OnWis97

Los Angeles Rams Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

Los Angeles Rams uniform evolution:

 

2016

lar16.png

 

2017

lar17.png

 

2018

lar18.png

 

2019

lar19.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Right.  The fact that they've been wearing this uniform for so long means they could've put in for a change whenever they wanted to, but that only starts the process. There was no window of time between the move being approved and the first game in LA that would've made a rebrand possible.

 

 

But it's absurd that approval of a rebrand should take longer than approval of a move!  I get it with market research, etc...But it seems farcical.  Move across the country? Go right ahead. Change the shade of yellow?  Whoa, slow down!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

Unless you're a Rams, Titans, or Jags die-hard, I have no idea why you'd be watching those latter two games.

Honestly, I would watch a game where the Rams wore their standard navy jersey with the new helmets for that reason alone. My doctor said I should see a psychiatrist about my masochistic tendencies when I told him that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lights Out said:

That looks absolutely terrible. It's clear Kroenke was a star pupil at the Spanos School of Branding. He excels at giving the fans what they don't want.

Sorry, no. The Rams asked if they could switch to blue and athletic gold between now and the 2019 redesign, and the league said no. 

 

So all they're doing now is trying to de-St. Louis-ify their look until they can unveil their new 2019 uniforms, which will probably be some form of blue and athletic gold.

 

So much "the sky is falling!" over what's obviously a short-term stopgap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided they end up in the right place, with athletic gold and brighter blue, you are absolutely right.  Time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who sees them going back to Blue and White full time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They changed their logo to navy and white. All of their marketing materials since they moved to LA have been navy and white. I'll believe they're switching to royal blue and athletic gold when I see them do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jmac11281 said:

I can see them staying with navy and white. I don't believe blue and athletic gold is a sure thing.

 

Oh, I don't think anybody thinks it's a sure thing at all.  It's clearly what the fanbase wants, and is really what they ought to do, but that doesn't mean they'll actually make the right choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quick mockup of what the uniforms could look like if the Rams stick with the navy & white thing for the rebrand in 2019. I don't think it looks that bad, but royal blue & gold would still look a million times better in my opinion.

ramsuniprediction.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With absolutely nothing but a gut feeling to go on, right now I'd put my money on navy blue and athletic gold. Half-assedly splitting the difference would surprise no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

They changed their logo to navy and white. All of their marketing materials since they moved to LA have been navy and white. I'll believe they're switching to royal blue and athletic gold when I see them do it.

 

Assuming that that one tweet posted earlier in the thread holds water, it should be pretty clear that their end goal is blue and athletic gold. The point of everything they've done so far is so that in the meantime (meaning: until they can change to blue and yellow for good), they can use colors that they already have in their scheme to:

 

A. De-emphasize the vegas gold, which is a relic of the St. Louis era (because STL=BAD for LA folk).

B. Create a temporary color scheme that is reminiscent of a memorable era of LA football history (because just about anything related to LA=GOOD).

 

They've been denied to make the changes that they ACTUALLY WANT to make, so they're exploiting whatever leeway that they do have with the leagues branding rules to change things up to something that is a little better to them in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was the case with the facemasks they can't use a color not in the team's designated primary color palette. So, they can't add athletic gold since it's not in the primary palette.  Metallic gold is directly tied to Georgia.  Compromise?  Drop the gold in as many possible applications as possible until the team's allowed to change everything and by extension embrace another part of the team's LA history in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Sorry, no. The Rams asked if they could switch to blue and athletic gold between now and the 2019 redesign, and the league said no. 

 

So all they're doing now is trying to de-St. Louis-ify their look until they can unveil their new 2019 uniforms, which will probably be some form of blue and athletic gold.

 

So much "the sky is falling!" over what's obviously a short-term stopgap. 

 

1.  I wonder how hard they tried, considering the league is just the owners and the owners had just given him the green light to move, it stands to reason he could have gotten an exception (even if it cost some $) - if he really wanted one.  It seems to me that they really didn't care, and kinda sorta half-assedly asked, perhaps just so they could say they did.

 

2. Agreed, though if they're not going to change the jersey, from an aesthetic standpoint (which is kinda the reason we're all here) it'd be a better move to just maintain status quo.  IMO bringing back the gold pants under the bright sun would have brightened things up a bit, and also separated them from St. Louis (I realize that the gold pants appeared in a Super Bowl for STL, but they've been gone for so long they would have felt fresh and an "LA" thing.

 

Once they decided (or were told - whichever) that they're keeping their STL jerseys, that should have been the primary indication that there's really no good way to separate the eras.

 

3.  If people are acting like "the sky is falling", it's because of the nature of the board.  We all care about athletic aesthetics, and it's fair to criticize a team that has gone out of their way to intentionally make their visual identity a total mess, when there was no need to do so.  I'm extremely disappointed in this move for several reasons:

 

a. the obvious color mismatches that have been pointed out by pretty much everyone.

b. that they allowed their fans to select the facemask and pants in a very fast online poll.  The pants really aren't a big deal (and I agree with the decision), but the helmet is essentially a logo (in many cases the most identifiable mark) and that decision should be given more thought than a day or two on twitter.  Maybe it's just because I disagree with the outcome, but it's a sure sign that the team doesn't care what they look like if that's how they're making these decisionsl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I don't think the issue was changing the Rams in 2016.  I think the issue was changing the Rams in 2016 AND 2019.  If I were another NFL owner, I wouldn't be so quick to let the team change immediately if they were going to 100% throw the first changes away after three years anyway.  I'm repeating myself, but the Rams probably could have done the throwbacks full-time last year, had a new alt for the new stadium, and then made a new identity around that two years later without much fuss.  That sounds fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

1.  I wonder how hard they tried, considering the league is just the owners and the owners had just given him the green light to move, it stands to reason he could have gotten an exception (even if it cost some $) - if he really wanted one

 

Don't forget how hard it was to get that green light.  The league fought him every step of the way.  It finally took a combination of St. Louis failing to come up with a viable proposal to keep the team, and Kroenke's stadium proposal being so obviously superior to that of Spanos and Davis.  And even then the other owners extracted some pretty stiff concessions from Kroenke before they finally granted him permission to relocate.  The Rams weren't exactly in a position to make demands at that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now