Originally Posted by
djpaul89
A few reactions from people in social media who got to see the logo idea after railing on name:
"That logo might actually make me change my mind. I'd change the colors up to make it Mardi Gras-themed, though."
"Seeing "Pelicans" in plain text just looked boring. Dat looks cool."
"New Orleans Pelicans... Ok, so this is not so bad"
"cooler than I predicted but a little busy. Nice"
To Da Throne...you're complaining about how ESPN, national fans, and people you know are hating the name and that "there's a reason why." I'm contending that a large part of the reason why is because there is no brand attached to it, although you say that a brand has no effect on the name. So when you think of the Lakers' name, do you just think of it in plain 12 point Times New Roman, do you think about a mythical person called a Laker, or do you think about the regal purple and gold, block italic font that is used with the team name? Branding definitely goes hand in hand with a name.
Some people say that the mascot is stupid because it is perceived as a goofy, cartoony bird and not "fierce." Well, what's the comeback for a Nugget? A Celtic? A Laker (WTH is that anyway)? A Net? Outside of the Celtics, none of these teams even use their actual mascot, just the name itself, and they intimidate just fine.
I think it's unfortunate that just the name by itself was leaked...kind of a PR blunder IMO. Should have had more rolled out at one time...logo, local history, etc.