New logo?

[metro]

Okay so it was rumored here awhile back (last fall), that after the poor reaction to the Thunders cheesy logo, that most teams develop secondary and tertiary logo's. Well here it's Summer 2009 and still no secondary logo. Anyone know if we're going to have additional logo's?

[Luke]

And if that fails, perhaps they'll reach all the way down to the quaternary and quinternary logos.

[Thunder]

I don't think they'll come out with another logo anytime soon after investing money into this first one. But if they do, I can see they might have Rumble in it.

[kevinpate]

It's Oklahoma, folks have adapted to their logoroundings, and have bigger fish to fry. Speaking of things fried, I felt sorry for Rumble da Bison on that tour. It's GOT to be tough to stay upbeat inside that suit for outside daytime appearances in our state.

[jstanthrnme]

I don't think they can change or add a logo just yet. Same with the uni's. Its only been a season, and people outside of our state need to be exposed to it more before it is changed.

[metro]

I disagree, most teams have several logos and they didn't develop secondary and tertiary logos over time, they had several from the get go. If anything we need a logo that actually makes sense with our brand. A Dorito's chip with two slashes through it says nothing "Thunder".

[jstanthrnme]

I'm saying, there are league rules that require you to keep a logo for "X" many years before you can change it or replace it.

I think for the secondary logo and uniforms, you have to be in the league for 3 years before you can add an alternate logo or uniform. I could be wrong about that number though, so don't quote me on it.

Sure, the logo could have been more relevant when it was made, but I'm used to it now as are the majority of fans.

[Laramie]

The Thunder logo is beginning to grow on people; don't look for a change anytime soon.

[OKCisOK4me]

I disagree, most teams have several logos and they didn't develop secondary and tertiary logos over time, they had several from the get go. If anything we need a logo that actually makes sense with our brand. A Dorito's chip with two slashes through it says nothing "Thunder".

Again, as stated last year...the people that designed our logo only had approximately 4 months to come up with something where as all the other design teams in the NBA had approximately a year or more to develop their logos. And since they made those logos several years ago when you were not pushed by video games and clothing sales (as much), I'd say our designers did pretty good with the time they had.

As far as the 'x' amount of time between changes of logos, I remember reading in a thread last year it was around every 5 years if they want to apply for changes of logos.

[metro]

Again, there were HUNDREDS of better logo's designed by amateurs posted all over the internet, well before the "official" logo was selected. We live in an instant society, it was bad PR and Marketing oversight on behalf of the PBC organization. At the very least they could have done focus groups. And the poster above is correct, it is every 3 years a team can have a main logo change, but we've still seen no official NBA rule on secondary logos.

[OKCisOK4me]

I do agree with you that there are THOUSANDS of better logos out there. Was that the best team they put together to come up with a logo for our team? Apparently, so they thought.

Our instant society is where the problem is. We get pissed if we don't get what we want and if we get it fast and it's in poor taste we criticize the crap out of it, whether it be a logo or a marital relationship. It takes time to work on things. Anybody should know that.

I thought about posting 3 to 5 years for the 'x' amount but it seemed like I was giving out a sentence for somebody ripping a postal box off of its post, lol. I think a secondary logo would be great. I still liked the comparison of our logo last year when somebody said it looked like pill with some skewers through it!

[evh5150]

I disagree, most teams have several logos and they didn't develop secondary and tertiary logos over time, they had several from the get go. If anything we need a logo that actually makes sense with our brand. A Dorito's chip with two slashes through it says nothing "Thunder".

the problem with thunder is that you cant illustrate thunder. maybe we should have been the okc lightning instead.

ive always thought the name "Pioneers" would have been a good title for a pro team here.

[jstanthrnme]

I honestly think the logo is fine. The designers shouldn't win any awards, but its working.

The Nike swoosh probably seemed awkward to some people too, or the golden arches.

When you compare ours to the rest of the NBA, its middle of the pack.

[bandnerd]

Are we seriously still worried about this? I honestly have not thought about the uniforms or the logo since, oh, I guess since it all came out last year.

[evh5150]

I honestly think the logo is fine. The designers shouldn't win any awards, but its working.

The Nike swoosh probably seemed awkward to some people too, or the golden arches.

When you compare ours to the rest of the NBA, its middle of the pack.

i guess people will complain even more if a new logo was introduced, comparing it to likes/dislikes between the two.

its like oranges against apples.

which was better?, the old denver nuggets logo or the new one? the old seattle logo or the new one?

i guess i shouldnt leave detroit out either.

[narrowexpanded]

its a matter of personal opinion...i dont know too many people who LOVE the logo, but it could be worse. i take it that they went with what could be viewed as the least polarizing and most generic logo and color scheme...thunder...how generic is that? but again, could be worse. actually i dont mind the nickname, but the color scheme...what is it? blue, red, orange, yellow, and white? with the primary color being a kind of baby blue...not even navy blue, but a powder baby blue...do you know too many people who rock baby blue shirts on a regular basis? and perhaps thats just my personal bias showing...dont like the light blue.

[metro]

I agree narrow, the color scheme is even worse than the poorly designed logo. At least people can associate lightning or dark colors with Thunder. When I think Thunder or Thunderstorm, I don't think of the "colors of an Oklahoma sunset" according to Bennett.

[Watson410]

do you know too many people who rock baby blue shirts on a regular basis? and perhaps thats just my personal bias showing...dont like the light blue.

I do now!! I know for a fact there's others that do now too.

[Watson410]

Logo, color scheme, and nickname is ALL based on personal opinion... some like it, some don't and some can live with it. My opinion... the logo is average, not great but there's a hand full of other NBA teams that have worse logos. I LOVE the color scheme (even though it doesn't say Thunder, the orange, yellow and blue go together nicely!!) and for the nickname... It's okay, could've been better but i can live with it!! I would have much rather preferred Pioneers, Marshals, or Barons... But what's done is done! I'm a true Thunder fan! I now bleed blue! You can consider me the (#1ThunderFan).. The logo, uniforms and/or color schemes don't matter... All that matter now is the product on the floor and how many "W's" we have after 82 games.