youcan'tseeme

Reasons For Colour Changes?

Recommended Posts

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LA Lakers and Kings were both owned by Jack Kent Cooke, who gave the Kings his favourite colours (Forum blue and gold, also perceived as purple and yellow) from the start, and changed the Lakers to them. This later inspired the Rams owner (Rosenbloom) to change their colours from blue & white to match.

Changes in ownership can be an influence. When the NFL Raiders moved from Oakland to LA, the new owner of the Kings (McNall) changed their colours to match the Raiders' black and silver. This was again changed, with the addition of purple and a logo change, that has since faded back to black and silver with a simplified logo.

The Edmonton Oilers were originally given their colours of orange and blue in their WHA debut in anticipation of a sponsorship deal with Gulf Oil. The original owner, Bill Hunter, had run successful junior teams (Oil Kings) with red, white, and blue colours. Long into their time in the NHL, and Pocklington's ownership, they followed a 1990s trend to darker colours, shifting to navy blue, copper, and a touch of red trim. Their present owner (Katz) responded to popular demand by restoring their traditional orange and blue colours and uniforms- which just happened to match those of his Rexall Drugs chain.

Conn Smythe changed the name of the Toronto St. Patricks first, to the Maple Leafs, and then the colours, from green & white back to blue &white (a traditional Toronto colour).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ownership is also the reason why the Boston Bruins originally used brown and yellow, the colors for owner Charles Adams' Brookside Stores. The change to black and yellow also happened when Adams was the owner, but I'm not sure why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Oh i know that, the away kits are 90% of the time brutal.....neon colors and stuff, and colors that have nothing to do with the club colors.

Never understand how some fans would buy those away jerseys and shorts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

No way ?? ! That is some bull :censored:, he should never had been allowed to buy the club, keep those english clubs on english hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

No way ?? ! That is some bull :censored:, he should never had been allowed to buy the club, keep those english clubs on english hands.

That's borderline racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Oh i know that, the away kits are 90% of the time brutal.....neon colors and stuff, and colors that have nothing to do with the club colors.

Never understand how some fans would buy those away jerseys and shorts

Perhaps just the same reason a lot of us hear seek out ugly uniforms? Just that simple fact that 10 years from now nobody will have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

No way ?? ! That is some bull :censored:, he should never had been allowed to buy the club, keep those english clubs on english hands.

That's borderline racist.

Racist? No. "English" doesn't automatically mean "white", no matter how much groups like UKIP and the National Front want to pretend it does.

But it does betray bad geography, as Cardiff is in Wales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

No way ?? ! That is some bull :censored:, he should never had been allowed to buy the club, keep those english clubs on english hands.

That's borderline racist.

Racist? No. "English" doesn't automatically mean "white", no matter how much groups like UKIP and the National Front want to pretend it does.

But it does betray bad geography, as Cardiff is in Wales.

When did I say that? I'm just saying that if you don't allow people from other countries the opportunity to own a team, that's prejudiced. Maybe it's not "racist" but it's still prejudiced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True. I actually prefer it that way, where teams can experiment with the au courant while not prostituting their visual identity. Best of both worlds.

And FWIW, you're right that red is considered lucky, but Cardiff City's change was pretty openly commercial - the new owner thought he could sell more red shirts in Asia than blue.

No way ?? ! That is some bull :censored:, he should never had been allowed to buy the club, keep those english clubs on english hands.

That's borderline racist.

Racist? No. "English" doesn't automatically mean "white", no matter how much groups like UKIP and the National Front want to pretend it does.

But it does betray bad geography, as Cardiff is in Wales.

LOL My bad, but they did play in the Premier League, so there must some ties i guess :-)

.

anyway, fans should really boycut them, and not pay a dime to go see them play, only way the owner will sell .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, the only leverage fans have is the power to withhold their financial support. And they can only play that card once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

These days it's rare and usually very controversial - as we've heard with regards to Cardiff City and their switch to red shirts. In the early days of the sport though changes were far more frequent - traditions hadn't been fixed, and clubs would often switch colours or designs depending on what kits they could source cheaply and easily.

In addition, back in the very early days of the Football League there were no away kits - each team in the League had to have its own distinct colours or design. If you gained admission to the League and someone already sported your kit of choice it was tough luck - you'd have to change your colours. However, as more teams joined the League this ruling became impractical and change kits began to emerge.

One notable example of a team changing long established colours is Leeds United, who famously switched from their long-standing blue and yellow scheme to an all white kit in the early 1960s to - so it's said - emulate the hugely successful Real Madrid side of that period. However, Leeds have retained their historical colours on their strip's trim and turn to it regularly for their away kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal Palace also did it, in the 1980s (? I think), changing from claret and sky blue to royal blue and red.

But the fact that we can pick out these very few examples shows how rare it really is, since most of these color schemes were established in the early 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal Palace also did it, in the 1980s (? I think), changing from claret and sky blue to royal blue and red.

But the fact that we can pick out these very few examples shows how rare it really is, since most of these color schemes were established in the early 20th century.

Yep, Palace have had a few changes in the past 40 years - claret and sky blue as you say for much of their history, interspersed with white shirts, before a switch to various combinations of red and blue in the 1970s. And of course they've worn white with a blue and red sash on a number of occasions - one of my all time favourite kits, incidentally.

But no, clubs tend to have their colours and don't stray too far away from them these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US sport teams could learn from this, don´t change colors, and don´t :censored: around with the logo.......pick one and stick with it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mid 90s in the Australian Football League, the West Coast Eagles changed from royal and athletic gold to navy and athletic gold, and their fans have been calling for a return to royal and gold since.

My theory on it has always been 90s merchandise. In the mid 90s, merchandise design was in your face, overstated and garish and to combat that, the AFL teams without navy or black as a colour adopted one of them for merchandise purposes, so that they could use that colour on their merch to tone it down a bit. Sydney (red and white) used navy on their merch. Fremantle (purple and white) used black. Hawthorn (brown and athletic gold) used navy as well. North Melbourne (royal and white) used both black and navy at different times from memory.

The only club to actually change their playing uniform colour was West Coast, who swapped out royal for navy (as well as a particularly heinous rebrand where they ditched a classic logo for a downgrade and threw away their league best uniform design for a boring tripanel design).

However by the mid 2000s, all those clubs had dropped the navy or black from their merchandise because merchandise design had gotten to a point where it was sleek, understated and didn't require a dark colour to avoid looking like a neon sign. The only remnant of that is the Eagles, who maintain the navy currently despite a big fan push to go back to the royal and gold and their old uniform design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

I do own the yellow version of the 'V' jersey, as an aside, and for all the complaining the look has gotten over the years, it did get them to the Canucks first appearance in the Stanley Cup Final in '82 (we all know what happened then....).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

cJp3Rpa.jpg

Allow me to settle this, friends.

The Rams first started work on their uniform redesign in late 1997. I worked very closely with a Rams season ticket holder who participated in a focus group the Rams empaneled to provide input on proposed redesigns. That group met in the spring of 98. A few years after he felt it was safe to breach the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign, he did share a few details about what he and his cohorts got to see. Interestingly , the consensus among the people he talked with was for a color scheme that retained the "athletic gold" (he called it Ticonderoga Pencil yellow) in use at the time and darkened all of the fabric blues to match the blue used for the helmet of the time. The only proposed change to the helmet that was offered up was a white "pinstripe" border around the horns, I'm assuming to give the illusion of depth against a dark shell. I can only assume that glitter and sequin loving Georgia Frontiere wanted a shinier gold.The focus group concluded some time in the summer of 98, so that would have given the team about a year to come up with the final designs that went into use in 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eagles change to midnight green in 1996 was because the new owner's wife Christina loved design and hated kelly green (and they thought the team looked too much like the Jets at the time), and they wanted something more pleasing to the eye. Now that she's out of the picture and the owner remarried, fans think kelly green could show up again (and we've already discussed this to death in other NFL topics)

The other significant color change was going from light blue and yellow (the Philadelphia city flag colors) in the mid-1930s after the Frankford Yellow Jackets folded, to green (blue+yellow=....you get the idea) in 1943

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.