Reasons For Colour Changes?

[guest23]

But what does "be more modern" or "be more vintage" mean, other than catering to merchandising tastes (real or perceived) or reviving interest in a flagging brand?

Sell more merchandise.

Generate interest in a flagging brand.

Those two usually cover it.

Nowadays for sure, but was merchandise as prevelent in the 60's, 70's and 80's as it was/is in the 90's to present? I can't see the flying V uniform being done to sell more uniforms, although I guess styles were much different back then.

No, it wasn't. Didn't really take off until around 1993.

But that's where the second one comes in.

in the case of the Rams, when they changed colors they were one of the best teams in the NFL. the brand and interest in the team was huge. the change in colors made them appear modern and prestigious. you might argue they changed to navy because its a more desirable color (sell more items) but they didnt have to change the gold for that. and they didnt have to do it to for attention. it was the right time to reflect who they were.

for the Colts, they shifted to a darker blue, put stripes on the socks, and added a gray face mask to the helmet. they were completing a vintage look in 2004 just as the NFL was starting to really notice the team. so thats a move where there was much more than a shift in color, but it was required to complete the reflection of the brand they wanted.

it's easy to say "well they change colors to become trendy" but i don't believe thats the case most of the time because its so short sighted. you do an alternate jersey to be trendy but you dont change a primary color for that reason. vintage is easy to do because you're throwing back to what was, where becoming modern is harder because what modern is, is always in flux. BUT, its more than "trend". trend is something with a short life that appeals to a smaller group, but what we define as modern is something that appeals to the majority of your audience, will have a much longer shelf life, and is something your competitors are probably doing too.

With the Rams I think you're overlooking the fact that the development process likely started as a result of the move to stl combined with nearly a decade of consecutive losing seasons. These two factors were likely the most significant and while there was initial the buzz/new team in town interest locally, interest in their brand in the late 90's on a national scale was next to nothing. The sb win and subsequent wins definitely increased their relevance and put them back on a national stage but the fact that the redesign happened at at the same time is a pure coincidence.

The colts made some minor tweaks that it should barely even be mentioned even as a design tweak. Yes they had a press conference/unveiling but tweaking the shade slightly of the primary is pretty negligible, I doubt the vast majority of the fan base even noticed the color difference nor would anyone feel compelled to purchase a new jersey. The striped socks lasted only 2 seasons. The gray mask was a trendy add on that a handful of teams incorporated. These tweaks were so minor and did not translate to any major visual differences (no new jersey design, no new logo to put on merch, no alt to sell) that I doubt there was any tangible effect of the changes.

the Rams moved in 1995 and won that SB in 2000 (1999 season) i think, the year they also changed the colors and started using their current logos. no way they took 5+ years to change the colors and add 3 logos. if they didnt change to reflect their winning brand, then i would say they were changing due to the turn of the century, and it was the right time to do something new, which happened to be the time they were the Greatest Show on Turf. but i think we have a good year there where the changes could have been developed and better reflected the new Rams. either way, it worked out for them. the colors and logos definitely became a visual representation of that team

Yes the change in the Colts blue was slight, but it answers the OP's question and is a great example of when a team made a change that could no way be to only move product. it may have been a more consistent color across manufacturers, but it completed the concept of throwing back to the Baltimore look. yea throwback alternates were big and growing at that time, but in 2004, gray masks were not yet a trend. the Giants were the first and changed in 2000 and the Browns 1 year after Indy in 2005 (maybe 2006?). its a shame the socks only lasted a couple of seasons, but these were all details that happened at the same time. they were small that not many fans noticed all of them, so if they were not done to drive merch sales of an already successful team, then WHY? . . it was done to make their identity truer to their vintage roots. these were changes that this board especially should love because it was done with the goal of reflecting who they wanted to be as a brand, not as a cash grab, and improving the uniform without going all Nike on it.

Your timeline is off. The changes were already set for 2000 when Kurt Warner came out of nowhere to lead the 1999 Rams to the Super Bowl win. There was no "winning brand" when the decision was made. No one expected it. Even ESPN magazine made a "joke" cover about the Rams being champs after Trent Green went down. This wasn't a move intended to coincide with expected "good years." Like the Oilers in Tennessee, it was likely just a late attempt to give the new city some "ownership."

EDIT: Because I was curious...

Spot on. That was the infamous 1-15 prediction. They had just acquired trent green and traded for faulk who was perceived to already have hit his plateau. Nobody thought anything of that team or seasons prior, they were pretty much the nfl's definition of irrelevant before the season started.

[Morgan33]

There's no way the "Blue" looked like that on the Canucks's actual jerseys from that time period. That pantone looks more like the King's "Forum Blue."

[guest23]

But what does "be more modern" or "be more vintage" mean, other than catering to merchandising tastes (real or perceived) or reviving interest in a flagging brand?

Sell more merchandise.

Generate interest in a flagging brand.

Those two usually cover it.

Nowadays for sure, but was merchandise as prevelent in the 60's, 70's and 80's as it was/is in the 90's to present? I can't see the flying V uniform being done to sell more uniforms, although I guess styles were much different back then.

No, it wasn't. Didn't really take off until around 1993.

But that's where the second one comes in.

in the case of the Rams, when they changed colors they were one of the best teams in the NFL. the brand and interest in the team was huge. the change in colors made them appear modern and prestigious. you might argue they changed to navy because its a more desirable color (sell more items) but they didnt have to change the gold for that. and they didnt have to do it to for attention. it was the right time to reflect who they were.

for the Colts, they shifted to a darker blue, put stripes on the socks, and added a gray face mask to the helmet. they were completing a vintage look in 2004 just as the NFL was starting to really notice the team. so thats a move where there was much more than a shift in color, but it was required to complete the reflection of the brand they wanted.

it's easy to say "well they change colors to become trendy" but i don't believe thats the case most of the time because its so short sighted. you do an alternate jersey to be trendy but you dont change a primary color for that reason. vintage is easy to do because you're throwing back to what was, where becoming modern is harder because what modern is, is always in flux. BUT, its more than "trend". trend is something with a short life that appeals to a smaller group, but what we define as modern is something that appeals to the majority of your audience, will have a much longer shelf life, and is something your competitors are probably doing too.

With the Rams I think you're overlooking the fact that the development process likely started as a result of the move to stl combined with nearly a decade of consecutive losing seasons. These two factors were likely the most significant and while there was initial the buzz/new team in town interest locally, interest in their brand in the late 90's on a national scale was next to nothing. The sb win and subsequent wins definitely increased their relevance and put them back on a national stage but the fact that the redesign happened at at the same time is a pure coincidence.

The colts made some minor tweaks that it should barely even be mentioned even as a design tweak. Yes they had a press conference/unveiling but tweaking the shade slightly of the primary is pretty negligible, I doubt the vast majority of the fan base even noticed the color difference nor would anyone feel compelled to purchase a new jersey. The striped socks lasted only 2 seasons. The gray mask was a trendy add on that a handful of teams incorporated. These tweaks were so minor and did not translate to any major visual differences (no new jersey design, no new logo to put on merch, no alt to sell) that I doubt there was any tangible effect of the changes.

the Rams moved in 1995 and won that SB in 2000 (1999 season) i think, the year they also changed the colors and started using their current logos. no way they took 5+ years to change the colors and add 3 logos. if they didnt change to reflect their winning brand, then i would say they were changing due to the turn of the century, and it was the right time to do something new, which happened to be the time they were the Greatest Show on Turf. but i think we have a good year there where the changes could have been developed and better reflected the new Rams. either way, it worked out for them. the colors and logos definitely became a visual representation of that team

Yes the change in the Colts blue was slight, but it answers the OP's question and is a great example of when a team made a change that could no way be to only move product. it may have been a more consistent color across manufacturers, but it completed the concept of throwing back to the Baltimore look. yea throwback alternates were big and growing at that time, but in 2004, gray masks were not yet a trend. the Giants were the first and changed in 2000 and the Browns 1 year after Indy in 2005 (maybe 2006?). its a shame the socks only lasted a couple of seasons, but these were all details that happened at the same time. they were small that not many fans noticed all of them, so if they were not done to drive merch sales of an already successful team, then WHY? . . it was done to make their identity truer to their vintage roots. these were changes that this board especially should love because it was done with the goal of reflecting who they wanted to be as a brand, not as a cash grab, and improving the uniform without going all Nike on it.

I will agree that rebranding (especially visual) can be very effective across but these examples and explanations are serious reaches. To be brief: Your rams explanation was driven more by coincidence than anything else and your colts example lists such negligible and subtle changes they really wouldn't drive any increased awareness.

You want some examples of sucessful color changes why not use one of the best examples like the Bucs?

[BrandMooreArt]

But what does "be more modern" or "be more vintage" mean, other than catering to merchandising tastes (real or perceived) or reviving interest in a flagging brand?

Sell more merchandise.

Generate interest in a flagging brand.

Those two usually cover it.

Nowadays for sure, but was merchandise as prevelent in the 60's, 70's and 80's as it was/is in the 90's to present? I can't see the flying V uniform being done to sell more uniforms, although I guess styles were much different back then.

No, it wasn't. Didn't really take off until around 1993.

But that's where the second one comes in.

in the case of the Rams, when they changed colors they were one of the best teams in the NFL. the brand and interest in the team was huge. the change in colors made them appear modern and prestigious. you might argue they changed to navy because its a more desirable color (sell more items) but they didnt have to change the gold for that. and they didnt have to do it to for attention. it was the right time to reflect who they were.

for the Colts, they shifted to a darker blue, put stripes on the socks, and added a gray face mask to the helmet. they were completing a vintage look in 2004 just as the NFL was starting to really notice the team. so thats a move where there was much more than a shift in color, but it was required to complete the reflection of the brand they wanted.

it's easy to say "well they change colors to become trendy" but i don't believe thats the case most of the time because its so short sighted. you do an alternate jersey to be trendy but you dont change a primary color for that reason. vintage is easy to do because you're throwing back to what was, where becoming modern is harder because what modern is, is always in flux. BUT, its more than "trend". trend is something with a short life that appeals to a smaller group, but what we define as modern is something that appeals to the majority of your audience, will have a much longer shelf life, and is something your competitors are probably doing too.

With the Rams I think you're overlooking the fact that the development process likely started as a result of the move to stl combined with nearly a decade of consecutive losing seasons. These two factors were likely the most significant and while there was initial the buzz/new team in town interest locally, interest in their brand in the late 90's on a national scale was next to nothing. The sb win and subsequent wins definitely increased their relevance and put them back on a national stage but the fact that the redesign happened at at the same time is a pure coincidence.

The colts made some minor tweaks that it should barely even be mentioned even as a design tweak. Yes they had a press conference/unveiling but tweaking the shade slightly of the primary is pretty negligible, I doubt the vast majority of the fan base even noticed the color difference nor would anyone feel compelled to purchase a new jersey. The striped socks lasted only 2 seasons. The gray mask was a trendy add on that a handful of teams incorporated. These tweaks were so minor and did not translate to any major visual differences (no new jersey design, no new logo to put on merch, no alt to sell) that I doubt there was any tangible effect of the changes.

the Rams moved in 1995 and won that SB in 2000 (1999 season) i think, the year they also changed the colors and started using their current logos. no way they took 5+ years to change the colors and add 3 logos. if they didnt change to reflect their winning brand, then i would say they were changing due to the turn of the century, and it was the right time to do something new, which happened to be the time they were the Greatest Show on Turf. but i think we have a good year there where the changes could have been developed and better reflected the new Rams. either way, it worked out for them. the colors and logos definitely became a visual representation of that team

Yes the change in the Colts blue was slight, but it answers the OP's question and is a great example of when a team made a change that could no way be to only move product. it may have been a more consistent color across manufacturers, but it completed the concept of throwing back to the Baltimore look. yea throwback alternates were big and growing at that time, but in 2004, gray masks were not yet a trend. the Giants were the first and changed in 2000 and the Browns 1 year after Indy in 2005 (maybe 2006?). its a shame the socks only lasted a couple of seasons, but these were all details that happened at the same time. they were small that not many fans noticed all of them, so if they were not done to drive merch sales of an already successful team, then WHY? . . it was done to make their identity truer to their vintage roots. these were changes that this board especially should love because it was done with the goal of reflecting who they wanted to be as a brand, not as a cash grab, and improving the uniform without going all Nike on it.

I will agree that rebranding (especially visual) can be very effective across but these examples and explanations are serious reaches. To be brief: Your rams explanation was driven more by coincidence than anything else and your colts example lists such negligible and subtle changes they really wouldn't drive any increased awareness.

You want some examples of sucessful color changes why not use one of the best examples like the Bucs?

so i was off on the Rams. but the question was "why would a team change colors?". not "when does color changes drive awareness?" the Colts changed to refine their identity

i thought of the Bucs and Broncos but those were full on identity re-definitions, not just a color change. (granted the Rams did do more than just change colors too)

[illwauk]

But what does "be more modern" or "be more vintage" mean, other than catering to merchandising tastes (real or perceived) or reviving interest in a flagging brand?

Sell more merchandise.

Generate interest in a flagging brand.

Those two usually cover it.

Nowadays for sure, but was merchandise as prevelent in the 60's, 70's and 80's as it was/is in the 90's to present? I can't see the flying V uniform being done to sell more uniforms, although I guess styles were much different back then.

No, it wasn't. Didn't really take off until around 1993.

But that's where the second one comes in.

in the case of the Rams, when they changed colors they were one of the best teams in the NFL. the brand and interest in the team was huge. the change in colors made them appear modern and prestigious. you might argue they changed to navy because its a more desirable color (sell more items) but they didnt have to change the gold for that. and they didnt have to do it to for attention. it was the right time to reflect who they were.

for the Colts, they shifted to a darker blue, put stripes on the socks, and added a gray face mask to the helmet. they were completing a vintage look in 2004 just as the NFL was starting to really notice the team. so thats a move where there was much more than a shift in color, but it was required to complete the reflection of the brand they wanted.

it's easy to say "well they change colors to become trendy" but i don't believe thats the case most of the time because its so short sighted. you do an alternate jersey to be trendy but you dont change a primary color for that reason. vintage is easy to do because you're throwing back to what was, where becoming modern is harder because what modern is, is always in flux. BUT, its more than "trend". trend is something with a short life that appeals to a smaller group, but what we define as modern is something that appeals to the majority of your audience, will have a much longer shelf life, and is something your competitors are probably doing too.

Speaking of the Colts, I kind of wish they would've stuck with the silver they worked into the uniform right before they left Baltimore and kept for their first few years in Indy. I wasn't a huge fan of how it was executed on the homes, but It could've separated the Indianapolis era of the franchise from the Baltimore era.

[BrandMooreArt]

that could have been a good idea if the goal was to separate the teams, but the point of the last change was to tie the two together.

[DustDevil61]

I'll summarize the color change for the Rams: Georgia Frontiere. She thought the navy and gold were "spacey," though initial plans were for a more UCLA-esque light blue and metallic gold. (Ironic, isn't it?).

Anyways, IIRC the Utah Jazz wearing navy stems back to the 2004-05 dual-blue rebrand, though I think one of the reasons why they kept it around after the 2010-11 pseudo-retro rebrand was fans thought purple, gold, and a hint of green looked too much like the hated Lakers and management acted accordingly. I can't say I entirely disagree, as merchandise from before the 1996-97 rebrand (or often throwback merchandise calling back to it) often was only purple/yellow (except for minimal green in the logo) and I often confuse it with the Lakers:

This line of thinking also stems back to why the Jazz had a green alternate based on their current set instead of the 1980s throwbacks for only one year in 2009-10 (Except it was "They look too much like the Celtics!!!11").

That said, there are ways of getting around this without having to change your primary color. To wit: Return to purple, make green the second color and reduce yellow to tertiary/trim status. Maybe even find a unique shade of purple (maybe even a blue-violet indigo) while you're at it. But enough of how to improve a team's look, this thread is about why teams change.

[TheOldRoman]

Spot on. That was the infamous 1-15 prediction. They had just acquired trent green and traded for faulk who was perceived to already have hit his plateau. Nobody thought anything of that team or seasons prior, they were pretty much the nfl's definition of irrelevant before the season started.

On a preseason Monday Night game, I remember Boomer asking Al Michaels who he thought would win the Super Bowl, and Michaels joking "Rams over Bengals." He was half right. But he picked both teams because they were either irrelevant or laughing stocks, dependent upon the year.

Also, the Rams supposedly were going to debut the new jerseys in 1999, but missed the NFL's deadline to change.

[guest23]

Spot on. That was the infamous 1-15 prediction. They had just acquired trent green and traded for faulk who was perceived to already have hit his plateau. Nobody thought anything of that team or seasons prior, they were pretty much the nfl's definition of irrelevant before the season started.

On a preseason Monday Night game, I remember Boomer asking Al Michaels who he thought would win the Super Bowl, and Michaels joking "Rams over Bengals." He was half right. But he picked both teams because they were either irrelevant or laughing stocks, dependent upon the year.

Also, the Rams supposedly were going to debut the new jerseys in 1999, but missed the NFL's deadline to change.

n

Damn I had pretty much forgotten about Boomer, D. Miller, and Kornheiser aka the dark ages of MNF which was all for the better. Man those were some rough years. Funny that Al Michaels basically refused to do MNF when it got relegated to espn because Al doesn't do cable. Disney even let him out of his contract out of respect which was pretty surprising.

[TruColor]

There's no way the "Blue" looked like that on the Canucks's actual jerseys from that time period. That pantone looks more like the King's "Forum Blue."

Of course. But apparently, that's the color they designated for printing.

They obviously went more Royal Blue for fabrics.

[TheOldRoman]

Spot on. That was the infamous 1-15 prediction. They had just acquired trent green and traded for faulk who was perceived to already have hit his plateau. Nobody thought anything of that team or seasons prior, they were pretty much the nfl's definition of irrelevant before the season started.

On a preseason Monday Night game, I remember Boomer asking Al Michaels who he thought would win the Super Bowl, and Michaels joking "Rams over Bengals." He was half right. But he picked both teams because they were either irrelevant or laughing stocks, dependent upon the year.

Also, the Rams supposedly were going to debut the new jerseys in 1999, but missed the NFL's deadline to change.

n

Damn I had pretty much forgotten about Boomer, D. Miller, and Kornheiser aka the dark ages of MNF which was all for the better. Man those were some rough years. Funny that Al Michaels basically refused to do MNF when it got relegated to espn because Al doesn't do cable. Disney even let him out of his contract out of respect which was pretty surprising.

Michaels was technically released from this contract, but they effectively traded him to NBC for the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The deal was for them to release him so he could sign with NBC. Oswald was Walt Disney's first popular character, which ended up being property of the company he worked for when he left. That company was bought by Universal, which held the rights to Oswald for nearly 80 years. Since Walt lost his star, he had to go back to the drawing board and create Mickey Mouse.

[kewp80]

I'll summarize the color change for the Rams: Georgia Frontiere. She thought the navy and gold were "spacey," though initial plans were for a more UCLA-esque light blue and metallic gold. (Ironic, isn't it?).

Anyways, IIRC the Utah Jazz wearing navy stems back to the 2004-05 dual-blue rebrand, though I think one of the reasons why they kept it around after the 2010-11 pseudo-retro rebrand was fans thought purple, gold, and a hint of green looked too much like the hated Lakers and management acted accordingly. I can't say I entirely disagree, as merchandise from before the 1996-97 rebrand (or often throwback merchandise calling back to it) often was only purple/yellow (except for minimal green in the logo) and I often confuse it with the Lakers:

This line of thinking also stems back to why the Jazz had a green alternate based on their current set instead of the 1980s throwbacks for only one year in 2009-10 (Except it was "They look too much like the Celtics!!!11").

That said, there are ways of getting around this without having to change your primary color. To wit: Return to purple, make green the second color and reduce yellow to tertiary/trim status. Maybe even find a unique shade of purple (maybe even a blue-violet indigo) while you're at it. But enough of how to improve a team's look, this thread is about why teams change.

But that would look too much like the old Buck!!!1!!

I rather like the double blue for them. It fits well with Utah. I feel a mardi gras style color scheme, while it makes sense for a team called the Jazz, doesn't really fit with what I think of Utah.

[guest23]

Spot on. That was the infamous 1-15 prediction. They had just acquired trent green and traded for faulk who was perceived to already have hit his plateau. Nobody thought anything of that team or seasons prior, they were pretty much the nfl's definition of irrelevant before the season started.

On a preseason Monday Night game, I remember Boomer asking Al Michaels who he thought would win the Super Bowl, and Michaels joking "Rams over Bengals." He was half right. But he picked both teams because they were either irrelevant or laughing stocks, dependent upon the year.

Also, the Rams supposedly were going to debut the new jerseys in 1999, but missed the NFL's deadline to change.

n

Damn I had pretty much forgotten about Boomer, D. Miller, and Kornheiser aka the dark ages of MNF which was all for the better. Man those were some rough years. Funny that Al Michaels basically refused to do MNF when it got relegated to espn because Al doesn't do cable. Disney even let him out of his contract out of respect which was pretty surprising.

Michaels was technically released from this contract, but they effectively traded him to NBC for the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The deal was for them to release him so he could sign with NBC. Oswald was Walt Disney's first popular character, which ended up being property of the company he worked for when he left. That company was bought by Universal, which held the rights to Oswald for nearly 80 years. Since Walt lost his star, he had to go back to the drawing board and create Mickey Mouse.

That is great. Reminds me of a minor league trade where a player gets traded for $600 cash, 2 boxes of slightly used balls and a catcher's mitt.

[winters in buffalo]

Am I mistaken? I thought that the Colts never officially changed colors. They just got their manufacturers back to using the correct color, which they had drifted away from over the years.

[AgentColon]

I would agree with that statement. The blue got way too bright for a while there. Though I liked it matched with the blue facemasks.

[DustDevil61]

I'll summarize the color change for the Rams: Georgia Frontiere. She thought the navy and gold were "spacey," though initial plans were for a more UCLA-esque light blue and metallic gold. (Ironic, isn't it?).

Anyways, IIRC the Utah Jazz wearing navy stems back to the 2004-05 dual-blue rebrand, though I think one of the reasons why they kept it around after the 2010-11 pseudo-retro rebrand was fans thought purple, gold, and a hint of green looked too much like the hated Lakers and management acted accordingly. I can't say I entirely disagree, as merchandise from before the 1996-97 rebrand (or often throwback merchandise calling back to it) often was only purple/yellow (except for minimal green in the logo) and I often confuse it with the Lakers:

This line of thinking also stems back to why the Jazz had a green alternate based on their current set instead of the 1980s throwbacks for only one year in 2009-10 (Except it was "They look too much like the Celtics!!!11").

That said, there are ways of getting around this without having to change your primary color. To wit: Return to purple, make green the second color and reduce yellow to tertiary/trim status. Maybe even find a unique shade of purple (maybe even a blue-violet indigo) while you're at it. But enough of how to improve a team's look, this thread is about why teams change.

But that would look too much like the old Buck!!!1!!

I rather like the double blue for them. It fits well with Utah. I feel a mardi gras style color scheme, while it makes sense for a team called the Jazz, doesn't really fit with what I think of Utah.

Ah, yes! That much is true. But bear in mind that the Bucks never wore any gold with their purple and green and aren't likely to wear purple anytime soon, going instead with a double green.

That said, dual-blue or purple/light blue would fit Utah very well, but I'd fear that a simple purple/light blue would look too much like the Hornets.

[greyraven8]

from here:

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=39585

"Prior to the start of the 1978-79 season, the Canucks had undergone a personnel shuffle which saw the advent of Harry Neale as head coach, plus nine new players, including four Swedish skaters (Thomas Gradin, Lars Lindgren, Lars Zetterstrom and Roland Eriksson). It was also the first season for a feisty rookie named Stan Smyl!

To complete the facelift, they hired a design agency (Beyl & Boyd) out of San Francisco to redesign the uniforms. That determined that "our old colours were bland, too tranquil and did not inspire emotion." They then came up with the "V" design with a small "downward skate" logo on each shoulder. The bright orange was said to "evoke passion and aggression" while the predominantly black road jersey would instill fear in the opposition."

[Angels]

Euro soccer teams never changes color, do they ? they pick some colors and stick with them for a 100 years

[Echo]

Euro soccer teams never changes color, do they ? they pick some colors and stick with them for a 100 years

Usually, but not always. Cardiff City changed from their traditional blue and white (the team was even nicknamed The Bluebirds) to red in 2012. The reason for the change was because of a change in ownership. The new owner was Malaysian. Red is considered a lucky color there. I guess it worked, because the club was promoted to the Premier League for the first time ever following that season. The effect must have been temporary however, since they were relegated back to The Championship the next year.

[JayMac]

Also, the change kits are normally different colors. They can experiment with the change kits coordinate so that the primary ones will always stay the same color.