NFL 2017 changes?

[WavePunter]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

And yet they ended up with a mediocre logo anyway.  

 

The old Dolphins brand isn't better because it represents championships. It's better because it's a better design.

 

Room to improve the old one? Absolutely. But it needed to be tweaked, not thrown away. 

While it would be a stretch to say the current is just a "tweaked" version of the old one, it could be argued at least.. I mean, the elements are all there.. Aqua dolphin jumping in front of an orange sunburst.. Plus, he's taking your advice and shedding some football equipment for safety's sake ?, so I'm surprised you're not a bigger fan of it..

 

In all seriousness though, I do like the logo.. Not necessarily better than the previous versions, but as an evolution of the logo, and it's in line with the current brand identity the organization is trying to convey.. The entire rebrand was a bit more orange away from being A+ for me, and while the new logo is more than just a tweaked version of the old logo, it's true to the history and essence of the team by maintaining the core elements and allowing the uniform to remain identifiable as well.. 

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

The old Dolphins brand isn't better because it represents championships. It's better because it's a better design.

 

 

ah, ok i think there's some confusion right here. brand is more visceral; its the things you think about when you see/hear of the team. the things that come to mind based on experience with the team. and design/identity is the visuals that represent the team's values or culture. so thats where the friction is now— the old identity does not serve, or represent, the current strategy of the team to build the brand in their vision. the 2013 identity update was a true "re-brand" because with new ownership and CEO, it brought a completely new direction for the team business, and football operations as well. 

 

the old identity carries a very different brand. though i agree it is represented by stronger design, it is no longer appropriate design. when the identity was released in 2013, people said the logo looked like it was made for a hotel or cruise ship. well, that's on the right track. its not good art, but its got the right personality

 

and i definitely agree with Wave; no visuals were thrown out. its all recognizable as the Dolphins. its a new style of the same ideas

[H11K]

11 hours ago, IceBurgs70 said:

 

The Bucs SHOULD wear their throwbacks full time...just not their creamsicle ones. These were perfect modern classics...

 

Anyone take notice to this jersey template? The Nike Mach Speed looks really similar to my eyes.

[WavePunter]

1 hour ago, H11K said:

Anyone take notice to this jersey template? The Nike Mach Speed looks really similar to my eyes.

This is basically the old Denver Broncos template.. It was quite popular up until about 2010 or so from numerous manufacturers.. They would just keep the side panels colored like the jersey body most of the time (like in the photo above)..

[guest23]

4 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

ah, ok i think there's some confusion right here. brand is more visceral; its the things you think about when you see/hear of the team. the things that come to mind based on experience with the team. and design/identity is the visuals that represent the team's values or culture. so thats where the friction is now— the old identity does not serve, or represent, the current strategy of the team to build the brand in their vision. the 2013 identity update was a true "re-brand" because with new ownership and CEO, it brought a completely new direction for the team business, and football operations as well. 

 

the old identity carries a very different brand. though i agree it is represented by stronger design, it is no longer appropriate design. when the identity was released in 2013, people said the logo looked like it was made for a hotel or cruise ship. well, that's on the right track. its not good art, but its got the right personality

 

and i definitely agree with Wave; no visuals were thrown out. its all recognizable as the Dolphins. its a new style of the same ideas

 

I disagree 100% with this assessment. This was nothing more than a modern repackaging of the same dolphins brand. Same white dominant, aqua, and orange. Same leaping dolphin in front of a sun ring. This is no different than an airline updating its livery or pepsi refreshing their graphics package and marketing message every 5 years. Nothing has remotely changed with the essence of the brand, it just became trendy and sterile devoid of any real character.

 

The look has already become forgettable and is why the fans are clamoring for throwbacks because they didn't realize they already had a classic brand right in front of them. The dolphins' fundamental issue is the inferior product that they are putting on the field but when you're in marketing it's easier to hire a design firm to change your package than do the hard work to improve the contents inside it.

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

ah, ok i think there's some confusion right here. brand is more visceral; its the things you think about when you see/hear of the team. the things that come to mind based on experience with the team. and design/identity is the visuals that represent the team's values or culture. so thats where the friction is now— the old identity does not serve, or represent, the current strategy of the team to build the brand in their vision. the 2013 identity update was a true "re-brand" because with new ownership and CEO, it brought a completely new direction for the team business, and football operations as well. 

 

Oh, I get the distinction.  

 

I just think that the current brand is utterly inferior to the old, in no small part because the design supporting that brand was so significant a downgrade from the old. 

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, WavePunter said:

Aqua dolphin jumping in front of an orange sunburst.. Plus, he's taking your advice and shedding some football equipment for safety's sake ?, so I'm surprised you're not a bigger fan of it..

 

 

[BrandMooreArt]

8 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

I disagree 100% with this assessment. This was nothing more than a modern repackaging of the same dolphins brand. Same white dominant, aqua, and orange. Same leaping dolphin in front of a sun ring. This is no different than an airline updating its livery or pepsi refreshing their graphics package and marketing message every 5 years. Nothing has remotely changed with the essence of the brand, it just became trendy and sterile devoid of any real character.

 

The look has already become forgettable and is why the fans are clamoring for throwbacks because they didn't realize they already had a classic brand right in front of them. The dolphins' fundamental issue is the inferior product that they are putting on the field but when you're in marketing it's easier to hire a design firm to change your package than do the hard work to improve the contents inside it.

 

identity. and yes, this is why i said "no visuals were thrown out. its all recognizable as the Dolphins. its a new style of the same ideas". that was literally the last sentence of that last post. we're on the same page there, so you actually 100% agree  but those changes are significant and they new style "says" something about the new direction of the brand

 

you're crossing Brand and Identity though; they're different things.  these numbers are already out there but ill give you a good one: over the last 3 years, team revenue is up 47%— theres a lot of things going into that, but thats done with a mediocre product (football) that made the playoffs for the first time last year since 2008. the point is, when the brand is strong it can withstand a period of inferiority. the Dallas Cowboys are a perfect example of how near 20 years of OK football doesn't stop them from being one of the most profitable and popular teams over that time. its how Apple can turn out worse products than their competitors for years and still have lines out the door when they release a new one. every team is going to have periods where they don't win, so when that happens, what do you have to stand on? it has to be bigger than winning. 

 

i suppose there are people that think im making up or something, or maybe im not clear enough in my writing, but what im trying to get across is branding is way more than marketing and way more than a logo and uniform. teams are not just about the sport any more like they were in the 60s. as a sports fan, thats hard to say but it's also truth. so if anyone still reading thinks what i've said is all nonsense just do me one favor and think of this: what teams are known for something more than winning and do well as a business even when they're not? and why is that?

 

 

[Gold Pinstripes]

24 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

identity. and yes, this is why i said "no visuals were thrown out. its all recognizable as the Dolphins. its a new style of the same ideas". that was literally the last sentence of that last post. we're on the same page there, so you actually 100% agree  but those changes are significant and they new style "says" something about the new direction of the brand

 

you're crossing Brand and Identity though; they're different things.  these numbers are already out there but ill give you a good one: over the last 3 years, team revenue is up 47%— theres a lot of things going into that, but thats done with a mediocre product (football) that made the playoffs for the first time last year since 2008. the point is, when the brand is strong it can withstand a period of inferiority. the Dallas Cowboys are a perfect example of how near 20 years of OK football doesn't stop them from being one of the most profitable and popular teams over that time. its how Apple can turn out worse products than their competitors for years and still have lines out the door when they release a new one. every team is going to have periods where they don't win, so when that happens, what do you have to stand on? it has to be bigger than winning. 

 

i suppose there are people that think im making up or something, or maybe im not clear enough in my writing, but what im trying to get across is branding is way more than marketing and way more than a logo and uniform. teams are not just about the sport any more like they were in the 60s. as a sports fan, thats hard to say but it's also truth. so if anyone still reading thinks what i've said is all nonsense just do me one favor and think of this: what teams are known for something more than winning and do well as a business even when they're not? and why is that?

 

 

And this is where the legacy of winning kicks in, the on-field performance will always play a role in this discussion. The Dolphins had a roughly 30 year run of winning from 1970, and countless fans today either experienced the Marino years, or have a family connection in some way. In fact, thousands of Dolphins fans have connections dating back to the Bob Griese era. Now if the team isn't a consistent winner in the future, there inevitably will be a time when the brand is affected.

 

In terms of Dallas, they did have six playoff appearances with Tony Romo, and a strong history of winning before that. The success also helped the marketing of the cheerleaders, which no one saw coming. The greatest design, and the most brilliant marketing people will never be able to compensate for winning. And winning is so powerful, it can propel a mediocre design to new heights of popularity.    

[pokecat12]

14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

And yet they ended up with a mediocre logo anyway.  

 

The old Dolphins brand isn't better because it represents championships. It's better because it's a better design.

 

Room to improve the old one? Absolutely. But it needed to be tweaked, not thrown away. 

The early 80's (Woodley. Strock and Marino's early years) were perfection. The Aqua and Coral were so on, and the facemask in Aqua, just nice. Not too dark and not too light.

[guest23]

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

identity. and yes, this is why i said "no visuals were thrown out. its all recognizable as the Dolphins. its a new style of the same ideas". that was literally the last sentence of that last post. we're on the same page there, so you actually 100% agree  but those changes are significant and they new style "says" something about the new direction of the brand

 

you're crossing Brand and Identity though; they're different things.  these numbers are already out there but ill give you a good one: over the last 3 years, team revenue is up 47%— theres a lot of things going into that, but thats done with a mediocre product (football) that made the playoffs for the first time last year since 2008. the point is, when the brand is strong it can withstand a period of inferiority. the Dallas Cowboys are a perfect example of how near 20 years of OK football doesn't stop them from being one of the most profitable and popular teams over that time. its how Apple can turn out worse products than their competitors for years and still have lines out the door when they release a new one. every team is going to have periods where they don't win, so when that happens, what do you have to stand on? it has to be bigger than winning. 

 

i suppose there are people that think im making up or something, or maybe im not clear enough in my writing, but what im trying to get across is branding is way more than marketing and way more than a logo and uniform. teams are not just about the sport any more like they were in the 60s. as a sports fan, thats hard to say but it's also truth. so if anyone still reading thinks what i've said is all nonsense just do me one favor and think of this: what teams are known for something more than winning and do well as a business even when they're not? and why is that?

 

 

 

You were explicitly referring to the dolphins rebooting their brand yet you only used their visual identity to support your argument. Unless you can show something definitive in how the company is being viewed in the marketplace other than aqua/orange/dolphins/nfl football, nothing has changed with the brand. Also you need to provide some data with your 47% statement. Correlation is not causation and there are a variety of mechanisms to drive revenue like changing the season ticket pricing structure that can give you those results. You also then have to compare their revenues to the rest of the league to determine if that rate is on par.

 

You're attributing way too much design with the overall concept of brand marketing and overestimating the effects of changing packaging/graphics on the bottom line IMO.

 

 

[AnPheitseog]

On 06/06/2017 at 7:11 PM, 4_tattoos said:

At some point the Giants need to hit the reset button on their uniforms. Or at the very least go back to the 2000-2004 white jerseys.

 

 

Honestly after seeing their all white color rush set from last season, I'd be cool with them ditching gray altogether.

You know, i like the current Giants whites, but.

 

 

This is fantastic and the giants need to switch back ASAP.

[oldschoolvikings]

Just for clarification, is everyone aware that BrandMooreArt works for the Dolphins, specifically (if I'm not mistaken) as a designer involved in their marketing? You can certainly tell him you don't like the new uniform as well as the old (I don't either), and you can tell him you don't think their marketing plan will work, but I believe he's probably in a good position to say what the Dolphins are trying to do with their brand. And why they, at least, after spending God knows how much researching their marketing plan, think it's a good direction to go in.

[BrandMooreArt]

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

You're attributing way too much design with the overall concept of brand marketing and overestimating the effects of changing packaging/graphics on the bottom line IMO.

 

 

 

im disappointed thats what you've taken away here because im trying to express the opposite. the positioning and brand doesn't change because of the new identity, the new identity is a reflection of those changes. i think @oldschoolvikings has got it; im with you all that the new identity isn't as likable, and my god you should see the throwbacks in person! but if you're going to be true to your new brand positioning, your identity must align with it. Juventus is another great example of this, the Dolphins a more diluted version of their extreme shift

[Lee Noire]

22 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

I don't understand the hate for the Dolphins logo. It, IMO, is incredible. It flows much better than the old ones, and finally fixes the problem of having a dolphin on a helmet wearing a different helmet. While the uniforms could use a little more orange and striping on the sleeves, I'm a fan of them as well. It's a clean, modern set, one of the ones that Nike didn't screw up. 2013, IMO, was Nike's best year, with the Vikings, Dolphins, and (ignoring the helmet) Jags all receiving solid looks. All of them have their flaws, some more obvious then others *cough*Gradient helmet and not enough teal*cough*, but they are all very good if you fix those. If that's an unpopular opinion, I don't want to be popular.

I'm in the same boat as far as the current logo goes. I love it more than I ever have the helmet wearing dolphin. They dropped the ball on the uniforms though. The lack of Orange just doesn't make any sense, and I think the Dolphins go hand in hand with stripes. Sure up those unis and I think they never have to touch them again.

[phutmasterflex]

A combo that I don't think would ever see the field but still something that is very interesting: W/A/O

[Matito]

Something is terribly wrong with that photo. I don't know if I can put it into words, but... my god...

[DCarp1231]

For some reason I can't figure out how to remove the picture. In response to what seems wrong, it's probably the fact that it looks like he's wearing a shirt over a morph suit.

[WavePunter]

8 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

You were explicitly referring to the dolphins rebooting their brand yet you only used their visual identity to support your argument. Unless you can show something definitive in how the company is being viewed in the marketplace other than aqua/orange/dolphins/nfl football, nothing has changed with the brand. Also you need to provide some data with your 47% statement. Correlation is not causation and there are a variety of mechanisms to drive revenue like changing the season ticket pricing structure that can give you those results. You also then have to compare their revenues to the rest of the league to determine if that rate is on par.

 

You're attributing way too much design with the overall concept of brand marketing and overestimating the effects of changing packaging/graphics on the bottom line IMO.

 

 

I think Brandon was trying to illustrate how their visual identity shift was made to align with their new branding/marketing strategy.. Instead of the kitschy, blotchy,  helmet-wearing dolphin in a stagnant pose, the organization has used the core elements (aqua dolphin on an orange sunburst on a white helmet) to create a visually similar, yet stylistically very different logo of a smooth, flowing, stylized, helmet-less dolphin across a more dynamic sunburst, that evokes the type of luxury feel associated with resorts and cruise lines (two common references for the new logo).. 

Is it a better logo? No.. Is it a better brand? Absolutely (on-field performance notwithstanding).. If on-field success is dictated by "look", it's the same dolphins.. White helmet, aqua dolphin, orange sunburst, aqua jerseys on white pants or vice-versa (typically)..

It's just evolved to correspond with the rest of organizational changes implemented by new ownership, who wanted their visual identity to reflect their new brand..

In all honesty, I actually prefer the new look to the previous look.. The throwback options are certain superior, but the 2000's set was quickly becoming dated, and needed a refresh.. If they widened the orange outlines on all the stripes and numbers, this look would jump several spots imo to top 1/3 of the league..

But the new look, new stadium, new graphics packages, marketing, etc, is all I alignment, and if their numbers are up as Brandon says, it's certainly working..

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, phutmasterflex said:

A combo that I don't think would ever see the field but still something that is very interesting: W/A/O

You spelled u-g-l-y wrong (it isn't spelled i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g)

RE: branding/marketing - all I read in all of these responses is marketing speak. I'm not the intended recipient, but I look at a uniform and helmet as the team's look. I like the Dolphins' older looks better than their current one.  While the old logo was definitely blobbish at certain resolutions, the current one strikes me as just a color streak. The startling lack of orange in the stripes and uniforms is off-putting. I don't understand why you have a mammoth aqua stripe flanked by a small navy stripe and a teeny tiny orange stripe that gets lost on anything other than a close up (heck - I had to scroll up to confirm which colors were there after aqua, because I wasn't positive).