Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Guest imported_Tesseract

ADIDAS

Recommended Posts

the new logo design really doesn't hold up to the old school one but it'll change again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oldschool logo is nice. The new one's stink. But then again im really diggin a lot of new adidas shoes. But that wasn't even the question was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry .. i meant, they are just shoes,hats,shirts,watches,pants,swimming gear,basketball gear, soccer gear, tennis gear,pologear and much much more... corporate bastards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate how the old school logo is trendy now, with all the retro bullshit, but as far as symbol wise, old school fo sheezy.

 

the new symbol looks pretty much shitty in every aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_El Mamerro

Caution: Patented NerdRamble™ critique follows...

 

First of all, I want to state that I like the old logo much much more for personal taste reasons. However, in terms of good logo design, I'm not sure if the old one is definitely superior, except in the category of lasting impression (probably the most important) and standbyitselfability. More on this later.

 

Now by relying on my total lack of expertise in logo design, I must say the new logo isn't bad. It integrates better with text (though not the specific typeface used by Adidas, too curvy), and by placing the lines at an angle gives the brand a dynamic look that more appropiately represents the direction the company has taken in the past few years. Their positioning is also concordant with the actual position of the three lines on their footwear (their most important item), and just seeing the logo reminds you of what their product looks like. It does a much better job of integrating brand with product than the old one. Not to mention the hidden message of "reach your peak" implied with the overall shape.

 

The old logo is a stronger, lasting, and more unique image, but the aesthetic is gentle and, if being seen for the first time, does not particularly bring to mind the concept of athleticism. I'm unsure of what it is... A crown? A flame? A lotus? It's not abstract or simple enough (as in the new logo) for me to not care what it is. It matches the rounded typeface much better, but other than the curvy look and equal line/letter thickness there's no formal relationship between the two... in the new logo, the length of the text fits perfectly as the footer, rounding out the pyramid shape with a wide base. However, the old logo doesn't even NEED the type to work (standbyitselfability), whereas the new one looks awkward without it.

 

In conclusion, the old logo wins because it looks way fucking cooler. But in terms of logo design I think they're pretty much even... but I'm giving the victory to the new one. I could easily visualize how a kid, with no former knowledge of what Adidas is or what it stood for in the past, would respond more to the new logo than the old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmmm.. with that said.. i started to think.

 

i think the old one kind of illustrates the fact that the whole leafy effect relates to soccer and grassy outdoor sports...

 

in the new times, adidas has spread itself to sooooo many other sports (and recreational activities). The whole mountain effect kind of gives it the ENTIRE outdoor kickass "we can do anything with these shoes" type of feel to it.

 

just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last time i thought of triangles as mountains was in elementery school

i dont like the new one either, but i dont care.

adidas-019000.jpg

sambas are still cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract

Caution: Patented NerdReply™ follows...

 

 

Valid point there Mams, i dont disagree at all...and i'm sure all these thoughts lead to changing the logo...the pyramid/gradual/highpeak comment is hot. However, i'm thinking of two or three things.

 

A. Adidas is probably the oldest 'brand' of athletic shoes...the 3 stripes 'logo' was already exteremely famous and associated with

superior athletic products...During the Moscow Olympics, right in the

high peak of the cold war..over 80% of the athletes BOTH eastern and western block rocked adidas shoes for better results...thats pretty important to me as just how successfull and known they were.

Were do i wanna go?...the proper strategy for me in cases like that..is to hold tight what you earned...focus your campaigns on new products worthy of the 'legacy' (quality,fucntion,innovation) and play your 'history' card at the same time. In order for that to happen you just dont change an already succesfull and universally known logo.

 

B. Adidas always had a logo, its not the old one or the new....its the 3 stripes concept in general...shoes, sweatpants,hoodies..everything they ever made uses it in its original form...you can find so many associations and parallelisms in the number 3 its ridiculous. It seems to me that they had what they needed from day one...adidas needs a 'logo' for paperwork issues rather than product usage.

 

C. The marriage of the old font with the new logo (as you underlined) is a failure. I thought nike was very smart when they wiped out the word nike out of their logo...they realised all they need is a symbol since everyone knows the name.

 

END. I'm not against changing their logo...i just feel that given their history and the three stripes thing in general they could come with something doper and more elegant that what they did, its the most obvious and dull logo they could have. The reason i like the old one better [its a trio-leaf i think that loosely associates with another old and dope brands logo (the award for the winners of the ancient greek olympic games)] is that the new one looks ugly everywhere i've seen on products...i'e never seen a shoe, pants, hoody with the new logo looking good on it...in reverse with the old one that always looked superfresh everywhere.

 

PS. to bring another issue on the table, my feeling on 'modern' logos is that advertisers, designers and ofcourse custumers pushed logos into a more 'agressive' look that may serve to draw attention and remain in mind but it ussually seriously lacks class and dope function when embedded to products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent critique mamerro...all that shit went through my head.

 

I think the leaf design of the original was inspired by the olive branch from the olympics....thus being multi-sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract
Originally posted by Weapon X

anyone tried the anti-persperant or deodorant yet?

 

I have an after shave lotion that accidentally fell in my pocket...its decent but Gillette is the ultimate king of non costy products in that field.

 

Their shower gels rock though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sneak

to me the adidas logo isnt either of the 2 shown above. but the 3 stripes down the side of a pair of trousers of jumper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the kids at my school wear the new school white adidas shit shoes. They look lame. They also have socks with the new school logo. I rock black and silver Galaxy 3's which came out in the 70's. They are so comfy and make running actually fun. So i deff would say old school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×