Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Posted
13 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I’ve got no problem with criticism, as I said it only ultimately amplifies the reach of the club when people hate click. I do have a problem with with people attempt to pass off opinion as objective fact. A 25 year veteran of the marketing industry should have had no problem setting me straight with why I’m wrong but here you are, resorting to ad hominem attacks on Leigh fans. 

Ok ill give you a very crude example of why design and branding can be objectively bad.

you go get a logo designed for LetherRob marketing Co.

Designer comes back with a design with an image of Leyther Rob in The middle, it’s a small Photoshop file created at 72 dpi (which ive seen some people do)

Great I want to put it on a massive banner advertising my company let me send it to the signage company and they’ll print it out at 3metres by 3metres for me.

what do you think would happen?

That’s an objectively badly designed logo that doesn’t work and isn’t fit for purpose.

That is not subjective.

Posted
30 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

No you gave me a subjective one based on whether or not you think it looks good in a specific situation. It’s still an opinion. Ultimately, you can’t give me a list because it doesn’t exist, otherwise it would have been on page 1 of this thread and page 1 of the Leigh rebrand thread, because it would be a very easy thing to spell out- all objective measurements are.

Its not hard to come up with examples:

Does it work on a variety of platforms without compromise: Yes/No

Does it have clear imaging across media and print: Yes/No

Can it be easily read from a distance: Yes/No

Does it translate to greyscale: Yes/No

None of those are, at their core, subjective - the extent of success at these metrics could be subjective, but actually succeeding in them or not on a basic level is not. Signage and professional branding companies have principles that they abide by to dictate their work it's not just pure art.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

No that is something that is by very definition, subjective. Otherwise, the phrase would be ‘art is completely objecting and quantifiable’ which does not roll off the tongue in quite the same way.

But even if it was the case, it’s entirely irrelevant to marketing especially in the digital world. That’s why radio and TV advert jingles go out of their way to be as annoying as possible because now you’d be hard pressed to find someone that hasn’t heard of Go Compare or WeBuyAnyCar. 

I also didn’t say success on the pitch isn’t a factor, only that is isn’t the only factor which is what you were implying when claiming luck. Leigh have had success before, but never the full club momentum it has currently and the brand is undoubtedly a contributing factor.

again, you seem to be conflating ‘that doesn’t look cool’ with ‘that won’t achieve the objectives of extending that brands reach and making the club or company more money’. 

There's plenty of sites you can upload a logo and objectively check a logo against all kinds of metrics. As most would know this Swinton logo didn't fare too well when I did just that. It's that obvious though no one should really need to do that

Posted
Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Ok ill give you a very crude example of why design and branding can be objectively bad.

you go get a logo designed for LetherRob marketing Co.

Designer comes back with a design with an image of Leyther Rob in The middle, it’s a small Photoshop file created at 72 dpi (which ive seen some people do)

Great I want to put it on a massive banner advertising my company let me send it to the signage company and they’ll print it out at 3metres by 3metres for me.

what do you think would happen?

That’s an objectively badly designed logo that doesn’t work and isn’t fit for purpose.

That is not subjective.

I agree, that is an objective qualifier for the formatting of a design. It is so because there is a specific ratio of pixels relating to the size of a logo that makes it legible. None of that pertains to the artistic choices of the design itself though, because they are subjective.

Posted
1 minute ago, Damien said:

There's plenty of sites you can upload a logo and objectively check a logo against all kinds of metrics. As most would know this Swinton logo didn't fare too well when I did just that. It's that obvious though no one should really need to do that

Can you share the website and the results that came out?

Posted
Just now, LeytherRob said:

Can you share the website and the results that came out?

Google, pick your own and do it yourself. Theres loads. I'd share the results but it would involve taking loads of screenshots and posting and I ain't doing that.

Posted
5 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I agree, that is an objective qualifier for the formatting of a design. It is so because there is a specific ratio of pixels relating to the size of a logo that makes it legible. None of that pertains to the artistic choices of the design itself though, because they are subjective.

So design can be objectively bad.

you're making the mistake that brand designers are there just to make things ‘look cool’ in your words.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Google, pick your own and do it yourself. Theres loads. I'd share the results but it would involve taking loads of screenshots and posting and I ain't doing that.

Don’t pretend you’ve got owt better to do. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mark said:

Looking at the replies on social media from Swinton fans, is mostly positive. 

Both of them?

Was going to suggest that the six stars are for relegations, when of course they are for Championships won. 
 

It’s a great pity that Swinton have never been able to return to M27 with a ground to call home. 
 

Appreciate that being called Manchester may offend but being a town within Salford, I’m not sure playing on the otherside of the conurbation within Trafford is any better. 
 

If a return is not possible shouldn’t the aim be to build a new audience in their new home. The Lions tag doesn’t need to change. 

Edited by The 4 of Us

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Posted

3 pages in so this may have been commented on. 
 

One of the reasons contemporary branding is much more simpler is due to the need for any branding to work across so many categories. Print, digital and physical being the staples.

I’ve seen worse branding in RL (all too many - sadly), and like many of them this Swindon rebrand looks like a cost effective effort rather than what’s really needed in rebranding. Which is essentially paying a decent agency to do it.

I’m pretty confident that logo won’t translate well - for instance - to apparel. Certainly something such as an embroidery on any apparel item will likely look pretty poor.

Add it to the growing list. 

RL really does have a problem with understanding creative. And the benefits good creative can bring, as well as the many negatives bad creative can also bring.

  • Like 1

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk

Posted
4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not hard to come up with examples:

Does it work on a variety of platforms without compromise: Yes/No

Does it have clear imaging across media and print: Yes/No

Can it be easily read from a distance: Yes/No

Does it translate to greyscale: Yes/No

None of those are, at their core, subjective - the extent of success at these metrics could be subjective, but actually succeeding in them or not on a basic level is not. Signage and professional branding companies have principles that they abide by to dictate their work it's not just pure art.

You argue that they  are not subjective yet the extent of the success is subjective. Well they are all subjective, what you are  mistaking is that they are all metrics that will usually generate a good consensus in opinion, but that is not the same as being objective. There are no numbers to measure any of those scales and there is no defined point where yes becomes no and no one on this thread can define that for a logo - it is open to interpretation. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Damien said:

Google, pick your own and do it yourself. Theres loads. I'd share the results but it would involve taking loads of screenshots and posting and I ain't doing that.

Sure why not, I'll call that bluff. I googled 'logo rater' and the first thing I clicked on was 'logo rank'(https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/) .  It was very quick and let me drag and drop the logo from this very thread.

It ranked 100 for uniqueness, 100 for legibility, 100 for color/contrast, 100 overall. So rated very highly according to this website - not that i believe it can be trusted. Most of the websites that come up on google are AI based so very fallible and certainly not to be take as objective truth. 

Here is a screenshot of the uniqueness rating, I'd show the rest but there is a file limit on screenshots for this site but feel free to use the link I've provided. Because if I'm going to make a claim with evidence, I will provide it rather than 'trust me bro'.

image.png.2283ec72ff39cb761eb3b6967240522d.png

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

So design can be objectively bad.

you're making the mistake that brand designers are there just to make things ‘look cool’ in your words.

No i think i was about as clear as can be in those 2 sentences I wrote. Formatting = quantifiable metrics which you(a 25 year veteran of the industry) can give good specific examples on what is right vs wrong. Artistic design of the logo itself = subjective, opinion based with no quantifiable metric as to what is good vs bad, just an opinion.

 

Now you can keep attempting to twist my words into a strawman argument, or you can give actual factual and verifiable evidence to support your objective truth. It's incredibly easy when things are objective, for example Damien gave me a particularly shaky story of the many logo raters he found on google and apparently the Swinton logo scored very poorly on all of these. I asked for the citation and was asked to do my own research. The first one I used rated the Swinton logo as perfect, 100 on all scores. Here is another logo rated, one of your favourites which has been rated 100 for legibility(99 for uniqueness, 52 for colour/contrast and only 84 overall mind but still a very strong score). 

 

image.png.9c837c53136ba2e29981dc1d19c098aa.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

You argue that they  are not subjective yet the extent of the success is subjective. Well they are all subjective, what you are  mistaking is that they are all metrics that will usually generate a good consensus in opinion, but that is not the same as being objective. There are no numbers to measure any of those scales and there is no defined point where yes becomes no and no one on this thread can define that for a logo - it is open to interpretation. 

You want numbers?

For example, Sign writers understand the size vs distance needed to be clear for people to see, and how the contrast of colours can affect that. That has been broken down into quantifiable amounts.

Likewise, you don't need numbers to tell you when something is going to be terrible for what it's requited for.

Clearly this issue has got to you mate I don't know why. 

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Sure why not, I'll call that bluff. I googled 'logo rater' and the first thing I clicked on was 'logo rank'(https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/) .  It was very quick and let me drag and drop the logo from this very thread.

It ranked 100 for uniqueness, 100 for legibility, 100 for color/contrast, 100 overall. So rated very highly according to this website - not that i believe it can be trusted. Most of the websites that come up on google are AI based so very fallible and certainly not to be take as objective truth. 

Here is a screenshot of the uniqueness rating, I'd show the rest but there is a file limit on screenshots for this site but feel free to use the link I've provided. Because if I'm going to make a claim with evidence, I will provide it rather than 'trust me bro'.

 

image.png.2283ec72ff39cb761eb3b6967240522d.png

 

No doubt you've tried several and bizarely chosen to go with the one that doesnt seem to work, returns scores of 100 on just 4 metrics and looks to be knocked up by GCSE student using AI. For someone rambling on about subjectivity it's weird to use to use AI to back up your argument. Are you really not questioning a score of 100 for uniqueness for what is pretty much the same as god knows how many American sports/schools teams?

Your strawman ###### and lies in this post and your next one are pathetic too. You are just making stuff up. I never said about trying many logo raters and never said about it scored very poorly on all of these. Making stuff up is incredibly lame. 

I said you can check a logo with various online tools against all kinds of metrics. I only did on 2 sites. I never said about scores because those sites didn't do scores. What they did show is the logo in use in the digital age and clearly say how a logo should look in various situations. These are all pretty much blackand white scenarios key in the digutal age and the results weren't good on either of these 2 sites. Try using one that shows what it is like pixelated, in containers, at different sizes for scalability, for colour blindness, in different colours etc. You don't need an AI score to tell you if something works or not surely. Some examples for you attached. 

The Leigh chip on the shoulder is certainly strong with you. Always the same with the LDL the moment Leigh gets mentioned.

Screenshot_20241113_052345_DuckDuckGo.jpg

Screenshot_20241113_052633_DuckDuckGo.jpg

Screenshot_20241113_054249_DuckDuckGo.jpg

Edited by Damien
Posted

Doesn’t matter so much how you think it looks, that’s pretty subjective. The question is, is it RL or historically Swinton. Not really. 

The biggest problem is that it’s too good. The point of a logo is simplicity and ease of recognition. For a kid doodling to draw that would take a prodigious talent and a lot of time. Some of the most famous logos are literally just a typeface - see Sony, but you can spot it a mile away.

Simplify the Lion and maybe drop the stars, too much of a good thing there. 

Posted
6 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

No i think i was about as clear as can be in those 2 sentences I wrote. Formatting = quantifiable metrics which you(a 25 year veteran of the industry) can give good specific examples on what is right vs wrong. Artistic design of the logo itself = subjective, opinion based with no quantifiable metric as to what is good vs bad, just an opinion.

The point being it really does need to satisfy both to be considered good design. Especially in a professional setting. As Ive said earlier you can subjectively like the look of something that is objectively poorly designed.

Posted
1 hour ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

At least the ‘Manchester’ bit has been dropped - the rest is surely subjective.

There's little subjective about if it's digital and social media friendly. When it comes across as a blurry mess surely that isn't a good thing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.