Second day reactions to Nets branding: the "borough is the message" and "going the nostalgic route with something that has little actual heritage"

I'm catching up on some second-day coverage of the Brooklyn Nets branding rollout Monday, April 30

In Day One of the Brooklyn Nets Went Well, New York magazine's Will Leitch noted the "friendly little coincidence" that the team's brand identity launch "happened to coincide with one of the worst Knicks days in recent memory."

He noted, as I should have stressed, that the line outside Modell's was driven not merely by excitement about new logos and merch but by the giveaway of 100 free tickets to the home opener.

Leitch agrees that the simple fact of "Brooklyn"--as with the Brooklyn Cyclones--means people will wear the merch. He adds:

The problem, of course, is that you only get to do this once. We enjoyed the "No Sleep Till ... " and "Brownstone Ballers" T-shirts, and we enjoyed the "shoes hanging off a telephone pole" motif, along with the general good vibe, 'cause hey, how couldn't you? (Whatever your issues with Bruce Ratner and the nefarious ways this project was put together are, there is something viscerally exciting about having a basketball team in Brooklyn, at a base level.) But the Nets' plan, considering how bad the team is and how unlikely they are to sign Dwight Howard or keep Deron Williams, is to simply sell Brooklyn itself; the borough is the message.

And, he warns:

And the Nets only get to sell Brooklyn for so long; eventually they have to sell themselves. Right now, they're not close to that.

From UniWatch

UniWatch's Paul Lukas, with the dry headline, Well, You Certainly Can't Say They Overdesigned It, acknowledged that he grew up as a Nets fan and cares about a team in his borough, but has been "very, very opposed to the new arena" because of the location, the "financial boondoggle," and more.

But he tried to put that aside in his evaluation, concluding that, while the new brands avoid caricature, "I’m not sure they’ve accomplished much of anything else." While not "overdesigned; it doesn’t try to look macho or fierce or intimidating," he stated, "I don’t see much in the way of strengths here," calling the typography "wan" and "generic."

The uniforms, he predicts after a peek, will be better.

From The Classical

The Classical's David Roth, in Yes Logo: People Who Know What They're Talking About On Jay-Z's Brooklyn Nets Logo, compiled some reactions, trying to go beyond his own conclusion that the "Nets logo looks stupid to me."

Joseph Applegate said the "logo is uninspired and anachronistic and somewhat poorly constructed," but acknowledged "it will sell like crazy. There's even something bold about going the nostalgic route with something that has little actual heritage."

His conclusion:

The new Nets logo is an (arguably) competent facsimile of a classic design, and reflects something the owners and fans probably wish were so: that theirs is a team with a history and a backstory that doesn't involve a few decades in the suburbs.

Logo adapted by David Rappoccio

David Rappoccio called it "about as pedestrian and safe as a sports logo can be" suggesting it "feels like it was designed by committee," with no depth and a dull font. He observed:

This is pro sports, your logo needs to be deceptively simple, not actually simple. The more you stare at most team logos, the more you discover. Little lines, small colors, maybe some hidden elements. The longer I stare at this the longer I feel like I got a free Valium subscription.

He did say he liked "the alternate 'circle' version" and even devised his own alternate "adding a ring and a better, sporty font" to the main logo (right).

Maybe they should pay him a royalty.