After a NASA Lewis Research Center illustrator’s design was chosen for the new agency’s official seal, the head of Lewis’ Research Reports Division, James Modarelli, was asked by the executive secretary of NACA to design a NASA logo that could be used for less formal purposes.

NASA logo
The illustrator’s design before simplification.

Mr Modarelli simplified the seal, leaving only the white stars and orbital path on a round field of blue with a red airfoil. Then he added white N-A-S-A lettering.

NASA logo meatball
Nasa’s meatball

In the “meatball” design, the sphere represents a planet, the stars represent space, the red chevron is a wing representing aeronautics (the latest design in hypersonic wings at the time the logo was developed), and then there is an orbiting spacecraft going around the wing.

Known officially as the insignia, NASA’s round logo was not called the “meatball” until 1975. That’s when NASA decided a more modern logo was in order.

NASA uniform logos
NASA / Time Life Pictures / Getty Images

Richard Danne and Bruce Blackburn were hired to replace the complex meatball with a stripped-down, modernist interpretation — dubbed the worm — where even the cross stroke of the A’s were removed. During the first design presentation, the proposed system was met with some resistance.

NASA worm logo
NASA worm logo

Danne remembers NASA’s administrator, Dr James Fletcher, and deputy administrator, Dr George Low, having the following exchange:

Fletcher: “I’m simply not comfortable with those letters, something is missing.”
Low: “Well, yes, the cross stroke is gone from the letter A.”
Fletcher: “Yes, and that bothers me.”
Low: “Why?”
Fletcher: (long pause) “I just don’t feel we are getting our money’s worth!”

Still, the new program was approved and implemented.

NASA worm logo
The NASA worm (image via Galaxy Wire)

17 years later, despite its winning the prestigious “Award of Design Excellence” by The Presidential Design Awards, NASA scrapped the Danne and Blackburn design and re-instated the “meatball.”

NASA worm logo
The worm on Star Trek (image via Ex Astris Scientia)

Danne thinks this was at least partly due to how NASA chose to introduce the new logo to its various internal agencies in the first place. He says the redesign was kept secret until letters were sent to every center director… on their new stationery. Those loyal to the old design were offended, and a rivalry between the “meatball” and the “worm” began.

NASA meatball logo
NASA meatball (image via NASA)

Info excerpted from:
NASA “Meatball” Logo
Who Made Those NASA Logos? (via Chris Backert)
NASA insignia, on Wikipedia

Elsewhere, there’s the NASA graphics standards manual, and related in the archives is a story of NASA wings, meatballs, worms, and swooshes.


I think both logos are definitely products of their time.

I’m not sure it made sense to go back to the 50’s design in the 90’s without some tweaking or modernizing, or maybe a complete re-design would have been good. Why go back in time unless you’re trying to evoke nostalgia? I would hope with aeronautics and space we move forward not back.

I think it’s less about moving forward and more about tradition. Their logo stands for something, and was a respected seal by their predecessors. Not something easily thrown to the drawing board.

Tradition becomes outdated when the logo becomes dysfunctional. Everything is jumbled up with too many elements in a limited and confined space. It’s illegible when scaled down, or quite frankly even scaled up. So speaking from a functional design point, it’s not easy to read from distance, which is important for the recognition of any logo. A true iconic symbol is memorable and legible, as well as functional for a wide variety of applications, which can only be done when you reduce the symbol to its purest form, making it adaptable to any application.

I agree with your graphic design assessment when it comes to most branding, however with the meatball logo being over 60 years old it has become an icon. Even though the wording is illegible when scaled down, you can still make out that it is the NASA meatball based on the blue circle with white font in the middle. The white font becomes a blurry white rectangle but it’s obvious what it must say based on the color.

I agree with your branding assessment up until you mentioned colors. When dealing with logos, colors are only secondary in terms of inmportance. As Jasper stated, your logo should be identifiable in all instances. If we have to rely on color to make out the NASA logo, then it is not worthy of being a logo. Leave it as a badge for badge scenarios.

Apparently you don’t understand their logo. Perhaps you weren’t meant to. This logo is all encompassing and says more than you may well care to know. It is nothing short in display of utter genius.
Each part represents multiple facets, individually, but mostly together.

The stars and their placement represents a host of things. Far too many to enlighten you.

The Ouroboros encompasses a range of mythology, occult astronomical origin theology and with regard to contextual bias. Where it starts and ends is equally important. Back to this later…

The red chevron, originally too brazen and needed to be down toned. The chevron now also serves several purposes, as well as with the Ouroboros. It is an occult symbol in astronomy. It serves with the raw Hebrew meaning of the word ‘nasa’ (na-haw): To deceive, or beguile as the serpent to Eve. It also completes a deceptive letter ‘T’ with which the Ouroboros shows direction to spell the word SATAN. The chevron and Ouroboros also serve to partially conceal the letters NASA, Thus, eluding to its hidden meaning, in plain sight.

The ‘meatball’ as you say, represents a knowledge of our realm, they honestly arrogantly assumed no one would really understand. That is a topic for years of discussion. No one understands in a paragraph, book or encyclopedia, and most don’t after years of study.

I hope this helps you understand the logo as being irreplaceable. If anything, things may only be added. People’s artistic and creative prowess can never do this logo justice.

Thank for that pretentious, painfully defensive and insecure, and borderline psychotic analysis, AJ.

Sounds very reasonable, warrants a defensive ad hominem the secure sane always indulge in. :) Space patches of every agency have occult symbolism, yet primate deniers refuse to see the religious meaning.

Let’s see what ARTEMIS brings in future.

NASA is the only entity to (by admission) go backward in technology, and stay there. Only fitting… Moon landing, now can’t…?

The original logo was a much better representation of what NASA is about. The latter simply is not. newer is not always better. The new logo could mean anything.

I was raised on the “worm” logo that appeared on one of my first Matchbox sets, a flatbed trailer truck carrying a NASA rocket, accompanied by a radar van. It was iconic. The “meatball” feels old, not worthy of space explores. “Worm” on the other hand looks like something from 2025. To conclude, NASA should come back to the “worm” and aim for the top again.

The real iconic logo is the meatball. A lot of people remember that NASA carried the meatball all the way to the moon and were very happy to go back to it after the goofy modernistic worm. To me, the worm looks dated, something that was supposed to look futuristic back in the late ’70s but that didn’t age well.

My thought is between what you and Chris said. I do think that we need to go back to something like a worm, or even a symbol. The NASA meatball is more of a seal in functionality rather than a logo. Make that your seal, tweak it, and design an updated worm logo. The worm logo uses old design queues from the era it was designed in. For instance, the N and A are too close to the other letters, and the logo doesn’t evoke any type of emotion, which is somewhat evident in a lot of 70’s and 80’s design.

Well folks, no need to fear, the worm logo was recently reinstated as NASA’s secondary logo, and for the recent manned Dragon launch the Falcon 9 sported the worm on its side. :)

To me the worm logo evokes an aura of modernity, I don’t see it as having aged, I still see it as a modern concept.

I also grew up on the worm… and even 8-year-old me understood how silly it looked. It doesn’t look like 2025, it looks like bell-bottom disco wear. The meatball has meaning. If needs be, update it. But all the worm has are poorly formed letters.

and with space travel topics going on about the idea of traveling through wormholes, it’s more apropos to go forward with the worm logo than backwards… tho maybe that’s why they went kaput and NASA is no more

Dropping the beautiful ‘worm’ logo was a ‘Giant Step Backward’ for mankind.
Guess they are use to having meatball & spaghetti on their clothes.

I love how their graphic standards web page recommends using Netscape Navigator version 4.0 or above and set to 800×600.
I guess I’ve never been a fan of the meatball version, so it is unfortunate that they did go back to that.

There is something simply more powerful and iconic about the worm logo… it’s monumental and seems more appropriate for for space exploration.

Great article, I can’t help but feel the the very first one (the illustrators version) has the most appeal for me. The missing cross bars in any logo always troubles me, I do believe in keeping things simple but there needs to be a rationale behind it, in this instance I just don’t understand it. I think once NASA starts considering MARS more seriously there should be a totally new idea, something way more inspiring.

Just on a slightly different note, the use of the classic American Airlines logo on the spaceships in the sci-fi movie ‘Silent Running’ look pretty nice.

It’s actually very functional to remove the cross bars, especially when it comes to stencilling, and laser or die cutting.

[Eight years later – sorry, I’ve just randomly come across this page in 2019]… re your last observation, I’m reminded of the “Pan Am” branding/logos on the spaceships in “2001”; Stanley Kubrick and most everyone else in 1968 wouldn’t have predicted that airline would be defunct now. (Isn’t American out of business too?)

Huh.. That’s very interesting.

Honestly, I dislike the Worm logo. I feel as they were trying to make it “spacy”, by making it simple and removing the cross in the A as if it was a fashion forward version. I associate strange, simplified fonts like that (especially in regards to space) with aliens. And although it’s about space, NASA is definitely not alien. It should be very human, very traditional (though timeless).

It should say “This is who we are!”, not “Hello, Aliens, this is our interpretation of what we think you might write like”.

I wouldn’t want their (or anyone’s) first impression of NASA to be “Conceptual Future Space Culture”. It should be what we are now, and what we’ll always be.

As the Art Director for NASA Television I am often conflicted about my thoughts on the Meatball vs. the Worm.

The Meatball is a classic branding icon that was there at NASA’s beginning and burned into the collective conscience through its use in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs; it is as recognizable to the world as the Coca-Cola logo.

But… as a designer it is horrible to work with. It is very difficult to place into Opens, IDs, Promos, etc. It was damn near impossible to recreate in 3D… and always must be manually centered because the red vector is not even on each side.

For me, the Worm just looks too simple and dated… even though it would be much easier to incorporate into designs and build in 3D. Even though I hate working with it… I have to vote for the Meatball… nothing says NASA better than that.

Mark R. Hailey
Art Director, NASA Television

Very good point, it’s kind of like why women wear ridiculously uncomfortable high heels. They like wearing them, but they destroy their ankles and constrict their movements in the process. In your case, you like the meatball logo, but you make life more difficult for yourself — “horrible to work with” as you put it.

To be honest I’m hard pressed to decide which I like best. The circle device with lots of stuff going on in it actually feels very modern to me (possibly due to current trends) I really like it a lot. The typface is dated but I like the way its sparkling serifs remand me of the intro to Bewitched (the American 60s sitcom, probably not the feel NASA actually wanted).

The worm is like every font I ever tried to draw in the back of my school book and on my pencil tin. But it nostalgia aside, it does feel like it needs a sleep.

An alien could read the “worm” logo as “VSVN”, so you run the risk of something getting lost in translation. Maybe “VSVN” is offensive in the alien dialect and we could be bombed to hell. Just a thought.

tbh i think both are slightly dated they need a more current typeface the worm reminds me of an 80s vision of what the future must be like and the meatball looks like a police badge but i do agree it works well on uniforms just looks more “government official” at the end of the day their logo will have to move with the times because of the nature of their business but then again they dont need to appeal to the general public (its nasa your either into it or your not)

I prefer the “meatball” because it better depicts the idea of NASA involving space travel. The “worm” represents nothing to someone who does not know what the letters stand for, but I suppose that is typical for many logos.

My main reason for posting is to share an idea about the chevron. I bought a “I Need My Space” hat at the Kennedy Space Center, and the stitching of the “meatball” logo gave the chevron three dimensions. This image brought to mind a dowsing or divining rod used to search for water. The chevron seems to be a forked stick pointing to the heavens. After all, isn’t water, or signs of it, one of the first things we look for in space exploration? I convinced myself that this was the intention of the designer, which led me to the search for it’s design story, and then to this site to put forth my observation.

Thank you!

I must say, I like them both. I missed the “Meatball” when it was replaced by the “Worm” but there was something so neat and clean and fresh about the “Worm” that I liked. Going back to the “Meatball” is fine with me too and, in fact, I think I like the ‘retro’ feel it evokes in me. I guess I can treat them pretty equally and enjoy anything they come up with next as long as it says “NASA”.

These are pretty easy adjustments folks; just sit back, chill out and enjoy the ride…

This is my favorite comment. The meatball logo has a sperm cell revolving around the NASA logotype in space, which symbolizes our longing to fertilize a new egg in space. I don’t get the red tweezers however. The NASA worm logotype is more functional from a design and application standpoint, but is a little more dry.

I always assumed NASA used an official “insignia” for official items and a stylized symbol for public multimedia, much as the air force does.

While maintaining currency is a must as with all graphic identities, the graphic identity of a government agency must also function as representative of the larger government, its stability, and continuance. This creates obvious contradictions as to what such graphic identity should look like and makes it unnecessarily difficult to accomplish with the assumption there could only be one brand or symbol. For instance it would send all the wrong messages to redesign the presidential seal just because it prints and displays poorly (which it does).

The insigne is not just a brand identity for the sake of public recognition, it is the graphical analogue of the agency itself and must connote the same gravity and honor a signature or seal has, a function which insignia have traditionally served. If it’s a multi-billion dollar spacecraft, it has to be the insignia because those things are NASA incarnate. If we’re talking about websites and laser printers and staying hip, then make a separate brand. That’s what the worm logo is for.

I disagree with you here. When art and industry marry, it creates an ideal entity. You’re speaking of divorcing the two. Art and beauty stirs emotion and desire, industry is something more productive and progressive. Imagine if the two were married.

The challenge for the NASA worm logo was always an uphill battle. Designers are used to the kind of idiotic conversations quoted in the initial presentation by Dr. Fletcher. Minimalism is a tough sell when the audience thinks of a logo as a military patch. The challenge for the NASA brand, was to continually be viable in the public eye to harness a continued curiosity and public interest, and therefore public support. In other words: a healthy budget.

In that regard, the worm was dead solid perfect. Suggesting a break away from its old-school fly boy roots, it pointed towards a greater scientific path to the future. Having said that, it’s easy to see why it met internal resistance. It was perfect for its time, and should have had a healthy future for decades to come.

Sadly, it serves as a textbook lesson in how important internal ‘buy-in’ and adaptation is to the greater success of any identity program.

This alone wasn’t cause for its demise. After the Columbia disaster, and the massive shake-up that followed, an attempt to ‘look back to the future’ mentality took hold, and the worm was scapegoated with representing a temporary failure to maintain quality.

If only it was that easy.

Brands and institutions change logos for all kinds of reasons, but IMHO the killing of the worm was one of the worse-reasoned decisions in history.

Here on earth – the meatball.

Splashed onto the hull of a spacecraft – the worm, unmistakable.

I realize I’m a little late to the party here, but I think the attraction for the meatball folks is probably more emotional; it’s what they remember seeing on the space suits when they watched it on tv. So, the meatball: Yeah, it’s got a planet and stars and a spacecraft in orbit and a wing and the letters N A S A. It’s crap. The only thing missing is a smiling Sun. It’s what a first grader would create if asked.

For those who espouse the meatball as representing the spirit of NASA, I submit that the worm was never given the same opportunity. Dan Golding eradicated it as if it never existed, viewing it as the vestige of an organization mired in complacency. This was just plain dumb. And what logo was on the Shuttle Columbia when it broke up on reentry because controllers on the ground casually disregarded the damaged ceramic tiles on the spacecraft? That would be the meatball. The worm logo is not dated, it is timeless. I challenge anyone suggesting NASA needs a third logo, to take a shot at it and post it for all to judge. Nothing will come close to the worm logo. It’s sleek, smart and says technology.

I think it’s fair to say that the meatball represents the spirit of the early pilots of NASA. It represented the “right stuff,” whereas the worm represents scientific discovery–not a bad image for an organization whose scientists represent our best hope for saving this planet.

Jim Sonnenberg

Just a clarification: It was after the Challenger explosion and the O-rings and all that nonsense that Dan Golding went on his Teddy Roosevelt-style worm logo hunting expedition. The idea was to expunge the worm and the malaise that went with it. The Columbia breakup illustrated the folly of that thinking, and ironically exposed Golding’s fix as perhaps more superficial than substantive. Then again, the Space Shuttle was not much more than a school bus sitting belly-side atop a giant roman candle. Every astronaut understood the dangers. Frankly it’s amazing there weren’t more disasters. Perhaps this more than anything is a testament to the skill and dedication of every employee at NASA, logo notwithstanding.

Jim Sonnenberg

Let Pentagram redesign it. NASA has a huge need for quality designers and a firm brand stance with consistency. Their social marketing has shown through in the past couple of years, but as a whole, it is disconnected and lacking inspiration. NASA is doing some of the coolest stuff imaginable, and they are having trouble selling that… there is a serious need to right that ship.

I know I’m way late to this party but I’ll give my two cents here as a graphic designer and absolute space nut.

The meatball has symbolism in the orbital shape, the chevron that is the red wing shape , the stars and on top of that, the letters. You also have the patriotic color scheme going on. It just edges out the worm to me. It’s simple enough but not overly simple. It uses the symbols to represent aspects of space and aeronautics. The worm didn’t portray that.

To me one is a symbol and the other, just letters. That said, I think they both have their place. But being at KSC and seeing that giant meatball on the side of the VAB you get a sense of where you are, in time AND space.

Of course, to each their own. Who knows, the worm might make a comeback. I wouldn’t oppose it. :)

Lewis spelled it out good. Stars, Orbits and a Circle to give the abstract idea of the shape of Planets and horizons and maybe (imo) represent the edge of the visible universe with only the brightest of galactic filaments shining within, there’s a lot of symbolic meaning that only an engineer would understand and in their own ways, all united in one.

Just to clarify, the red arrow shape is not a chevron, it is a Vector with a slight gravitational curve. Vectors are a big part of space jargon, something most artsy people wouldn’t understand. Could NASA use another completely different design? Maybe a slight upgrade but if you upgrade or change the design any more it could confuse the future even more and show a lack in administrative direction which is something they dont need in a tight budget.

You better believe the meatball is nostalgic and to be working under the same logo that your heroes worked under really does feel great and when you feel great you do your best! It is morale, and aside from image, morale is also what a logo is for. All Marines have a globe and anchor that hasn’t changed since the globe and anchor were formed and it unites ALL marines with a single insignia from the begining until the present. The same thing holds true for NASA.

The worm just sucked. It is ironic that it actually aged NASA instead of modernizing it, I dont think they saw that one coming. The Meatball is like a pair of Levi’s, it just never wants to go out of style. To be nice to the worm minded, the worm does have some nostalgia and shines light on a particular ERA in space, the Shuttle, the Hubble, Low Earth Orbit, Growing beans, Campy looking light blue flight suits. If they didn’t have that back to the future look of the era it would not stick out the way it does, thus we might not remember it the way we do.

I think the worm did its job in the right place and time. But it is certainly not a logo for this time or the time before it. That should make it more special than it would be if it was still used.

Meatball all the way!
It really ties in with the space ‘theme’ and the worm logo looks quite old.
The meatball looks more modern, that’s why I like it.

I do think there is a lot of equity and sentimental value to the “meatball” but it is just a mess of a logo. Too complex and badly executed. (All those tangents are just awful). The worm also has some imperfections, (mostly the kerning is too tight) but it is a much better logo. Perhaps the meatball should be used as a patch for the uniforms and space suits, for its nostalgic value.

I’m a fan of the meatball logo, But I do admit it wasnt well designed. Still, what I like from the meatball is that it’s more “emotional” and more “human” as the logo is how we see space: the stars, the planet, and such :D
About the worm logo (it reminds me of ESPN), it’s way simplier rather than the meatball, yeah, but, something’s off, I don’t know how to explain it, it just looks like a bunch of letters and thats it. I didn’t click with the worm.

How about redesigning the meatball so it’ll be more accepted?

I’m currently working at NASA and everyone has an allegiance to either the worm or meatball. So far, I’ve not met anyone under forty who liked the meatball. It seems the general criticism of it is that its very aged (not in a cool/retro way). Personally, i’m not a fan of the meatball. I’ve only liked it on the WB-57F research jets – and that’s because they dropped the blue circle background.

The worm is more timeless because it makes people think of an advanced future we still haven’t yet approached. Because of it’s simplicity, it also looks immensely better on documents/spacecraft than the meatball.

I’m 25 and I love the meatball; hate the worm. Meatball looks classic and way more eye-catching. Worm looks dated and straight out of the 80s. Not in a good way. Sorry, wormy.

Compromise by changing the meatball’s typeface to the style of the worm (white color), then remove the orbital graphic. This would simplify, yet strengthen the logo.

I would wager that those of us who are old enough to remember watching the moon landing live with Walter Cronkite favor the meatball. I was 12 when I watched it, and it had a huge impact on me. It was cool to be a space geek at that time. It’s probably why I went into Engineering as a profession. Personally, I love the Mid-Century Modern aspects of the meatball. Maybe because I remember MCM design when it was just design. Actually, the meatball is just more meaningful to those of who remember a world where no one had been to the moon.

But today’s young people identify with very simple logos, like the Apple and the G. One style (simple vs complex) is not better, just different. I imagine that when us old geezers are gone, the worm will win, jettisoning a lot of NASA history and nostalgia when it does.

So young people, remember this discussion when Apple decides to change its logo to an A without a crossbar.

Well, Fletcher was right in saying “I just don’t feel we are getting our money’s worth!” There is something in the worm logo lettering that never felt right.

As an architect, designer and artist, I prefer the worm logo. But I feel it is not either the meatball or the worm, I feel it is neither… I don’t hate the meatball, but it feels ridiculously dated, it is messy, and it has too much going on. All the detail and symbolism is nice, but it is unreadable unless the logo is printed very large or if you are really close up. So it is useless most of the time because it isn’t clear most of the time. Just look at your computer screen right now and you will see all kinds of logos and icons, all simple, clear and easily readable in any size. All modern logos are simple, crisp and clear. These are the basic design rules for ANY logo and the meatball barely meets these ‘standards’. Look at the iconic apple logo, Google logo, car brands, and so on… All international brands are simple, recognisable and modern. If one of my students designed this meatball today, it would be a pass, but barely.

I like the crispness, simplicity and modernity of the worm, but it lacks a simple graphical reference to space and/or space exploration, which does seem essential for a logo for NASA. So this one isn’t perfect either.

I think a new design is in order for the 21st century. A crisp, clean and simple logo, readable in any size and made for the digital age. All logos maintain a tradition and recognisability, but are regularly redesigned and updated. Even Coca-cola or Pepsi have updated their logos regularly and they are not the same as in the 50s or 70s. They are still easily recognisable, but have been modernised and updated. That is what NASA should do, make a redesign of the old traditional logo, simplify it, modernise it, and combine it with the crispness, and modernity of the worm. Get a good design company on this and you’ll get a great logo that will stick in peoples minds. But just turning back the clock is pure nostalgia and nothing more. The meatball looks and feels dated, and doesn’t work in a modern digital world. Obvious I feel.

They should make it a competition and maybe you can get designers to do it for free. After all your design would be sent into space and would be seen by billions of people over the world. You can’t get more advertising as a designer than that! I’d take part and do it for free any day.

I agree that an update for NASA has a place. The worm represented a step into the modern age but now has an 80’s feel. Indeed, something is missing, but it’s not the A’s crossbars. Jordan Lang’s proposal is too shortsighted, plus it looks Russian. We need to bring the good parts from the past but reinvent it for the current age.

I don’t understand why they scrapped the worm logo. Take a look at the Space Shuttle astronauts’ uniform. The meatball is sitting quite content with the worm logo. Our past and tradition meets a modernist and bright future.

The worm logo was scrapped because it really represents the LEO only years of NASA. It represents budget cuts, failed projects, and the downscaling of dreams. We went from the Apollo Program to the STS program, where the design intent was just to do what we’ve already done. Low Earth Orbit. Mercury did it, Gemini did it, and now STS did it. The only problem is STS came after Apollo. Still the greatest achievement by any manned space program. The worm logo represents something simple alright. Saying the future is simple and uninspired. Going back to the old insignia was the first step in the right direction for NASA, it is a message of “We need to get off our butts and dare to do the impossible again.”

Since NASA in Hebrew means “lies”, or “to beguile or to deceive”, doesn’t the chevron look like… the tongue of a serpent?

Just found this thread, halfway through 2019, but here’s someone else’s stab at the new logo idea. I, for one, like this approach.

NASA logo

And now the story continues with NASA planning to bring back the worm logo. From Fastcompany on April 2, 2020: It will appear on the side of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle that’s scheduled to take astronauts to the International Space Station in mid-May and will commemorate “the return of human spaceflight on American rockets from American soil,” NASA says.

This discussion is why human civilization has been held back for so long. You don’t even need a logo. When your planet is inhabitable and you need to be colonized on another planet and you don’t make it in time and your species dies, well, I think the time spent on the logo may sound trivial. Move forward with the designs that matter. Everything else is a waste. We are very limited in one arena and that’s time.

As a sports designer, I’ve created new or updated team logos many times. The biggest complaint is consistent with those wanting to stick with the meatball. The worm reminded had zero connection to the meatball – therefore, the nostalgia and history were bypassed. The MAYA principle wasn’t applied.

It’s never about how technically better a new logo is to print, shrink or make 1-color. It’s older folks not liking change. Or worse – making the change and when the ‘throwback’ is used years later – people seemed to like it so much better than they did before and want it reinstated – even if it’s a nightmare to use or extremely dated.

Have you seen the 30’s versions of the Yankees “NY” logo? Is the rainbow Apple logo really that much better on everything? Satisfaction is based on making connections. If you can’t connect – it’s trash. Just like movie remakes and song covers, no matter who made it or how much better it is.

I don’t see why it’s so difficult and controversial to put the worm logo as the lettering on the meatball insignia, celebrating both past accomplishments and future visions.

It just doesn’t work, the worm logo is very powerful on its own so you can’t add anything to that.

Share a thought