Subscribe Now

* You will receive the latest news and updates on your favorite celebrities!

Trending News
WIIKMAN HEADING SOUTH 
15 years ago 3 min read  
AND THEY’RE OFF… LITERALLY 
15 years ago 8 min read  
IT DON’T COME EASY 
15 years ago 6 min read  
WIIKMAN RETURNS 
15 years ago 2 min read  
SOMETHING BRUIN IN PROVIDENCE 
15 years ago 6 min read  
ZABORSKY TO FINLAND 
15 years ago 2 min read  
WHO’S HEADING NORTH 
15 years ago 3 min read  
ROSTERS 
15 years ago 5 min read  

Blog Post

11 Comments

  1. Tweets that mention HERE IT IS… | -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sean Leahy, KTR, Scott Wasilewski, Catherine Smith, DHSpeedwagon and others. DHSpeedwagon said: I thought Canucks tried that with Wellwood. RT @Sean_Leahy new Connecticut Whale logo looks like its stuck in the “C” http://bit.ly/b3g5IJ […]

    14 years ago Reply
  2. BJDellarte

    “WS&E is going to sink considerable money and effort into making this thing fly…”

    If this logo is any indication, that’s simply not the case. As both the AHL website and you point out, “[t]he logo was designed by Baldwin, the Whale marketing team and designer Erik Carlson.”

    To the best of my knowledge, Howard Baldwin has no training in graphic design. I’d be willing to bet that the sum total of the graphic design training undertaken by the members of the Whale marketing team consists of a few self-taught MS Paint tutorials. Research indicates that Erik Carlson is primarily a website designer whose only documented sports-specific graphic design experience consists of producing a less-than-impressive – and long since abandoned – wordmark for the former Clearwater Phillies minor-league baseball team.

    Rather than putting “considerable money and effort” into designing the Connecticut Whale’s logo, Howard Baldwin opted to go the quick-and-cheap route. The result is a poorly-executed logo designed by a team comprised largely of rank amateurs. And it shows.

    “Design-by-committee” is notorious for resulting in poor logos, but the Connecticut Whale mark is particularly horrendous. Line-weights aren’t close to being uniform throughout the logo. Certain portions of the logo – the manner in which the “C” overlaps the whale’s tail, the way in which the whale’s fin grips the hockey stick – look as if they’re the result of nothing more than “cut-and-paste” efforts. The fonts chosen for the wordmarks are generic. Certain components of the logo, such as the hockey stick and water spout, are so rudimentarily rendered as to appear to be afterthoughts.

    Minor-professional sports design can be kitschy, cartoon-like and kid-friendly. Many minor-pro teams elect to go in exactly that direction. Which is fine, so long as the resulting logos are professionally-rendered. Several graphic design firms with extensive sports-specific experience – Studio Simon, Joe Bosack Design Company, Plan B Branding – are masterful at creating logo packages that feature kid-friendly primary marks along with more mature secondary logos that appeal to adult fans. Again, had Mr. Baldwin truly been willing to “sink considerable money and effort into making things fly” with the Connecticut Whale, he’s have secured the services of such a firm. Instead, he tried to brand his team on the cheap… and it most definitely shows.

    Sadly, if this is an indication of Mr. Baldwin’s mindset regarding the world of modern pro sports, the chances of his successfully overseeing a return of the NHL to Hartford are the proverbial “slim and none”. Modern pro sports is a multi-billion-dollar industry, not the glorified “boys’ club” that Mr. Baldwin was a part of in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. Based upon Mr. Baldwin’s approach to branding the Connecticut Whale, I believe that the world of modern pro sports has passed him by.

    14 years ago Reply
    1. Mitch Beck

      BJ,

      First thank you for being part of the conversation here at Howlings. I appreciate your input.

      Based upon what you have written here it sounds to me like you have had either some sort of Marketing background or Graphic Design experience, etc. As an expert, I value your opinion and you’re of course entitled to it.

      You’re looking at this logo from a VERY technical point of view. I look at it more in terms of entertainment value and does it look good or not.

      In the fake one that was sent to me and was posted, and man I wish I had not posted it, people really liked it and I thought it looked awful. Conversely, I looked at this one and REALLY like it. I’m not a big fan of the team name “The Whale” but in terms of the logo to match the name, not only do I not have a problem with it, but I like it and I like it quite a bit. Are there some modifications that might make sense? Sure. From the information that I have there is a little work still being done before the total final product comes out.

      Secondly, I truly believe that if hockey in Hartford has ANY chance at all in Hartford that Howard Baldwin is the guy to get it done. He knows and loves the sport. He knows and loves Hartford and he has the money to get it done. He’s also, having spoken to him several times, find him to be an extremely intelligent person.

      The only thing I would ask moving forward, not by just you, but anyone on this blog, is to refrain from using insults as a way of offering your criticism. You seem like a VERY bright person and I don’t think that’s asking too much, not just of you but of anyone else who writes here.

      Valid critical opinion I have zero problem with. The name calling I think we could ALL do without.

      14 years ago Reply
  3. BJDellarte

    What “name calling”? What “insults”?

    14 years ago Reply
  4. Mitch Beck

    I took them out of your comment and won’t repeat them here. They were made at the end. I thought your comments there were derogatory in nature and were not constructive as the rest of your comment clearly is.

    I thought the comments at the end were unnecessary to your making your point and were insulting to Mr. Baldwin.

    You’re perfectly welcome to share your opinion and your thoughts. I just don’t like it and won’t allow things on this site to get more personal and I thought that was where you were going with it.

    I hope that you understand.

    14 years ago Reply
  5. BJDellarte

    Frankly, I DON’T understand. Nothing that I said was remotely close to being worthy of censorship. Further, said censorship is censorship is censorship… no matter how you cut it. Because YOU “thought” something was insulting, YOU chose to censor it.

    And, because you took these supposedly “insulting” comments out of my post and won’t repeat them here, you open me up to public scrutiny centered around people imagining what my comments could have been. Not even close to evenhanded treatment.

    Howard Baldwin is a grown man who undoubtedly possesses skin thick enough to weather an innocuous comment on an internet message board. I hope he appreciates your efforts to defend him against my harmless comments enough for you to have flushed any semblance of this site’s being impartial and open down the drain.

    14 years ago Reply
  6. Mitch Beck

    BJ,

    First of all my credibility and integrity is unquestioned. It’s the reason that legitimate news outlets often quote and reach out to us for information.

    Second, editing what you wrote has ZERO to do with whether or not Mr. Baldwin can handle, “an innocous comment” on this or any other website.

    We have grown in our reputation over the years for our solid reporting and professionalism and for keeping the conversation here civil and polite.

    Changing it was more about the tone and nature of the way I, as the owner and Editor of this site, want the conversation to go.

    Third, to answer those who might be curious, B did NOT in any way write ANY obscenities or use any vulgarities. He used some language at the end of his/her comment that I felt strayed away from being a vaild criticism of a piece of artwork and a way of doing business and made an angry, personal attack. I won’t tolerate that from anyone on this site.

    There has only been on main rule since I started this site over five years ago in terms of the comments. Keep it on the subject and don’t get personal.

    No personal attacks of ANY kind towards ANYONE are allowed. That is not the kind of site that I want to run.

    Now, in terms of ANY comments on here, I could easily exclude ALL comments, but to me THAT would be censorship. I believe that people have the right to speak their minds, but as the owner of it, I have the right to moderate decorum.

    I could have just kicked your entire comment to the ground and wrote you back asking you to modify it. I could have done that. I didn’t because while you obvisouly have a problem with Mr. Baldwin and his group, you made some interesting arguments.

    However, on this site critical comments should be in a mature and non-personal manner.

    If you have a problem with a particular person, feel free to say it as long as you don’t make the comments personal attacks. That is what you did.

    As I wrote, while I don’t agree with your assessment of the logo, you obviosuly know the subject and made a very strong and valid arguement against it. But at the end of a smart well written piece, you crossed the line and attacked Mr. Baldwin as a person. I won’t allow THAT at all… not to players, not to coaches, or management, not to the refs and most of all not even towards other posters.

    You want to call that censorship, you have that right. I call it enforcing a level of decorum.

    There are plenty of websites out there that will allow you to say whatever you like no matter what. There are still others that don’t allow course or vulgar language etc., but here I don’t want conversation here to evolve into that, so to me, you have to start somewhere to get there. This has really been the first time it’s been an issue.

    I think you’re smart enough, especially based upon what you wrote, that you can make your point without taking it personal.

    If that makes you angry…what can I do?

    14 years ago Reply
  7. BJDellarte

    You should have written back to me, voiced your concerns with the particular passage that bothered you, and asked me to modify said passage/comments on my own. I then could have chosen to comply, or not. From this point on, I’d appreciate you taking that tack with any of my posts that strike you as crossing the line.

    14 years ago Reply
  8. Franco

    I think everyone involved in making and approving this logo should be ashamed. It is such a step down. If the fans were given a choice, I guarantee this logo would not have been voted. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don’t think it exemplifies modern-day hockey nor does it really capture the tribute to Hartford’s hockey history that most people were hoping for.

    14 years ago Reply
    1. Mitch Beck

      Franco…

      Ashamed? That’s a little harsh don’t you think? Tell the truth, you’re a Whaler fan that really wanted to see a close similarity to the original Whaler logo. Am I right?

      I like the logo. I think the design team did a good job. Whaler fans should be happy with the team name and the color scheme. Yet at the same time Wolf Pack fans should feel good about it because the logo has a certain personality that is a tribute to the past but leaves them feeling that this should be something new going forward and they’re not being thrown aside.

      On top of that, I think both sides are making such a big something out of nothing. The bottom line is that both sides come out a winner in this. There will be a good product on the ice and an environment that should be welcoming to both sides and join them together.

      Remember, if both sides don’t find a way to peacefully co-exhist and one of them walks away, the team makes no money and that will be the end of not only the NHL, but of ANY hockey in Hartford and that would be the biggest tragedy of all.

      14 years ago Reply
  9. Mitch Beck

    BJ,

    You’re making far more of this than is necessary. I run a business during the day. I don’t have the time to write and wait and so forth and so on.

    It was only one sentence at the end. It was no big deal. If I hadn’t mentioned it you probably wouldn’t even have noticed. Just keep the critique to the subject and don’t make it personal. Very simple.

    Here’s an example in terms of a player.

    “So-and-So sucks…” is not going to stay on the board. “So-and-So’s game has been really bad lately…blah, blah, blah…” is totally fine.

    “This coach is a (fill-in-the-blank)” won’t work here. “This coach made this decision and that decision that I thought were wrong…” is completely fine.

    We’re all human beings here and deserve a certain amount of respect…

    14 years ago Reply

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *

Skip to content
%d bloggers like this: