE » Winnipeg Jets Brand Book. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

• 15. Winnipeg Jets New Look | &hellip  |  September 1st, 2011 at 09:43

  [...] The CANADIAN DESIGN RESOURCE » Winnipeg Jets Brand Book. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed