Jump to content

Nike NFL uniforms "sneak peak"


fifthandlaurel

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The people who have a closet full of stuff with the team wordmark on it.

Dude, no. I have never thought to myself, "I have several Bears shirts already, but this one has 'Bears' printed in Impact. I must have it."

Of course it sounds insane from a fan's perspective, but look at it from the other side. If you're a sportswear company, the only way the league is going to approve and the retailers are going to pick up your on-field line year after year is if the design is new each time, because it's the retailers and the league that think consumers want a fresh and different product each year.

In actuality, the average fan would just as rather have the plain logo or wordmark tee. The sportswear companies know this, and they carry over the plain logo and wordmark tees each year for that reason, but the only way to sell more product to the retailers is to come out with a fresh new set of sideline and fangear designs each year. The league doesn't forecast sales for a sideline logo tee because they think that everyone who has a logo tee has already bought it and won't buy another just because it's a sideline garment. Dick's isn't going to put in a huge order for sideline apparel if the graphics are the same each year.

When you really think about it, sportswear companies aren't necessarily trying to sell directly to the consumers with the things they create. They're selling to the retailers, because if the retailers don't place orders, then the consumers never see the products to begin with.

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, the average fan would just as rather have the plain logo or wordmark tee.

What is that based on? Do you have a link?

Follow my attempts to rid the world of the evil that is Laura Dern @LDisadirtbag.

My dog Folsom has a Twitter that's nothing but pictures of him pooping and sharing what he likes @folsomcanpoop.

If that's not enough, I have my own Twitter @DieZombieScum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, the average fan would just as rather have the plain logo or wordmark tee.

What is that based on? Do you have a link?

Exactly. If that was the case why don't fans just buy a blank tshirt and iron on the favorite teams name or write it on the shirt with a marker. The would be the plainest wordmark you could have.

Also, if that is true, why do all the teams spend so much time and money designing logos and wordmarks? It seems like a waste if they don't intend to be put it on merchandise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, the average fan would just as rather have the plain logo or wordmark tee.

What is that based on? Do you have a link?

Exactly. If that was the case why don't fans just buy a blank tshirt and iron on the favorite teams name or write it on the shirt with a marker. The would be the plainest wordmark you could have.

Also, if that is true, why do all the teams spend so much time and money designing logos and wordmarks? It seems like a waste if they don't intend to be put it on merchandise.

He means they would rather have a shirt with either the team's logo or the team's wordmark, as opposed to the "official sideline" stuff Reebok comes out with every year with generic fonts and weird designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, the average fan would just as rather have the plain logo or wordmark tee.

What is that based on? Do you have a link?

Exactly. If that was the case why don't fans just buy a blank tshirt and iron on the favorite teams name or write it on the shirt with a marker. The would be the plainest wordmark you could have.

Also, if that is true, why do all the teams spend so much time and money designing logos and wordmarks? It seems like a waste if they don't intend to be put it on merchandise.

I'm confused. A plain logo or wordmark tee doesn't constitute putting the logo on merchandise? By plain logo or wordmark tee, I mean things like this:

p4949269dt.jpg

As for the first part, your typical football fan is young professional to late middle-aged and fairly conservative in the way they dress. The 'Average Joe' outnumbers the fashion-forward fan, by a lot. Go to a bar or a game, and that's what you see most of; jerseys, logo tees, logo polos, and div/conf/super bowl champions tees (if applicable). You see a little bit of the trendier stuff and the sideline apparel, but it's definitely outnumbered by the core basics.

By the way, here's an example of some of the team specific stuff that's out for this season:

p9996938dt.jpg

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not convinced that putting the team name in a generic font will somehow compel people to buy a new item.

When people look for new and different items, I think we're talking more about side panels, inserts, different cuts and patterns, not generic font v. official wordmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

I think the Redskins are in for a small update. If anything, just matching up striping (helmet and gold pants). Their basic uniforms, are untouchable in my opinion. Three Super Bowls, 5 NFC Championships, and so much more almost completely in one damn uniform.

CLASSIC

110666_crop_340x234_display_image.jpg?1306907491

concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes

potd 10/20/12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

lol...nah. It sounds like the 'Skins may be seeing a 3rd jersey instead of a major revamp of their home and away uni (at least from the sample jersey that was sent to them).

Indians_allcolors2-1.png

Indians_OleMiss2-1.png

IF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.

BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

I think the Redskins are in for a small update. If anything, just matching up striping (helmet and gold pants). Their basic uniforms, are untouchable in my opinion. Three Super Bowls, 5 NFC Championships, and so much more almost completely in one damn uniform.

CLASSIC

110666_crop_340x234_display_image.jpg?1306907491

What the Redskins should do is move the numbers to the shoulders to make room to once again use the thick double stripes on the sleeves. I don't like giving up the empty shoulders look if that's your thing, but I like that better than shrinking an identifiable aspect of your uniform down the size of a sleeve cuff.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not convinced that putting the team name in a generic font will somehow compel people to buy a new item.

When people look for new and different items, I think we're talking more about side panels, inserts, different cuts and patterns, not generic font v. official wordmark.

I don't think the generic font is the selling point of the sideline garment each year, but they're not going to come out with a logo or wordmark tee each year with different cuts and panels, which is why they also change up the typography of the line. I think the league is more responsible for how that's handled than the licensees are. The league is very strict, and they love standardization as of late.

I'm still wondering how Nike is going to make $50 million per year selling only jerseys and sideline apparel. Reebok wasn't turning huge profit on their $20 million per year contract, and they had the rights to sell everything, including jerseys, sideline, fangear, headwear and hot market merchandise

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

lol...nah. It sounds like the 'Skins may be seeing a 3rd jersey instead of a major revamp of their home and away uni (at least from the sample jersey that was sent to them).

Are we talking yellow, black, throwback burgundy....

concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes

potd 10/20/12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

lol...nah. It sounds like the 'Skins may be seeing a 3rd jersey instead of a major revamp of their home and away uni (at least from the sample jersey that was sent to them).

Are we talking yellow, black, throwback burgundy....

Hopefully gold... can't believe I'm saying that. Just promise me you'll never do gold on gold, Redskins.

90758391980.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints and Redskins are not untouchable for 2012.

OH NO HERE YOU GO AGAIN GETTING ME ALL SCARED AND CONFUSED

lol...nah. It sounds like the 'Skins may be seeing a 3rd jersey instead of a major revamp of their home and away uni (at least from the sample jersey that was sent to them).

Are we talking yellow, black, throwback burgundy....

Oh....I duuuuunnnnnnnoooo. B)

Indians_allcolors2-1.png

Indians_OleMiss2-1.png

IF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.

BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.