Sellout

[Edgy MD]

Subtle but important logo creep may be happening with the Mets.



See it? Well, read more here.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

You're missing the best part of today's UniWatch:



Mr. Met's got de Grom locks!!

As for the logo, the Citicorp Center is an iconic building. The only way I knew that building on the end was the UN was because I know my Mets logo history. It's not the iconic part of the UN. But if they are going to monkey around with the logo, at least add the Freedom Tower in some way.

[Edgy MD]

It's certainly not so much the what but the why that gives the logo change the appearance of a meaningful betrayal.

[Edgy MD]

Replacing an icon of the East Side that represents New York's claim as a capital of the world, fostering international cooperation, peace, development, and humanitarianism (putting aside for a minute how successful the UN is) with a building that is a symbol of the corporation for which the team's stadium has been named... smells just awful --- especially considering that the organization has been caught sneaking Citi Corp's corporate symbolism onto the team's kit in the past.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Stupid Mets can't do anything right. Nothing.

Even if it's an honest fuckup, they still fucked up.

Of course it's not an honest fuckup.

[Edgy MD]

They've got 52 years of equity in that logo and I've got about 1000. I'd rather see them re-sign Jason Bay and put him at shortstop for the next six years than see them fuck up the logo to advance a corporate relationship.

[Ceetar]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: As for the logo, the Citicorp Center is an iconic building. The only way I knew that building on the end was the UN was because I know my Mets logo history. It's not the iconic part of the UN. But if they are going to monkey around with the logo, at least add the Freedom Tower in some way.

Indeed and if Citi's not really associated with it anymore I'm not sure this can be chocked up to 'corporate relationships' or any such. I don't think I can be worked up about it, since it's hardly official, nor is much more than sloping a roof.

But I agree, would like to see the Freedom Tower added. I'd like to see the whole skyline on the building above the Shea Bridge actually. (Where supposedly they're building a garden but I've seen no sign of it)

[seawolf17]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Stupid Mets can't do anything right. Nothing. Even if it's an honest fuckup, they still fucked up. Of course it's not an honest fuckup.

Seriously.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Indeed and if Citi's not really associated with it anymore I'm not sure this can be chocked up to 'corporate relationships' or any such.

Citi is associated with it.

"Chocked up"?

[Zvon]

That's not officially new. It popped up from a Mets feed a while back. But the team says that was in error & there have been no official changes to the logo.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Indeed and if Citi's not really associated with it anymore I'm not sure this can be chocked up to 'corporate relationships' or any such. Citi is associated with it. "Chocked up"?

chalked up. I don't speak so right.

They _were_ associated with it. but no longer. Why would they push for an old building of theirs to be added? Why would they push at all, given how subtle the advertising would be? Why isn't this being chalked up to mere conspiracy theory?

Wasn't another one of those buildings slowly changed over the years?

[Edgy MD]

No, they are associated with it, just no longer the majority shareholders. Uni Watch says as much.

But if it's an older thing that's been fixed, then it's been fixed. I dunno.

[Edgy MD]

Rubino tweeting that the TV monitors throughout Citi Field have the UN building prominently displayed.



Man, I was getting worked up there for a minute.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Meaningful logo discussion in September!
Hey, it something.

(I never would have noticed in kaboomlion years that they
chopped that roof change in)

[Edgy MD]

I dunno. It's something that can stand out stylistically. Most of the buildings referenced in the logo have the gothic symmetry of pre-war New York. The UN Building, from 1952, would be the newest thing there. The late-20th-century, a-symmetrical silhouette of the building would have caught your eye eventually, I think.

But that's where the hijinks come in. Somebody perhaps was counting on folks not noticing, at least until it became entrenched.

Worth noting: Boston Properties' CEO Mort Zuckerman shares Fred Wilpon's status among the more high-profile Bernie Madoff victims. I bet if you scratch deep enough, you'll find that they are partnered up in something.

[G-Fafif]

Sports graphic designer and maven Todd Radom reimagines a 21st-century take on the classic Mets logo. It's both admirable in its meeting its goal and creepy as hell in a Rip Van Winkle way.

I've no desire to contemporize the skyline. The logo as it's endured tells an Amazin' story of what the birth of the Mets represented to a city that needed them. Too much of New York gets torn down and rebuilt. Consider the logo protected by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I totally got the highline right away.

Sad but even if fans were convinced the Radom logo was appropriate, these shenanigans with the ownership and their devious and half-assed stewardship of the team history have all but destroyed their ability to have any credibility to affect changes with any chance of being well-received. SELL THE TEAM NOW!!!!1!1

[Guest d'Kong76]

Put back the NY NOW!!!

[Zvon]

Sports graphic designer and maven Todd Radom reimagines a 21st-century take on the classic Mets logo. It's both admirable in its meeting its goal and creepy as hell in a Rip Van Winkle way. I've no desire to contemporize the skyline. The logo as it's endured tells an Amazin' story of what the birth of the Mets represented to a city that needed them. Too much of New York gets torn down and rebuilt. Consider the logo protected by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

I kinda like that. I was thinking of doing something familiar just to see how it would look. I would drop the Nordstrom Tower altogether and center the Freedom Tower, make it extend further up ( would have to make it skinnier I think). It has to have more of the pyramid shape to the arrangement of the buildings. The left side is too heavy. And I would not touch the bridge.

I'd be okay if they used a special alt logo for a special occasion from time to time but the basic logo should never be changed. You don't mess with perfection.

I wonder if that one with the slanted roof was released intentionally to see if there would be any negative chatter about it. I could see them doing that.

OE: and yea, put the NY back in!

[Edgy MD]

You can do a logo with an 1880s skyline, to represent the original Mets.

[Lefty Specialist]

It's not the 'Freedom Tower', it's One World Trade Center.

[Edgy MD]

Things have unofficial names, too. Colloquial names.

[Frayed Knot]

Olbermann hit on this topic on his nightly show tonight - so it now has at least some degree of national exposure.
Frankly I'm having a bit of trouble getting worked up over it.

[nymr83]

Anything that cuts out the UN makes me happy, but i seriously would have even known about this if not for dumb media and dont actually care

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: Things have unofficial names, too. Colloquial names.

Like, y'know, "Citigroup Center/Building."

I like the Radom update lots, but as to actually making such a change, JCL hits it right on the head; any significant change to the brand will get dagger eyes and outcry beyond the usual talk-radio jabber, if only because of said brand's current custodians.

[Edgy MD]

A really skilled and evil Met spinmeister could kill two PR birds with one stone and pin the logo tampering on Leigh Castergine, and that's why she got the axe. And have it leak out from sullen un-named sources, because the Mets are really too decent to say so officially.

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: I'd be okay if they used a special alt logo for a special occasion from time to time but the basic logo should never be changed. You don't mess with perfection.

yeah, no reason not to have some fun with it.

Of course, once you do that you'll inevitably get the sponsorship stuff. YOu'll get one with Spiderman swinging on one of the buildings, and whoever owns that giant residential building in midtown will want a logo and a sponsorship..

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: I'd be okay if they used a special alt logo for a special occasion from time to time but the basic logo should never be changed. You don't mess with perfection. yeah, no reason not to have some fun with it. Of course, once you do that you'll inevitably get the sponsorship stuff. YOu'll get one with Spiderman swinging on one of the buildings, and whoever owns that giant residential building in midtown will want a logo and a sponsorship..

Allow me to change that to significant special occasions.

That would be one superkool alt logo tho.

[Zvon]

This pic is in the thread already but I don't think the story was linked. This was an official change that occurred in 2012. Did we touch on it here? I don't recall.

http://toddradom.com/the-mets-lose-williamsburg/

The change is the small circled building (the Williamsburg Savings Bank). No big whup, but they can go ahead and change that back.

I'm going to try and make a version of the logo using pictures of the actual buildings.

[Zvon]

This might come out kool.

It's gotta be in black & white tho. That's a twist.
The base pic is B&W. This pic kinda inspired me to try this: