Revealing article about the politics behind the last logo design! Good Read!

LOL! (it's a show on Bravo, for those who didn't get it). I can just imagine the . . . um . . . experts talking about how fabulous Stevie and Cat would look wearing different logos.

Seriously, though-- terrific read. There's one thing I don't understand. Why would the NBA insist on blue? This I don't buy. If the Rockets really felt strongly about red, held true to their brand and identity, there's no way the NBA would have mandated they change color schemes.

Can you imagine David Stern telling the Celtics that the green has to go, the new HOT color is orange? No. Maybe the NBA had some suggestions, had some influence, but I absolutely don't think the Rockets organization was pushed into a corner.

 

I'm pretty sure the Rockets were on-board with the league. I remember from the time that the Rockets were saying they weren't selling as much merchandise as they should expect, considering their market and success. They blamed the color scheme, saying kids didn't want to wear red. So, they were looking for the most profitable color scheme so they could sell more shirts. The league probably put together a report that said blue would sell better and Alexander okayed it. It sounds to me that, at the time, the NBA was very intrusive about branding. I'm sure they learned some lessons from how the Rockets unis were received (not to mention the Raptors and others). Hopefully Alexander learned something about handling his brand too. They know enough now, at least, to know that the Rockets must be red, regardless of color trends. Maybe next time Alexander will know to leave the logo to someone specializing in logos and not let someone from another industry do it for him.

 

They should never have messed with the classic logo, period.

 

You don't make excuses in this industry. You just do what people pay you to do. If you don't want anyone to know you did it, just don't put it in your portfolio.

Believe me, I understand his frustration as a creative person and I completely sympathize, but it comes with the territory when you do a creative service for a major corporation.

By the way, I am not a musician for a living. I am a web developer for a living who can empathize because the Rockets are one of our clients as well. It can be difficult to balance your own personal opinions and ideas with that of your clients, but that is the nature of the business.

 

Probably, but since we are the Rockets, there's no reason why our team can't incorperate the name some how. I mean, for the Lakers, having a lake somewhere would look stupid, but for the Rockets, it makes sense. We should have used the old San Diego logo and modernized it and changed the colors.


What irks me the most about this article though was how they didn't want Houston to be incorporated in the logo and for some reason, they decided to do the same with the new logo. That, as a Houstonian, is unforgivable and infuriating.

 

I understand that Jeff, sorry about the sharp tounged comment, the post just seemed ironic coming from you. I think his beef is more along the lines that the NBA had no idea what they were doing. I think a graphic designer fully understands that his job is to appeal to the masses. He probably felt at the time the logo was silly and wouldn't appeal to the masses. But I can understand your point about making excuses.

 

On the other hand Doctor, how do we know, with this "one of a kind" logo, that the NBA isn't headed in a new direction AGAIN in controlling teams' logos and uniforms? The cartoon phase crashed and burned so they went in "retro mode" and, lately, "cleaner", simpler looks. Just because there's nothing like our new logo doesn't mean the Rockets aren't conforming to the league's latest marketing strategy.

As was pointed out earlier, the word was that there was a delay in the new Rocket uniform a few months back because the league didn't like the designs that were presented. If so, then the league is still very much the "evil empire" telling its subjects what to wear.

 

Chris Hill's design firm has a pretty strong reputation in Houston and outside. I don't think he has any worries with backlash from his statements. It's just a case study that he disagreed with the client but still delivered. And the client regretted not listening, to the point Les gutted the whole decision team who handled the project. I don't think a prospective client would be worried about his statements.

btw: Chris Hill did this:

<img src="http://www.hillgroupdesign.com/data/files/portfolio/identities/zoomed/4_1.gif">

Anyone want to photoshop how Yoko would have done that!! hehe

 

I'd kinda like to hear what Tim has to say about Chris Hill's statements, the NBA's involvement, and the Rockets' position. There's always more than one side to a coin.

Also, is the NBA less/more involved with the current re-branding than it was before? Has there been any UAT (User Acceptance Testing?) (meaning: have they shown the logo and uniforms to various testing groups to analyze their responses?). Is marketing still the primary factor? If red wasn't selling (resulting in a switch to blue), why is the new brand red? What is the fastest land animal?

...okay, the cheetah is the fastest land animal.... but the rest are pretty good questions.

-- droxford

 

I don't think Tim was with the Rockets in 95.

 

Hey, I didn't find him anywhere in the '00-'01 media guide.

He hasn't been there long enough to experience our hatred.

 

If it was true that the NBA front office dictated the Rockets to not use the name Houston and go from Red to Blue then those people are really nuts! (put it milldy)

I hate it when people in charge are morons!!

 

We can answer it in here or start a new thread, which would you prefer? Would you have reacted as strongly to the change had it been this:

 

the colors remind me of Golden State.

 

If the league rejected the first design, then they were probably not in control of the process. They may have exerted some influence on the Rockets, but not on the process and concept. The Rockets had to have been in the driver's seat to accomplish what they did.

The Cavalier logo, which is much more similar to other recent cartoonish designs, also shows that the league is not mandating simplicity in the latest round of re-designs. Also, the selection of a "Bobcat" for the new Charlotte expansion is just begging for a hideous and cartoonish logo. Can't wait to see that one.

BTW, the alternate red and gold logo that is shown with the smaller orbiting rocket is really not that much different than the logo they went with. It has exactly the same personality and character, with just a few different features and colors. Just another version of the same thing.

 

What, you haven't seen this?:

 

Sour Grapes.

Move on Chris and grow the freaking up. I love the new logo and I believe it is going to be a wonderful trade mark down the road for many many years to come.

 

I've been wondering... what took the Rockets so long to change their uniforms? If I'm not mistaken, people have been bashing the uniform since day one. Why did it take around 7 years? They didn't even have to change the logo, just do a few uniform tweaks? There were some teams that changed their uniform more than once in a shorter time period, such as the Sonics, Cavs, Hawks, etc...

 

Well I find this somewhat amusing:

http://www.nba.com/inside_stuff/IS_qotw_030116.html

Read what Stackhouse said.

 

Ditto. I'm thinking the "team" that decided on this logo will be gone soon enough and we'll be on to another logo in 5 or 6 years. Hopefully we'll get that one right.