FIRST Logo Redesign?

[bEdhEd]

So I know most of you have seen the 2016 game hint for "Stronghold." This has nothing to do with the game, and it seems like it may be an exciting one!

This is about the little changes in the logo that I noticed, which is actually the thing that stood out most to me. To those with less attention to graphic design details, they look alike at a glance. Upon further inspection there are quite a few differences from the balance in composition, the difference in the triangle and square layering, the thickness of the shapes, and the font of the text.

I am a mixed media illustrator and a graphic design amateur (I've worked a lot on 701's branding), this is my personal opinion as a visual artist:

The second logo (2) is my choice right now for the best looking one. Now, I'm not holding an "older is better" bias, because I think logo (2) was a great improvement from the very first logo (1) from a graphic design perspective. Maybe it will grow on me, but logo (3) seems a bit too "cartoony" for my taste, if that makes any sense. I absolutely love the sleek design of logo (2) and it fits the whole high tech image that comes with a program like FIRST. Logo (3), while not much different, has a bit too much balance in the shapes to have an interesting and pleasing composition. Note how the triangle in (2) is placed higher than the one in (3), giving logo (2) a bit more character than the flatter arrangement in logo (3).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying logo (3) is a bad design, It's actually alright, but I just think logo (2) has a more pleasing composition and should stay.

With all this analysis that some may think is overboard, we need to realize that all these changes are made for a reason, and this is what graphic designers have to consider when creating images for branding. If this new logo is what FIRST is going to stick with, then I will have to get used to it, because I think that logo (2) was absolutely perfect, and fit FIRST's image and vision better than logo (3). Although FIRST is about fun, I think the new logo looks a little too "playful," while logo (2) looks sleek and timeless.

These are my views only, not of anyone on my team, and I would like others to share what they think. Do you like it or not? Was it a necessary change, or was the then current logo just fine?

I know the logo holds no ground on the ultimate goal of FIRST as a program for inspiring young minds, but I just wanted to know if anyone else has put any thought into this like I have. Branding and graphic design are very important to me.

[hectorcastillo]

Yeah, I like the second one better, too.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by hectorcastillo

Yeah, I like the second one better, too.

Also, the second logo is what's on the front of my custom autographed FIRST hat that I wear to every event. The second logo text is on the back, as you can see in my WAI pic. I've had plans for a while to make a second one that isn't autographed by Dean and Woodie so that precious piece of memorabilia won't get ruined. If this logo sticks I'll have to opt to have the new logo on it. This isn't bad though. My two hats just wouldn't be identical. I never expected the second logo to change anytime soon since it seemed so perfect.

[asid61]

The only difference that really strikes me is the larger lettering in FIRST. Apart from that, I don't see it having a huge impact on how I live my life.
Interesting find though. I didn't notice it.

[cadandcookies]

Considering how little respect FIRST seems to have for its own branding guidelines, I also wouldn't be surprised if they let Disney do a slightly different version just for the trailer.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Considering how little respect FIRST seems to have for its own branding guidelines, I also wouldn't be surprised if they let Disney do a slightly different version just for the trailer.

Did Disney actually have a part in this, like a corporate partnership/sponsorship? I was reading the other thread about the game, and Disney was mentioned in that thread as well.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Considering how little respect FIRST seems to have for its own branding guidelines, I also wouldn't be surprised if they let Disney do a slightly different version just for the trailer.

FIRST doesn't have to follow the Logo Use guidelines. Those are just for those of us outside of FIRST who want to use it.

[natejo99]

I'm really interested to see this new direction from FIRST. I'm not a fan of the new logo, but I'm open to see what they come up with.

[BlueLipstick]

For some reason it really bothers me that the blue square overlaps the triangle and is on top. That might just be me though.

[Billfred]

I noticed it in the video (but was warned about it too).

I was around for the change to the present logo eleven years ago, and I remember the uproar at first but it settled out. Considering the relative size of the fish I have to fry globally (Championsplit) and locally (the stalled growth in South Carolina and the paucity of nearby events for us now), I'll update the front of the Garnet Squadron shirt and roll on.

[GeeTwo]

I did notice that they had intentionally added a dark background and white text, which definitely improves the clarity of the circle.

I suspect that the pieces are "thicker" to reduce the amount of black. Putting the old logo on a black background would probably be too dark. The larger FIRST also has the same lightening effect.

As for the orientation of the triangle and whether the triangle or square is in the front, and the change in font, I'm completely neutral. The red alliance has been in front for a few years, so let blue have a turn.

On the whole, I like #3 at least as well as #2.

Edit: the rotation of the triangle allows the logo to use a larger fraction of the black rectangle, again keeping the logo from being too dark.

[LeapsAndBowns]

I'm a huge fan of the logo change, and more indifferent on the font change. One thing that really bothered me about the current logo is the weird downward slope of it from the triangle to the square. I love that the logo revision captures a logo that looks pretty much the same prior to inspection, but is much more balanced and sits on a straight line.

The new FIRST font is a bit round and cartoony for my taste, but I definitely like the change for it to be centered on the logo as well as a bit larger relative to the logo. I think it will make for easier use of the logo on letterhead, shirts, publication materials, etc. Whenever I design materials with the current logo, it's a bit weird to work around the asymmetry of it.

[PayneTrain]

I think a benefit to the new version of the logo is the modifications made to it give it a kind of informal symmetry that is more visually pleasing than that of the current, uneven logo.

Modern graphic design has sort of pushed wordmarks and logotype to the background in favor of a more distinct, sharper, and more universal brand mark. That's why I find it bizarre the relative size of the logotype has increased. Sure the FIRST brand does not have a sizable level of ubiquity, but I don't see how the change to the relative size of the logotype helps that.

[dag0620]

It's clear the logo is different. What isn't clear is the intent. It could be a shift in logo for rebranding, it could be a shift in logo just for game related materials to match the art style of the game, or it could be a simple oversight in the production of materials.

I hope that is the second or third possibility, and not the first. The current official logo (#2 in the OP) is still the cleanest and sharpest. #3 really doesn't do anything to further advance the brand, unlike the shift from #1 to #2.

Also, the #2 logo is on EVERYTHING. Yes logos can be changed, but rebranding is typically expensive. This is especially true with the amount of reusable branded items FIRST, the districts, and teams have.

Here's to hoping FIRST Marketing reveals more about the situation soon.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

FIRST doesn't have to follow the Logo Use guidelines. Those are just for those of us outside of FIRST who want to use it.

Technically this is correct. However it is still good practice for any organization to follow it's own branding guidelines. It doesn't really help the brand when they release materials that go against that consistency.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by dag0620

Technically this is correct. However it is still good practice for any organization to follow it's own branding guidelines. It doesn't really help the brand when they release materials that go against that consistency.

Yup, was just pointing out that it's not a function of "respecting the guidelines" (I'm sure they do) it's a function of they have creative freedom.[1] And that their not following the guidelines in this case doesn't give folks a precedent for ignoring the guidelines.



[1] Note that this applies to USFIRST as an organization and NOT the various Districts and other groups affiliated with it.