Thanks for your historical input Jarusa. It is always a great reference.

This thread is not about change per se, nor is it about winning games. This thread is about the quality of the design of the monogram, and how it got to look like it does.

When Ferrari or Coke modify the look of their mark it generates much public debate, because people are passionate about what they identify with. Guarranteed, these companies don't make logo changes without good reason and research. And they would be hiring the professional deisgners to achieve a strong, smart result.

So my questions are...
1. Why change from 'notches' to sans notches?
2. Who pushed for the change?
3. Was a qualified designer or typographer involved in re-designing the monogram

If anything the new design is closer to the old 1933-1997 design everyone loves than the notch design of 1998-2005 which to me is more associated with the pre-1933 monograms.

Serifs andf Notches on fonts (and it really is fonts we are talking about because it is a monogram) to me represent old fashioned 'curvy' style fonts.

In that respect anything with serifs and notches looks old fashioned.

The 1933-1997 monogram had no notches and minimal serifs and looked nice and strong and bold and modern before it's time

I like the concept of the new design for the same reasons I like the 1933-1997 desisn. Perhaps they can tweak it a bit to make it look more balanced but that would be all I would do at this stage.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

There are hundreds of current logos that feature serifs. Just go the bottle shop and have a look at the labels. Why dont BECK'S get rid of their serifs and get all 'modern'? Same with Coke - sack the swashes, get 'modern'!

Serifs/notches aren't necessarly old or bad. They have a traditional feel, and provide a lot of personality.

I like both the 33/97 and the 98/03 monograms because they are well designed, strong and have loads of personality. The current 'notchless logo' is an abomination. Bland, unbalanced, 'committeed'.

I like our logo the way it is now................................is that a bad thing?

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

I'm for this one, fwiw but agree that the laurel reath (on the plastic hand, for example, or on Siegfried's av) is the stronger traditional one as perhaps a badge on the breast of an all-blue guernsey

_________________
[Sam Jacobs] looks like a 7' Lance Whitnall, and [Mitch Robinson] looks like a 4' Lance Whitnall
(The SEN team during the Carlton v Cats 2009 pre-season match)

Yep, I'd be happy to see that one on the jumper (great design KK), and the laurel wreath as the official club emblem on merchandising, official documents, television etc.

Mark H or Stephen M...you getting this???

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Coke's logo is continuously changing, the changes are subtle, but it is constantly changing, so the idea might have been conceived a hundred years ago but the current logo wasn't.

I like the traditional logo and I like the serif font, I think that it adds something and removing the serifs or San seriff (minus notches for the sake of this argument) as fonts are usually termed does tend to make the logo boring.

I think that we have to decide what we want the logo to reflect before we can say which logo is better for the club today. I think that Carlton have a long and proud history and that the serif logo better reflects that, but if the Board thinks that we need to "get modern" and distance ourselves from the past I think that we need to revise the logo.

I would have thought that now Pratt is our leader, we are embracing the 100 years of history rather than trying to distance ourselves from the last 5-10 years. Just my observations.

I guess in short I agree with the original post, but not on pure design grounds.

_________________
"our guest is dressed by hand-me-downs, hair designed by pillow"

johntall, well said mate.

Forget the Carlton issue, this is a bastardisation of design issue.

Jars, take a look at the club letterhead from the era of the sewn on CFC you mention.

At the time this modernisation occured I dare say the club's logo/monogram was one of the last things that needed "modernising". From where I sit, it appears as if the change was a 5 minute reponse to a last minute marketing question. It seems as though the idea could have been thought through a hell of a lot better.

Notice the professionals on this forum are all of the same opinon.

If Mark H or Stephen M would care to share their views, both personal and as a board member I'd love to hear it.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

Yeah i'm talking more about the 'official' logo, ie the one on letterhead moreso than the jumper emblem.

Our crest had real distinction, the laurels around the CFC and the CFC logo itself just oozed class.

Then we went to some notchless (yes I know serif is more the correct word) two tone bullshit that looks cheap and classless.

disappointing.

But we could take some great marx wearing that...




I hear the veal's excellent

Thanks for the input Camelboy.

Many big companies regard their 'brand' as their most valuable asset, and consequently they spend small fortunes each year promoting and protecting their image. Central to these communications is the logo. A logo, or mark, is not there just to dick around with every couple of years, just because the marketing department is dry on ideas. Change for change sake is not planning. It might make the committee feel good, but rarely works effectively. To trot out fuzzy words like 'modernise', 'youthful', 'stylish' as a reason for change is plain empty. The type of 'change' that the club needs is toward professionalism. Carlton is not the Cooparoo Blues or the Claremont Blues. We are supposed to be (or were) one of the best brands in Australian sport. If that's what we aim for, then adopt professional standards, and treat the brand (logo) with respect. The logo will be around long after our draft picks retire, premierships are won, and committees lose power.

The two biggest complainers are 'those in the industry' (for you camel ) and the army of 30-50 year old's that are disproportionaly represented in our supporter base thanks to our success in the 70s and 80s. This site is crammed with the 30-50 demographic and I reckon it can be a bit misleading.

Now we can argue the merits of the design all day long, it's like arguing over a painting unless there is something more scientific than the unbalanced argument coming out. So design guys give us some arguments based on design theory/science.

What I don't want to see the club do is pander to the 30-50 demographic too much. The club should be concentrating on getting new YOUNG members to balance up the demographics of the supprorter base again.

On the Simpsons they said 'You don't win friends with salad!'.

At the Blues we should be saying 'You don't win young supporters with laurel wreaths!'.

I have been told that one of the messages that Dick Pratt is strongly pushing in the club is that the club must be looking towards the future at every opportunity. I don't think going back to a previous design would be following that message.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

You make some very good points, Jars, but given that it's been admitted by the Club that the redesign was done without any real consultation with design experts, the "you don't win friends with salad" argument becomes somewhat specious.

I know you and I have had some disagreements about things in other areas, and you poured scorn on me for disagreeing with the "expert" view, yet in this instance you seem to think that an "enthusiastic amateur" attempt is good enough for our great Club.

The redesign of the logo is one pure aesthetic and design grounds, in that the new logo is unbalanced and less appealing than the version seen on the 98-02 jumper.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

I just think the new logo looks amateurish like it was drawn by an 11 year old kid.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

As I said earlier, changing the current design slightly is no big deal, (they moved the logo higher this year on the guernsey for starters which I reckon is a good move). So it is changing in some respects already.

I'm just arguing against going back to the 1933-1997 logo and for using the new logo for letterheads and everything else to do with the club.

Just one example is the AFL site. At the top of the site they have a row of very small buttons that link to each of the club sites. Last year (or the year before?) when they had the wreath logo it was so complex that it really coul not be determined what it was and it just sort of blended in with all the other team buttons. This year with the new logo our club's button really stands out from the rest and you can clearly see the CFC, IMO more non-commited would click on that button than the wreath version.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

You would never go back to the pre-97 logo which is just simply out dated.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

30 to 50 year old demographic.

Who are you calling 30 to 50 Jars???


I dont feel a day over ..... shit 45.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

You know what I reckon Jarusa? I reckon that the design of the logo, whether it be the traditional laurel wreaths with 'mens sana uin corpore sano' underneath, or the new design, actually means jack shit in terms of winning new members and sponsors.

What IS important is to celebrate and emphasise the power and strength that over 100 years of tradition brings to a club, and the traditional logo does this brilliantly.

Can you honestly imagine Eddie getting rid of the Collingwood logo with the magpie and the Collingwood and Australian flags? Not a hope in hell! Because he knows the power of a branding that is 130 years old.

We have that, it's part of what has bulit this Club into the force that is, and part of what has the rest of the competition feeling decidedly uneasy at the rebirth of the mighty Blues.

By all means, modernise, go with the times. But under no circumstances should we be discarding the key planks of what has made us a powerful and feared Club...and the tradional laurel wreath logo is integral to that.

In fact, just have a look at the Kernahan article on the front of today's Age sports section. The photo of Kernahan has the new logo superimposed, and it just looks pathetic. Imagine that phot with the traditional logo superimposed...bold, strong, reeking of over 100 years of tradition, power and success.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

39 years old I notice.

I agree the logo is not the be all and end all for getting new supporters, wins and premierships do that.

I'm sure the Laurel Wreath shield has not been with the club from the beginning of it's existence. So it was new once upon a time as well.

Collingwood have in fact dabbled with their logo IIRC, something to do with the position of the Australian flag? But it has largely stayed the same, not sure when it was introduced though? Besides they have changed their traditional jumper more significantly than any other of the 'big four' traditional melbourne clubs.




How about we have a few people put in their own designs following a simple brief (KK has already done one)?

1) Navy Blue background, White CFC monogram.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

Yeah I resemble that remark as well!

_________________
2002:> "In their Masters Chambers
They Gathered for their Feast
They Stabbed us with their Steely Knives
But They Just Can't Kill The Beast!" <2016

THE BLUEBAGGER BEAST IS BAACKK!!