The new logo chosen is well downright awful. So dull so boring. Style...font...colours...design...face it the whole enchilada. The maple leaf on the the bottom looks as if it was an after thought. Whoever designed this joke should look for a new career.
Yeah, cause you're an expert.
My issue is that it was a needless waste of money by a self-acknowledged "mom and pop" operation that has no business flushing what little funds it has down the toilet.
Can anyone say with a straight face that the new logo is a big improvement over the old logo?
Has there been a sudden surge in attendance because of the new logo?
Are television rating skyrocketing because of the new logo?
Have merchandise sales spiked because of the new logo?
Are penalties down this year because of the new logo?
Has scoring increased because of the new logo?
No, no, no, no, no, no.?
I liked the old logo.
This is a football cut in half with a small maple leaf.
A kid in grade 6 could have done better.
There was no reason for this.
To your first question, yes. The old logo is cartoonish and the fact it was italicised made it very busy.
As for the other questions, excellent rhetoric. The same answers hold true for this logo and the former when they changed to the previous.
Rebranding is almost entirely about the marketing, and considering who the CFL is trying to attract(8-35) a minimalist approach was necessary and will be appealing to the younger crowds.
The old logo looked busy and outdated. The league doesn't want to be seen as trapped in the 90s. The new logo is sleek and has a much more timeless look to it.
How much do you think it cost for the redesign? Somehow, I don't see it as a huge expense, so I'd say it was probably worth it to bring the image of the league into the 21st century.
I like the new logo a lot.
Personally, I don’t like it. It’s too blah.
But taste is subjective. Others will prefer the new one just as much as I prefer the old one. Maybe if the maple leaf were bigger…
Didn't like the new logo when it first came out, too bland and boring. After seeing it on the jerseys and helmets, it seems okay, looks a little better when it's smaller and used on the uniform. So, I still do care for it too much, but it doesn't seem as bad as I first though now seeing it in action (so to speak).
It only looks good on a dark background. On the white jerseys, the logo should have a black outline.
I didn't but it's grown on me. Looks like a computer icon.
What's more likely to attract the 8yr old to 35yr old demographic - - this ridiculous new logo or a website that is actually functional?
Looked like an incomplete crayon drawing from a 6 year old when it came out last November and it still looks incomplete now. No color (black and white is so hip and current), half a football, half a maple leaf, butnot even half an idea. Did they pay money for this?
Thread is about 7 months late to the debate though.
There was a thread about this 7 months ago. It did generate a lot of comments...