The winner of the NHL Relocation Design Competition: Seattle is ...
Matt McElroy with his Seattle Metropolitans design. Congratulations, Matt.
Check out the results below Matt's winning design.
If you want to see all of the submissions, visit the Flickr gallery.
With a total of 408 votes cast, Matt's design received 49 votes (12.01%).
...
A big thank you to all of the designers who took part in the competition. Also, thanks to everyone who helped promote the competition on Twitter and Facebook.
I'm working on the details of the next competition, so stay tuned...
So what do you all think about the winner? I have to admit that I'm surprised...
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 23, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Sorry but this is a garbage..
Posted by: p | January 23, 2012 at 02:43 PM
You should probably disable the ability to vote multiple times. This seems pretty unlikely.
Posted by: Simon | January 23, 2012 at 02:53 PM
The problem with "promoting on facebook" and the like, is that it's basically a popularity contest, whoever can coerce more of their own friends to vote for their design ends up winning. I will admit, I also promoted my design on facebook, so I don't want it to be seen as sour grapes on my part that Matt McElroy won, because his design is very cool, and deserving of the win.
not sure there is even anything that could be done to change anything.... this is what social media is I guess...
Posted by: Gary | January 23, 2012 at 03:05 PM
@Simon -
I use PollDaddy.com for the voting. I blocked multiple votes.
@Gary -
I agree with you. My thinking was that Matt did a very good job getting people to come out to vote. On Twitter I noticed some of the designers asking people to vote for their designs, where others did not ask people to go out and vote.
There are no rules against asking people to go vote for your design. That's just the way things are.
The only other option would be ME picking the winner for these contests.
I am open to suggestions for getting a truer winner for instances like this. And I mean NO disrespect to Matt McElroy. He won the contest using the voting method presented to everyone. I set up the poll so you can not vote multiple times. I also set it up so you can't vote from the same IP address.
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 23, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Make the contest voting only open to people who are "members" or "signed up" on the site? I guess that way if someone still wants to Promote their design on facebook, they can, but it would make it more of a pain for the "Friend" voter to have to sign up for the website...and THEN vote.
I know me personally, If someone asks me to vote for something online, If once I get there the website asks me to sign up and I have no interest in doing so, that person just lost my "friend" vote.
just an idea.. there are probably alot of things wrong with it but thought I would at least throw it on the table.
Posted by: Gareth | January 23, 2012 at 03:37 PM
@Gareth -
I couldn't do something like that. It would dramatically decrease the fun of interacting on this site. People like to come here to vote and comment. If they have to be a member to do something as simple as voting, they're just not gonna come here. It's an imperfect system, but, no matter what, we all still get to see some really outstanding and interesting designs.
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 23, 2012 at 03:40 PM
good call johnny. waiting for the next contest.
Posted by: Gareth | January 23, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Wow, that's disappointing. The top two designs were ones that folks commenting never really mentioned. No offense to those two guys, but it's obvious to me they had a lot of "help" from friends.
The winner just reminds me of the LA Lakers too much. As a Seattle native, those colors just don't work either. Greeens, silver, and blues in my worthless opinion.
You're the winner in my book, Gareth.
Posted by: Tim | January 23, 2012 at 03:49 PM
How about doing what HJC has? that website has voting committee. that way people who want to vote can but only once.
Posted by: cody smith | January 23, 2012 at 04:41 PM
I'll most likely keep my voting system as it is. Out of all of the competitions, only two contests had an out of place winner. Either that or I'll have some professional and reputable designers be judges. We'll see...
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 23, 2012 at 04:47 PM
I may be a little bias,and defensive in this but one of the key things in a vote is getting people out to vote and using the system that is in place.
As far as my design I would love some constructive criticism not just "oh its not the best".
Posted by: Matt McElroy | January 23, 2012 at 05:25 PM
@Matt McElroy -
I think it's fair to assume that most people here realize you did a "get out and vote" campaign. There's nothing wrong with that. You're not the only one to do it. You just got the best results. :)
When it comes time for voting in the next contest, I'll make sure to remind all the designers that they all need to do a "get out and vote" campaign or they could be left in the dust.
IF that proves to be a shitty system, I'll come up with a new method of voting. Perhaps I'll be the judge, or I'll get a panel of judges who are respected and trusted designers.
I'll let others critique the design ... I'm working on the next competition!
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 23, 2012 at 06:45 PM
@Johnny
A thought: two votes or two 'types' of winners? One is the "popular" vote or "the people's vote", the current method. The other is the "panel of judges who are respected and trusted designers".
This might make declaring a clear cut winner difficult if a prize of some sort is at stake. But it would be interesting to see the differences between what joe public sees and what designers see; joes vs pros, so to speak.
Posted by: Ray | January 23, 2012 at 08:10 PM
I'll Volunteer if you go that way johnny.
Posted by: Mike Ivall Design | January 23, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Can't believe this one won!
Posted by: HockeyFan | January 23, 2012 at 09:45 PM
I'm proud my design go one vote, especially as I didn't even vote for it. And as for the whole "get friends to vote for you" campaign, If that becomes recommended a lot of people wouldn't want to win by such methods.
We could have an anonymous design vote, where people are credited after the fact. Making it more based on aesthetics rather than popularity
Posted by: Mr. N | January 23, 2012 at 11:25 PM
I like Ray's idea. A "popular" vote and a "critic" vote. Could be a lot of work, but with contests that award prizes, it would be worth it I think.
I guess you can't stop people from spamming their Facebook and Twitter accounts to help with votes. But you could then see some marginal work win, and that's not good. Might make some designers not post their work in the future because they know it's just a "who can spam the most" contest.
Posted by: Tim | January 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Or the opposite... such harsh scrutiny from people in the comments could leave hobbyists like Matt and myself unwilling to share our "unworthy" work with ECHL bloggers or whoever you all are.
Pesonally I'm more surprised that Fraser Davidson recycled his work and only 1 peson said anything about it.
Congrats Matt, keep it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ
Posted by: Gobias Enstrom | January 24, 2012 at 01:58 PM
@Gobias-
These ARE opinions. Nobody is taking away Matt's victory. I didn't step in and say, "No, this is not the winner.". Matt did a very good "Get out the vote" campaign and it helped him get a lot of votes. He submitted a design and operated under the rules, fair and square.
Does that mean I think his design was the best of the bunch? No, I don't. That's why I voted for Fraser's and not Matt's.
Again, nobody is taking his victory away. They are just voicing their opinion on the quality of his work versus how he got the votes. Two different things.
Bottom line, Matt won. Fair and square.
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 24, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Congrats to Matt for a well played campaign. IMO, there's no reason to be upset at the results. In the end, nothing was at stake here except Internet bragging rights.
I would hope that no professional/esteemed panel of forum judges comes out of this because it would mean amateurs like me would never stand a chance. Part of the fun is that chance (however slim) and the hope that some constructive criticism or learning can occur along the way. This rarely occurs when things get formal. Even the more professional contributors (you know who you are) probably do this out of a love for the art and the friendly competition, not for the win (of course, I could be wrong).
There is already a venue for formal judging and that comes in the form of contests such as those decided by the Grand Rapids Griffins, for example: third parties with a specific interest.
Posted by: DJC | January 24, 2012 at 03:06 PM
Well said, DJC.
Now, since I consider this a friendly website, how about we critique Matt's design rather than go back and forth about the voting system. The voting system has worked for two years and I'd rather not change anything.
So, friendly comments and critiques anyone?
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM
I'll kick that ball...
Logo: I would have removed the windows (less detail, more iconified) and put a full point at the tip of the antenna mast (direction, sharper?); I do think the alternate looks better as a primary.
Wordmark: I'm not keen on the Seattle script but I would have made Metropolitans complementary to it rather continue with it; perhaps something blockish?
Jersey: I'd love to know the reasons behind the blue forearms.
Posted by: DJC | January 24, 2012 at 03:35 PM
My two cents:
1. I am not generally a fan of wordmarks as a primary logo, but I do like how clever this one is, using the space needle (or whatever that thing is called) as the letter "t".
2. I don't like how you can't really read "Metropolitans" from even a little distance.
3. The curves of the "S" are pretty crude and needs a lot of smoothing help
4. I don't like the blunt spire/antenna outline. I would have made it come to a point.
5. The jersey looks way too much like the Edmonton Oilers'. The NHL and the Oilers would never let this jersey style with this color scheme get past the concept stage.
6. When I think of Seattle colors I see blues/greens
7. As for the secondary, I'd just nitpick a lot of the positioning and symmetry of the elements that make up the design.
Overall, it's a clever design and that's coming from someone who hates wordmark logos. With polishing and tweaks, this would be a very nice design. And, as stated above, it needs a more appropriate color scheme.
Posted by: johnny griswold | January 24, 2012 at 04:17 PM
The only two designs which are close to being of NHL standard are the Navigators and the Lumberjacks. Both got the colour scheme right and my hat is off to them for the striping. Nicely done. Neither logo quite cuts it for different reasons. The Navigator logo needs to be redone - it just isn't that good. The concept is right though. The Lumberjacks logo, while professional-looking, is too cartoonish for the NHL - a la the early Blue Jackets logo. Glad they ditched the bug. The Lumberjacks as is would be fine for a minor league team.
I can't say anything about the "winner" that hasn't already been justly pointed out.
Posted by: Craig Armstrong | January 27, 2012 at 07:28 PM