On 24/10/2010 at 08:24, diesel said:

Yeh, that's where you've gone wrong. You've sought the opinion of corporate types who measure the success of a logo based on the simplistic response of consumers to "buy" in or ignore. The old MFC logo with our red V is identified overall as an "M" by your marketing guru proving his ignorance of the topic which he is studying. Perhaps he designed this?

The red V is synonymous with the MFC but clearly hasn't told this corporate [censored] the story of the MFC, which the new logo does. There is no other club with the story of the MFC and I think to tell it in our logo is a great way to generate pride and place ourselves apart from the the franchise clubs. Yeh it's a bit more complicated but we're not selling Hamburgers.

Actually, it has previously occurred to me that the designer of the "old" logo did intend for it to form an "M" for Melbourne.

Subtle, but they like that sort of thing.

Its all just swings and roundabouts really....

Mr Johnson really has got the hump...did his company miss out on the contract or sumthin???

My 2 cents: reckon it looks pretty good

if you lost the pitchfork, footy and south cross then it would be choice bro!!!

Any chance of someone with photoshopping skills to remove from the emblem the Pitchfork, footy and southern cross???

Cheers in advance

So this thread has now moved on to analysing the CBA logo... :/

To be frank, the CBA's logo is one of the most recognised logo's nationwide and that's something I'd LOVE Melbourne's new emblem/logo to try and reach.

As emblems go its OK. Haven't got a problem with it. But if a club wants to tout its heritage and history then why bother change its emblem at all? Why not bring back our very first original one that was born with the club so we don't have to have all these useless debates and feel the need to change it when we get a new administration or go down in the dumps again.

  On 24/10/2010 at 02:48, rpfc said:

To be honest, I think you are stuck in this "PR, advertising, message-driven" mindset that pervades our society.

This isn't the Gruen Transfer, we are not selling something - we are trying to build something to buy into.

Building a club isn't about product positioning - it's about honouring the past, making the most of the present, and looking to the future.

We sent the entire club to China.

The entire club. And invited past greats. We turned an exhibition game into a 'footy club' trip. The only journo on board is the club journo - Matt Burgan.

This expensive sojourn isn't selling the MFC, it's creating an environment at the club for people to admire.

And our song, ripped off the Americans as it may be, talks of an emblem of the team we love.

What emblem? A figurative one? Left for the imagination?

Schwab and Stynes said "Frack it, let's design an emblem that the club stands for."

It wasn't meant to look good. It was meant to look busy and arrogant and proud.

We will have the one-dimensional demon logos come and go but none will have the meaning and resonance that the emblem has.

I stand by it, and I hope that boards for decades to come stand by it.

  On 24/10/2010 at 04:26, daisycutter said:

Hear, Hear !

Well put

  On 24/10/2010 at 08:04, High Tower said:

Where is that standing ovation emoticon damn it !?

Excellent post.

Ditto to all of the above!

I'm with (or, I dunno, with-ish) AJ on this one. I love the concept of having an emblem that tells the story of the footy club ... I just don't like the execution.

1) I don't like the shiny, 'done-on-a-computer' look that it has. This thing should be timeless, but the way it's rendered screams 'NOW' to me.

2) If you're going to pick a bunch of different elements, then you should make them things that actually have resonance.

To whit ... I love the 'original rules' watermark on the background. Damn right, we invented this game, lets remind people of that. That has meaning.

... but I hate the Southern Cross. Can anybody genuinely tell me that (BEFORE they saw the accompanying video) they had ever associated the Southern Cross with the Melbourne Football Club? If I see the Southern Cross, do I think about the Dees? No, of course not. If you're gonna use symbols like these, then make them symbols with genuine meaning, not 'made-up-in-2010-so-we-could-fill-the-emblem' meaning.

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority here, so I'll shut the heck up after this. Please don't think this means that I'm backing off/defeated/whatever, I just can't be bothered having an argument in which nobody's ever gonna change their mind.

Peace out.

PS --- GO DEES!

  On 24/10/2010 at 11:49, bananas said:

I'm with (or, I dunno, with-ish) AJ on this one. I love the concept of having an emblem that tells the story of the footy club ... I just don't like the execution.

1) I don't like the shiny, 'done-on-a-computer' look that it has. This thing should be timeless, but the way it's rendered screams 'NOW' to me.

2) If you're going to pick a bunch of different elements, then you should make them things that actually have resonance.

To whit ... I love the 'original rules' watermark on the background. Damn right, we invented this game, lets remind people of that. That has meaning.

... but I hate the Southern Cross. Can anybody genuinely tell me that (BEFORE they saw the accompanying video) they had ever associated the Southern Cross with the Melbourne Football Club? If I see the Southern Cross, do I think about the Dees? No, of course not. If you're gonna use symbols like these, then make them symbols with genuine meaning, not 'made-up-in-2010-so-we-could-fill-the-emblem' meaning.

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority here, so I'll shut the heck up after this. Please don't think this means that I'm backing off/defeated/whatever, I just can't be bothered having an argument in which nobody's ever gonna change their mind.

Peace out.

PS --- GO DEES!

The southern cross is nod to the indigenous influence on the game and the club.

I couldn't think of any other way of illustrating the influence of the first Australians other than the star formation that their ancestors would have looked up and seen 80,000 years ago.

Collingwood has the Australian flag the arrogant sh!ts.

We have what the Australian flag should be, and probably will be - the southern cross.

Everyone needs to chill! Cam Schwab has said many times, both here and in his video discussions, that the current Emblem is an Emblem not a LOGO!

He has always indicated that there will be a secondary LOGO featuring a DEMON that was used in the 1960's! That will be our logo, but will be used in conjunction with the Embelm, as I undertsand it!

So one can only assume that the club will designate the Logo for certain purposes and the EMBLEM for others. It will come down to whichever looks best for that particular purpose. For example, The demon LOGO may be the icon used on the AFL site but the EMBLEM may be the thing that stand out on the official sit. TV same sort of deal.

FWIW, I think the EMBLEM is fantastic. Heaps of my mates who support other teams are very jealous of what we have come up with. Least its nothinbg like the Crows or the Paddlepop LIONS !!

I agree that ther eis a bit of overkill and also the rendering and shading annoys me, but there will be a dulled down version more appropriate for merchandise etc!

Just remember the square logo represents the low point of our club, where we threw away all our history and culture (there will be no more demon !), and came as close to losing our club as we ever had.

This emblem is the counter to that, it is full of meaning and character. Every part of it represents something major and significant.

Ah, but you want a logo, ok, there's a Demon for you. Simple and logo-ish.

Something to think about - it seems that when an AFL club restores pride in the past then improvement comes to the club.

Melbourne in the late 80's when they dumped the colour-tv jumper and restored their proper colours.

Brisbane when they went from Bears to Lions.

Sydney when they became the Bloods.

And look at what happened to Melbourne when they went to the block logo,

and Brisbane when they went to the Paddle Pop lion.

Wow, he dares to disagree with the Demonland masses. This guy has balls.

Soon he'll be telling us we're not guaranteed to make the finals next year and the 2013 flag is not 'in the bag'.

I actually agree with the original post, but aren't that fussed. It's ok, but probably has a little too much going on. I like what the club have done on the website, going to the trouble of using past and current Melbourne heores to explain the meaning and history behind everything on there.

It might work in high resolution as a full sized screen saver on your computer, but on a playing jumper, merchandise or as a link to the club's website on the AFL site, there's just too much crammed in there.

  On 24/10/2010 at 23:26, The Jacks said:

Wow, he dares to disagree with the Demonland masses. This guy has balls.

Soon he'll be telling us we're not guaranteed to make the finals next year and the 2013 flag is not 'in the bag'.

I actually agree with the original post, but aren't that fussed. It's ok, but probably has a little too much going on. I like what the club have done on the website, going to the trouble of using past and current Melbourne heores to explain the meaning and history behind everything on there.

It might work in high resolution as a full sized screen saver on your computer, but on a playing jumper, merchandise or as a link to the club's website on the AFL site, there's just too much crammed in there.

Should we care about how it looks on those things.

Or should we care about how it looks when we have a massive crest made for the offices at Olympic Park and Casey.

If you can't see it properly small, then I guess people are just going to have to make it big...

Too much going on...

We ain't selling cereal...

  On 24/10/2010 at 23:30, rpfc said:

Should we care about how it looks on those things.

Or should we care about how it looks when we have a massive crest made for the offices at Olympic Park and Casey.

If you can't see it properly small, then I guess people are just going to have to make it big...

Too much going on...

We ain't selling cereal...

I don't understand what you're saying?

I think it's fine if it's nice & big & clear. If one emblem / logo / crest is going to be used on everything. in all sizes, in all situations, it's a bit [censored].

  On 24/10/2010 at 23:49, The Jacks said:

I don't understand what you're saying?

I think it's fine if it's nice & big & clear. If one emblem / logo / crest is going to be used on everything. in all sizes, in all situations, it's a bit [censored].

Well I don't think it is first and foremost.

But, secondly, I don't care that the AFL link doesn't look great.

  On 25/10/2010 at 00:09, rpfc said:

Well I don't think it is first and foremost.

But, secondly, I don't care that the AFL link doesn't look great.

RPFC - the new logo cant look anyworse than the thing you use as you mokikor. Can anyone recall when this was used in the mid 90's and looked like a giant blue square with a red dot in the middle? It was a giant square with a tiny logo in the middle. It looked pathetic on TV and stuff!

You cant please everyone. The EMBLEM looks good. Leave it at that!

Wouldn't mind seeing the new Demon logo. Any ideas when we may get a glimpse of this?

  On 25/10/2010 at 00:09, rpfc said:

Well I don't think it is first and foremost.

But, secondly, I don't care that the AFL link doesn't look great.

The AFL link screen is too small for most of the logos/emblems anyway (the filth have an emblem too)

Its icon size and not many logos look good/work at that extreme small size

The AFL site would be better off using larger logo/emblems sizes or changing it too just team colours

  On 25/10/2010 at 00:37, Redleg_24 said:

RPFC - the new logo cant look anyworse than the thing you use as you mokikor. Can anyone recall when this was used in the mid 90's and looked like a giant blue square with a red dot in the middle? It was a giant square with a tiny logo in the middle. It looked pathetic on TV and stuff!

You cant please everyone. The EMBLEM looks good. Leave it at that!

Wouldn't mind seeing the new Demon logo. Any ideas when we may get a glimpse of this?

My avatar is a paintshop job.

The actual one was without the blue IIRC.

It didn't look too bad and I am expecting something similar for our next corporate logo.

  On 25/10/2010 at 00:37, daisycutter said:

The AFL link screen is too small for most of the logos/emblems anyway (the filth have an emblem too)

Its icon size and not many logos look good/work at that extreme small size

The AFL site would be better off using larger logo/emblems sizes or changing it too just team colours

Precisely. The EMBLEM/LOGO would be used where and when appropriate! Horses for courses. As you also rightly have pointed out, all LOGOS/EMBLEMS look pretty ordinary on the AFL site. I have no problems with it.

  On 25/10/2010 at 00:53, rpfc said:

My avatar is a paintshop job.

The actual one was without the blue IIRC.

It didn't look too bad and I am expecting something similar for our next corporate logo.

I hope you have no experience as a graphic designer!

The days of that Logo are well and truely past. The new demon is completely different. We have moved on from that era, so should you!

I just checked out the AFL website and i agree that our emblem shouldn't be used in that capacity, while i absolutely LOVE what they've come up with it has far too much going on to be used as a button.

If we were wanting to go with something like that i would simply remove much of the paraphernalia inside the emblem and just leave the red and blue in a shield with our name above it (instead of below). Having said that, you look at the tigers logo, which has been around for yonks, and it's barely recognisable but ultimately it's the colours that stand out and that is much the same with ours.

Using the emblem as a thumbnail is the AFL's mistake.

Must be the first one I can recall them making in recent years...

  On 24/10/2010 at 01:27, E25 said:

I remember when this above logo came under criticism on this forum and I supported it.

I think it's a fantastic logo, but it is a brilliant corporate logo.

And what I came to realize, with the help of other posters at the time, is that an AFL club is not a corporation and their needs are very different.

Judged by the standards of a "logo" it is quite good, but it is cold and doesn't in any way ignite the passion of supporters.

Besides the colours, the name and the yolk, it doesn't convey any of he senseof belonging to a football club.

It is simple, straightforward, to the point.

It is largely bereft of meaning.

The emblem means something and evokes a number of images and memories, and this is it's purpose.

Still, some fail to recognize this.

The emblem is about evoking a reaction and inciting emotions in the audience through symbolism.

The intended audience is an MFC supporter, who should understand the meaning behind each facet of the emblem.

It leads to questions of "why?" for those who don't know and it serves as a reminder and educational tool of the rich history of our club.

It does that for me.

So you supported a logo that represented us at quite possibly our lowest in the history of the club, a time when we came FAR closer to collapsing than we did back in 96 and at any other time? How exactly does that make it a fantastic logo? It was a complete annihilation of our culture, even going as far as to ditch our beloved, embraced mascot of the Demon. You don't do that, because even if you or I don't embrace that Demon, it's The Demons that won the 1964 Grand Final. Not "Melbourne FC". Or is it "Melbournefc", a rather hilariously moronic attempt at dressing up a bold and rather insulting corporate rebranding. That logo made this club appealing to conservative Chinese companies that were willing to break into Australia through cheap sponsorship. The logo means quite a lot, especially with a sports team that would be considered by a business team as an entertainment venture. Those in charge of the club at the time weren't willing to maintain the club's iconic history and culture, but were quite intent on taking the easy way out and dealing quite extensively with wealthy Chinese investors. They did that, and it failed miserably, perhaps bad kharma for ditching something so many people appreciated, all in favor of exploiting a land and hiding our fusion with a mascot as striking as the Demon. We went from having a decent brand, to having a grey corporate brand that had no history. This current logo might not last the ages, but it at least helps build the brand through messages. People will associate with it, and people want that sense of belonging (membership) and being part of something historically influential. This new logo screams all of those things in some way, even if it is Hollywood'd up to stand out. Our demon is part of our image, and to not reference it or show it is marketing suicide for a football club that has such a small brand anyway.

  On 25/10/2010 at 05:10, calabreseboy said:

So you supported a logo that represented us at quite possibly our lowest in the history of the club, a time when we came FAR closer to collapsing than we did back in 96 and at any other time? How exactly does that make it a fantastic logo? It was a complete annihilation of our culture, even going as far as to ditch our beloved, embraced mascot of the Demon. You don't do that, because even if you or I don't embrace that Demon, it's The Demons that won the 1964 Grand Final. Not "Melbourne FC". Or is it "Melbournefc", a rather hilariously moronic attempt at dressing up a bold and rather insulting corporate rebranding. That logo made this club appealing to conservative Chinese companies that were willing to break into Australia through cheap sponsorship. The logo means quite a lot, especially with a sports team that would be considered by a business team as an entertainment venture. Those in charge of the club at the time weren't willing to maintain the club's iconic history and culture, but were quite intent on taking the easy way out and dealing quite extensively with wealthy Chinese investors. They did that, and it failed miserably, perhaps bad kharma for ditching something so many people appreciated, all in favor of exploiting a land and hiding our fusion with a mascot as striking as the Demon. We went from having a decent brand, to having a grey corporate brand that had no history. This current logo might not last the ages, but it at least helps build the brand through messages. People will associate with it, and people want that sense of belonging (membership) and being part of something historically influential. This new logo screams all of those things in some way, even if it is Hollywood'd up to stand out. Our demon is part of our image, and to not reference it or show it is marketing suicide for a football club that has such a small brand anyway.

THE DEMON IS COMING BACK too! yeah.. let's rejoice..and we have a shield like emblem that embraces our histoy..excelllent! This is all 100% good. Please relax people.

  On 25/10/2010 at 05:10, calabreseboy said:

So you supported a logo that represented us at quite possibly our lowest in the history of the club, a time when we came FAR closer to collapsing than we did back in 96 and at any other time? How exactly does that make it a fantastic logo? It was a complete annihilation of our culture, even going as far as to ditch our beloved, embraced mascot of the Demon. You don't do that, because even if you or I don't embrace that Demon, it's The Demons that won the 1964 Grand Final. Not "Melbourne FC". Or is it "Melbournefc", a rather hilariously moronic attempt at dressing up a bold and rather insulting corporate rebranding. That logo made this club appealing to conservative Chinese companies that were willing to break into Australia through cheap sponsorship. The logo means quite a lot, especially with a sports team that would be considered by a business team as an entertainment venture. Those in charge of the club at the time weren't willing to maintain the club's iconic history and culture, but were quite intent on taking the easy way out and dealing quite extensively with wealthy Chinese investors. They did that, and it failed miserably, perhaps bad kharma for ditching something so many people appreciated, all in favor of exploiting a land and hiding our fusion with a mascot as striking as the Demon. We went from having a decent brand, to having a grey corporate brand that had no history. This current logo might not last the ages, but it at least helps build the brand through messages. People will associate with it, and people want that sense of belonging (membership) and being part of something historically influential. This new logo screams all of those things in some way, even if it is Hollywood'd up to stand out. Our demon is part of our image, and to not reference it or show it is marketing suicide for a football club that has such a small brand anyway.

Wow.

Textbook point-missage.

Impressively bad.

PM me your details and I'll send you your prize of a fun-size mars bar.

  On 24/10/2010 at 22:00, Redleg_24 said:

Everyone needs to chill! Cam Schwab has said many times, both here and in his video discussions, that the current Emblem is an Emblem not a LOGO!

He has always indicated that there will be a secondary LOGO featuring a DEMON that was used in the 1960's! That will be our logo, but will be used in conjunction with the Embelm, as I undertsand it!

So one can only assume that the club will designate the Logo for certain purposes and the EMBLEM for others. It will come down to whichever looks best for that particular purpose. For example, The demon LOGO may be the icon used on the AFL site but the EMBLEM may be the thing that stand out on the official sit. TV same sort of deal.

FWIW, I think the EMBLEM is fantastic. Heaps of my mates who support other teams are very jealous of what we have come up with. Least its nothinbg like the Crows or the Paddlepop LIONS !!

I agree that ther eis a bit of overkill and also the rendering and shading annoys me, but there will be a dulled down version more appropriate for merchandise etc!

From Cameron Schwab's Tweet on August 7:

"Seems to be a tad of confusion about emblem and logo. The emblem and the logo are one and the same. Called 'The Emblem' for obvious reasons"

There may be a Demon logo as well as a secondary logo, much in the same way that this years membership cards had a Demon on them, but The Emblem is the logo.

  On 25/10/2010 at 08:05, Clint Bizkit said:

From Cameron Schwab's Tweet on August 7:

"Seems to be a tad of confusion about emblem and logo. The emblem and the logo are one and the same. Called 'The Emblem' for obvious reasons"

There may be a Demon logo as well as a secondary logo, much in the same way that this years membership cards had a Demon on them, but The Emblem is the logo.

Hmmmm, some confusing tautology there Clint. He might have been trying to simplify things but it just confuses it for me, YMMV but