New Browns uni coming 2015

[CubsFanBudMan]

Rebrands are often out-sourced. I work in the creative dept at my company, do most of the graphical treatements, all of our web art (etc.), yet they out-sourced our logo redesign to an outside vendor. I took a few hacks, but was given no direction by the big bosses, so I basically had no chance. So its not on sportsdesign that the Browns have the NFL do the re-branding. Think of how insulated the NFL works. Of course they're going to want to control as much as possible.

Yes, I remember how proud the Pistons' internal creative team was when one of their designers had a logo adopted as an alt... and later converted to the current primary. (Gray was removed and Detroit was added.) They spoke as if it was surprisingly (to me) rare... and that was 12 years ago.

[BrandMooreArt]

I guess I'll clarify my reasons and reactions regarding my thoughts on their release and the final product.

I'm in my final semester of college--Bachelor's of Business Administration in Marketing.

I will say this--a "brand" is more than what Webster's Dictionary says it is--at least in terms of marketing (or in terms of how I've learned).

According to the text for my "Advertising Strategy" class--

-"Making cues and images are what marketing communication delivers to brands"

-"A brand is a basically perception loaded with emotions and feelings"

-“A brand transforms products into something more meaningful than the product itself.”

This part stood out to me the most:

Successful brands:

-Are distinctive

-Create an association

-Offer a benefit

-Carry a heritage

-Are simple

-Are often based on a distinctive graphic: a logo, trademark, character or other visual cue

In posting that, I'm just trying to justify MY reasoning as to why my stance is the way it is.

Yes they said it was a "rebrand." With what I understand about branding, they did rebrand.

They very clearly changed the brand's mark--the helmet--by changing the color orange (which they say "matches the passion of the Dawg Pound") and changing the facemask to brown (which they cite as "represesnting the strength and toughness of Cleveland"). This is a rebrand because they are establishing an association among the city and the logo, using colors as cues. They are trying to establish a "perception loaded with emotions and feelings" as well as trying to "transform [the Browns brand] into something more meaningful than the product itself."

On top of that, they remained similar to previous logos (the helmet) by remaining distinctive--the only team with a blank helmet in the league, and the only team with a helmet acting as the primary logo. The logo still carries heritage. The logo is simple. And it still creates association.

Why ditch the helmet? IT IS THE BROWNS. What do people think of when they see that orange helmet with stripes? They think of the Browns--even if it pains them.

In addition, they have introduced a new Dawg Pound logo. What is the "Dawg Pound?" It's more than just a name for their seating section on one end of the field... It's the name for which Browns fans are affectionately known. The new Dawg Pound logo is new, it is distinct, and it creates association; fans can now use this distinctive character as their own--they are part of the Dawg Pound. This is far more important to Cleveland than people think, in my opinion. If anything, this is the logo fans will love. This is their logo.

And as I normally do now, I will close this by saying I'm not attacking anybody. These are still all my opinions, I'm just clarifying my reasoning for my opinions by using my education to back it up. I'm happy with the results of the rebrand, thus far. The identity is still recognizable to all, and meaningful to fans.

Bless you if you read all that.

This post is why every marketing program should be shot into the sun posthaste.

Let's pause and reflect on how you went massively into debt just to regurgitate that drivel.

thats mostly correct and good info

they have re-branded the team but it's not because of new logos. they have shifted their values, what they want people think know about them, and the audience they are trying to reach. with those goals in mind, they changed the logos and colors to achieve them.

the NFL is trying to grab a younger audience. it looks like the Browns are on board with that too with a brighter orange, a puppy alternate logo, and the willingness to do something new with the uniforms. they're modernizing the identity because of those goals (there are surely others but these are the obvious ones) and it has to do with "passion and strength of the city". it's the copywriters that need to be sent to the sun.

thats why i dont think the helmet logo works now. it was always ugly but it was at least appropriate enough. you can't design a modern helmet logo; it doesn't work because style changes too often and you cant just copy a helmet design that isn't yours. you're almost stuck going with a vintage helmet if you go that way - Dane's logos are really good but they're based on older helmets. you can't put a brown mask on one of those and say you're a modern brand. it has to go vintage or it falls apart. i really don't think the Browns needed a re-branding; the branding was fine. they're one of the highest 10 teams in attendance and the on field product is turds. if thats not a sign of a great brand i dont know what is

[oldschoolvikings]

Obviously, no one asked me, but if I were trying to design a logo based on a classic helmet, and was trying to keep it relatively timeless,

I'd go with something like this;

[jp1409]

Obviously, no one asked me, but if I were trying to design a logo based on a classic helmet, and was trying to keep it relatively timeless,

I'd go with something like this;

[HailGoldPants]

Obviously, no one asked me, but if I were trying to design a logo based on a classic helmet, and was trying to keep it relatively timeless,

I'd go with something like this;

Not even close to coneheads. It is a good overall design

[Gothamite]

Good point, though - it's an odd angle.

I love the idea of a classic helmet instead of a relatively modern one. This one just works a little better for me:

[rams80]

the NFL is trying to grab a younger audience.

Why does the phrase "bayoneting the survivors" keep flashing through my head?

[BadSeed84]

100 pages......for the cleveland browns??

Might as well change the board logo to this

[Chewbacca]

After seeing the new logos, I surprisingly like the new helmet. I was expecting some chrome/matte orange, brown and charcoal accented Nike disaster. So far, I like the darker orange and I think the brown facemask is much better than the grey one. They don't have grey in their color scheme, well, not until probably April but anyway, why have a grey facemask, the now old helmet would have looked better in white. As for their new Dawg Pound logo, I think it's a joke. It looks like it was designed for the Kids' Dawg Pound. The logo that is replacing the old Dawg Pound logo didn't have a single thing wrong with it. It was actually a decent logo, I just don't get why they just had to change it. As for the uniforms, oh god, for every Cleveland Brown fan out there, I feel for you all, I really do. Could they surprise us in a good way, it's possible but I just don't see it happening. Is a jersey like my avatar still possible, oh yeah and you all know it.

[hailstateunis]

After seeing the new logos, I surprisingly like the new helmet. I was expecting some chrome/matte orange, brown and charcoal accented Nike disaster. So far, I like the darker orange and I think the brown facemask is much better than the grey one. They don't have grey in their color scheme, well, not until probably April but anyway, why have a grey facemask, the now old helmet would have looked better in white. As for their new Dawg Pound logo, I think it's a joke. It looks like it was designed for the Kids' Dawg Pound. The logo that is replacing the old Dawg Pound logo didn't have a single thing wrong with it. It was actually a decent logo, I just don't get why they just had to change it. As for the uniforms, oh god, for every Cleveland Brown fan out there, I feel for you all, I really do. Could they surprise us in a good way, it's possible but I just don't see it happening. Is a jersey like my avatar still possible, oh yeah and you all know it.

We know know about the finishes yet. It could still be matte with chrome stripes for all we know.

[LEWJ]

I guess I'll clarify my reasons and reactions regarding my thoughts on their release and the final product.

I'm in my final semester of college--Bachelor's of Business Administration in Marketing.

I will say this--a "brand" is more than what Webster's Dictionary says it is--at least in terms of marketing (or in terms of how I've learned).

According to the text for my "Advertising Strategy" class--

-"Making cues and images are what marketing communication delivers to brands"

-"A brand is a basically perception loaded with emotions and feelings"

-“A brand transforms products into something more meaningful than the product itself.”

This part stood out to me the most:

Successful brands:

-Are distinctive

-Create an association

-Offer a benefit

-Carry a heritage

-Are simple

-Are often based on a distinctive graphic: a logo, trademark, character or other visual cue

In posting that, I'm just trying to justify MY reasoning as to why my stance is the way it is.

Yes they said it was a "rebrand." With what I understand about branding, they did rebrand.

They very clearly changed the brand's mark--the helmet--by changing the color orange (which they say "matches the passion of the Dawg Pound") and changing the facemask to brown (which they cite as "represesnting the strength and toughness of Cleveland"). This is a rebrand because they are establishing an association among the city and the logo, using colors as cues. They are trying to establish a "perception loaded with emotions and feelings" as well as trying to "transform [the Browns brand] into something more meaningful than the product itself."

On top of that, they remained similar to previous logos (the helmet) by remaining distinctive--the only team with a blank helmet in the league, and the only team with a helmet acting as the primary logo. The logo still carries heritage. The logo is simple. And it still creates association.

Why ditch the helmet? IT IS THE BROWNS. What do people think of when they see that orange helmet with stripes? They think of the Browns--even if it pains them.

In addition, they have introduced a new Dawg Pound logo. What is the "Dawg Pound?" It's more than just a name for their seating section on one end of the field... It's the name for which Browns fans are affectionately known. The new Dawg Pound logo is new, it is distinct, and it creates association; fans can now use this distinctive character as their own--they are part of the Dawg Pound. This is far more important to Cleveland than people think, in my opinion. If anything, this is the logo fans will love. This is their logo.

And as I normally do now, I will close this by saying I'm not attacking anybody. These are still all my opinions, I'm just clarifying my reasoning for my opinions by using my education to back it up. I'm happy with the results of the rebrand, thus far. The identity is still recognizable to all, and meaningful to fans.

Bless you if you read all that.

This post is why every marketing program should be shot into the sun posthaste.

Let's pause and reflect on how you went massively into debt just to regurgitate that drivel.

thats mostly correct and good info

they have re-branded the team but it's not because of new logos. they have shifted their values, what they want people think know about them, and the audience they are trying to reach. with those goals in mind, they changed the logos and colors to achieve them.

the NFL is trying to grab a younger audience. it looks like the Browns are on board with that too with a brighter orange, a puppy alternate logo, and the willingness to do something new with the uniforms. they're modernizing the identity because of those goals (there are surely others but these are the obvious ones) and it has to do with "passion and strength of the city". it's the copywriters that need to be sent to the sun.

thats why i dont think the helmet logo works now. it was always ugly but it was at least appropriate enough. you can't design a modern helmet logo; it doesn't work because style changes too often and you cant just copy a helmet design that isn't yours. you're almost stuck going with a vintage helmet if you go that way - Dane's logos are really good but they're based on older helmets. you can't put a brown mask on one of those and say you're a modern brand. it has to go vintage or it falls apart. i really don't think the Browns needed a re-branding; the branding was fine. they're one of the highest 10 teams in attendance and the on field product is turds. if thats not a sign of a great brand i dont know what is

Rams80, it sounds like you might just have some anger you need to let out--there's a time and place for that, and it's not here.

BrandMooreArt, thanks, appreciate it. I agree with the bulk of what you've said there. Very good points in that last paragraph there.

I'm not at all against a different helmet logo, but seems like a change for the sake of change. You're right in saying branding isn't an issue, I think this is a big reason they kept it relatively unchanged.

Tweaking the colors and barely changing the primary logo has next to no risk in terms of this rebrand.

And for whoever it was that was getting all hot and heavy about how they're barely changing the logo and now you're mad cause you're having to pay these taxes and all that--are you aware of the stadium renovation project (now in year 2). They are basically covering the stadium in graphics and such, as well as a new audio system, etc.--so to say they are simply peeling away old logos and replacing them with a barely-changed logo is kind of ridiculous. They're changing everything anyway, from what I understand.

100 pages......for the cleveland browns??

Might as well change the board logo to this

This is so funny!!! Did you make up that term?!

[STL_ArchMadness]

Wow, so one of my followers on Instagram sent me a message today and said that my 2015 Cleveland Browns concept was on the news and Jim Donnovan was on there and said he really liked it and hopes they use something similar. I wasn't able to find the video but I thought this was pretty cool!

[Chewbacca]

After seeing the new logos, I surprisingly like the new helmet. I was expecting some chrome/matte orange, brown and charcoal accented Nike disaster. So far, I like the darker orange and I think the brown facemask is much better than the grey one. They don't have grey in their color scheme, well, not until probably April but anyway, why have a grey facemask, the now old helmet would have looked better in white. As for their new Dawg Pound logo, I think it's a joke. It looks like it was designed for the Kids' Dawg Pound. The logo that is replacing the old Dawg Pound logo didn't have a single thing wrong with it. It was actually a decent logo, I just don't get why they just had to change it. As for the uniforms, oh god, for every Cleveland Brown fan out there, I feel for you all, I really do. Could they surprise us in a good way, it's possible but I just don't see it happening. Is a jersey like my avatar still possible, oh yeah and you all know it.

We know know about the finishes yet. It could still be matte with chrome stripes for all we know.

I hope not. So far, the helmet actually looks pretty nice and will probably end up being the only good thing to come from their new uniforms. I actually kind of wish that they came up with a new Brownie the Elf logo after they spent two years to come up with such little change besides a mega downgrade of the Dawg Pound logo and making the orange on the helmet darker.

Wow, so one of my followers on Instagram sent me a message today and said that my 2015 Cleveland Browns concept was on the news and Jim Donnovan was on there and said he really liked it and hopes they use something similar. I wasn't able to find the video but I thought this was pretty cool!

Congrats on getting your concept on TV. That is something that doesn't happen very often.

[CLEstones]

This should be their set:

And a brown jersey and orange pants

Try again.

[colortv]

Did it really take them 2 years for THIS?

What an unbelievable let down.

There's not a lot you can do with "Browns", but all that name really represents is the professional football team that plays in Cleveland...and the dog which represents the reason that team exists(the fans) would be perfect as the primary logo. The fans/team literally developed their own identity in unison with the dog/colors over the years.

[Jungle Jim]

I just hope they haven't chosen a uniform with no semblance of traditional stripes to go with a helmet with traditional stripes. The Saints do it and I hate it.

[WavePunter]

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but why couldn't they use a helmet with a more modern mask for their logo? That facemask hasn't been worn in at least 20 years and it screams WLAF. This would have been an a much better option IMO....

Because that helmet is identifiable as a specific helmet from a specific manufacturer. The generic template they use is outdated, but unowned by any one else.

Actually not accurate. The helmet and mask the current browns logo is using is mid 80's riddell. It was the standard nfl helmet graphic for 20ish years. You can tell by the distinct lines of the shell and the mask.

When you say "distinct lines of the shell" which lines are you referring to? Because riddell's signature since the 50's or 60's has been the raised center line running from front to back, which is absent in the logo.. So that would make the logo appear to be anything OTHER than riddell based on what limited knowledge I have of riddell's older helmet offerings, although I could certainly be incorrect (although riddell's stock facemask were the bulky plastic ones, which this logo also doesn't have)..

Another ENORMOUS pet peeve of mine is when teams lazily just group the facemask clips in with the facemask while doing the paint fill to color these logos.. I know they're technically supposed to be "clear", so they should be either mask or shell color (or both), but let's all be honest here.. They pretty much all look white (or white-ish) from any distance.. Even a very light grey (lighter than Browns' previous grey mask in logo) would suffice, but they are absolutely not dark brown, no matter how you look at it

Also, I hate that this is being called a "rebrand" in any sense of the word.. All they did was barely recolor their logo (the orange change can hardly be considered a change, and the mask change would naturally evolve with the actual helmet's mask change anyway).. The "secondary" is not a secondary.. It's a fan logo to represent the fans.. Not the team.. So it's basically non-existent in terms of the team's actual brand. The font is a slightly smoother, sans serif version of what they've been using. The orange change is just a more vibrant color that visually stands out more.. It doesn't change the brand, just reinforces the existing brand with added vibrance. And orange isn't the color of passion, so the Nikespeak can fly a kite.. And they specifically stated that the Brown is unchanged, but then tried to act as if they are adding or changing brown to symbolize strength, which is borderline contradictory (although I realize they're referring only to making the mask brown, but that's still quite a stretch).. Am I underwhelmed? Definitely. Am I disappointed? Beyond disappointed.. But my main issues are that they're really just trying to breathe life into their already-existing brand by creating a an uproar all for nothing.. They have literally changed nothing.. They've "tweaked" a minor detail or two, but haven't really changed anything. (Loosely basing my definition of "change" on how I'd imagine the nfl would handle uniform changes within the 5-year mark; adjusting a shade of color, changing facemask, etc. that would likely be approved and probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of fans)

[guest23]

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but why couldn't they use a helmet with a more modern mask for their logo? That facemask hasn't been worn in at least 20 years and it screams WLAF. This would have been an a much better option IMO....

Because that helmet is identifiable as a specific helmet from a specific manufacturer. The generic template they use is outdated, but unowned by any one else.

Actually not accurate. The helmet and mask the current browns logo is using is mid 80's riddell. It was the standard nfl helmet graphic for 20ish years. You can tell by the distinct lines of the shell and the mask.

When you say "distinct lines of the shell" which lines are you referring to? Because riddell's signature since the 50's or 60's has been the raised center line running from front to back, which is absent in the logo.. So that would make the logo appear to be anything OTHER than riddell based on what limited knowledge I have of riddell's older helmet offerings, although I could certainly be incorrect (although riddell's stock facemask were the bulky plastic ones, which this logo also doesn't have)..

Another ENORMOUS pet peeve of mine is when teams lazily just group the facemask clips in with the facemask while doing the paint fill to color these logos.. I know they're technically supposed to be "clear", so they should be either mask or shell color (or both), but let's all be honest here.. They pretty much all look white (or white-ish) from any distance.. Even a very light grey (lighter than Browns' previous grey mask in logo) would suffice, but they are absolutely not dark brown, no matter how you look at it

Also, I hate that this is being called a "rebrand" in any sense of the word.. All they did was barely recolor their logo (the orange change can hardly be considered a change, and the mask change would naturally evolve with the actual helmet's mask change anyway).. The "secondary" is not a secondary.. It's a fan logo to represent the fans.. Not the team.. So it's basically non-existent in terms of the team's actual brand. The font is a slightly smoother, sans serif version of what they've been using. The orange change is just a more vibrant color that visually stands out more.. It doesn't change the brand, just reinforces the existing brand with added vibrance. And orange isn't the color of passion, so the Nikespeak can fly a kite.. And they specifically stated that the Brown is unchanged, but then tried to act as if they are adding or changing brown to symbolize strength, which is borderline contradictory (although I realize they're referring only to making the mask brown, but that's still quite a stretch).. Am I underwhelmed? Definitely. Am I disappointed? Beyond disappointed.. But my main issues are that they're really just trying to breathe life into their already-existing brand by creating a an uproar all for nothing.. They have literally changed nothing.. They've "tweaked" a minor detail or two, but haven't really changed anything. (Loosely basing my definition of "change" on how I'd imagine the nfl would handle uniform changes within the 5-year mark; adjusting a shade of color, changing facemask, etc. that would likely be approved and probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of fans)

Look at the 2d version. It's based off a riddell vsr4. The mask is distinctly riddell. Also the neck bumper style was distinctive to riddell.

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/95b2itjhcrakfhbbur3qjhqeg/Cleveland_Browns/2006/Helmet_Logo

The only other popular helmet from that era was bike/air/schutt. Totally different lines and no neck bumper. Yes here were others but you should get it by now.

[WavePunter]

Looking at the 2D version doesn't really translate the same because it's a different logo altogether.. You can't really argue that it's just a different angle of the same logo, because they're both 2D.. Anyway, I digress..

I wasn't pointing that out to be argumentative.. I was basically trying to give validity to the comment that it's a generic, stock helmet logo that isn't brand-specific. I think it's easy enough to argue either way, but with the obvious schutt-style facemask and lack of raised center crown strip, this could justifiably be identified as any of a number of classic helmet models. I think that's the basic point others have tried to make here as a reason to not update the helmet model in the logo update. I was just pointing out several clues that would suggest there are as many subtleties in the classic helmet logo that would point away from riddell as the ones that would point towards riddell..

[razorback447]

The sole fact that Clevelans sells hats with helmets on them should have been reason enough alone for them to actually create a useful logo. I can never get over how absolutely terrible that looks.

It makes a strong case for the worst logo in all the major sports.