Jump to content

Las Vegas Raiders Brand Discussion


Ben in LA

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

OK let it go, I don't see why the Raiders would have to rebrand their image when they move to Vegas, other than the OP's personal opinion on what they perceive as perfect logo for the team.. And where do you see any nautical theme incorporated in their logo? You have a black shield, a man wearing a leather football helmet accompanied with a eye patch. It fits perfectically fine with the culture and personification of the city of  Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lights Out said:

If they really wanted to "right a wrong," they'd have moved the Rams back to Cleveland, their actual home. Moving them back to LA was all about money, plain and simple.

They moved because the AAFC Browns were a hell of a lot more popular.  Ironically, that's the same reason why the Chargers originally left LA...because of the popularity of the Rams.

jersey-signature03.pngjersey-signature04.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

OK let it go, I don't see why the Raiders would have to rebrand their image when they move to Vegas, other than the OP's personal opinion on what they perceive as perfect logo for the team.. And where do you see any nautical theme incorporated in their logo? You have a black shield, a man wearing a leather football helmet accompanied with a eye patch. It fits perfectically fine with the culture and personification of the city of  Las Vegas.

I'm the OP.  The perfect logo for the team is what they already have.  I just wanted to read other's opinions on the subject.

jersey-signature03.pngjersey-signature04.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lights Out said:

If they really wanted to "right a wrong," they'd have moved the Rams back to Cleveland, their actual home. Moving them back to LA was all about money, plain and simple.

 

Nah, Cleveland didn't want the team. They chose the Browns instead. 

 

The Rams might have been born in Cleveland, but they're from LA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

You don't know me, you're too old, let go, it's over, nobody listens to techno cares about 1940s football

 

Bears ownership begs to differ.

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that the Raider brand is iconic and timeless, I wouldn't assume just because they didn't rebrand or at least change up the logo/uni's in 1982 and 1994 when they moved those times, that they won't this time.  For starters, Mark Davis is the owner now. He's an inheritance baby and mostly an utter moron. Secondly, the NFL and it's marketing are COMPLETELY different than they were 23 years ago.  If there's an opportunity there for them to generate revenue through a tweak to their image to help ingratiate themselves in a new market, they may very well take it. 

 

Also good points above about the current Raider logo being a nautical pirate, and how it fits Oakland/LA but not Vegas. When I think of a "desert Raider" I think of this: Hugh_Keays_Byrne_as_a_Villain_Role_in_Ho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CS85 said:

 

Bears ownership begs to differ.

 

C'mon, man! The Bears have made it all the way to 1985.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:00 AM, B-Rich said:

Thoughts on the move and branding...

 

But another thing that slightly bugs me is the Raider's nautical pirate imagery being shipped off to the desert.   It worked great in Oakland, which is on San Francisco Bay, and to some degree Los Angeles, which is on the Pacific Ocean.  The California coast even has a brief history of its own pirate/raider  and even had noted corsair/privateer Sir Francis Drake land there.  So in my mind, it fits, just like Buccaneers fits in perfectly with Tampa Bay (and had fit in perfectly with New Orleans in the ABA). 

 

I never saw the Raider imagery as nautical.  Yes, he has a patch, but I saw it as a bandit of the generic sort wearing an old silver leather football helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2017 at 1:16 PM, Gothamite said:

There was never a time to do it. 

 

Objectively, it is a poorly-rendered logo molded by the limitations of its not-really-all-that-distant era. When the only ground to stand on is “tradition” as the team relocates - to Las Vegas - its time to burst the bubble, or rather, make the bubble presentable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the 1960s are a pretty distant era, at this point?

 

Whatever flaws it has, and it's certainly not perfect, the logo is strong enough, and has enough resonance, that making changes would ruin its value.  I don't see a Cardinals-style option; for better or worse, it is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

You don't think the 1960s are a pretty distant era, at this point?

 

Whatever flaws it has, and it's certainly not perfect, the logo is strong enough, and has enough resonance, that making changes would ruin its value.  I don't see a Cardinals-style option; for better or worse, it is what it is. 

 

A Cardinals-style update would be too much, but a Vikings-style update would be great. I doubt the Raiders would actually do it, but that's the best option.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AstroBull21 said:

 

I never saw the Raider imagery as nautical.  Yes, he has a patch, but I saw it as a bandit of the generic sort wearing an old silver leather football helmet.

 

It's a freaking pirate with a football helmet on his head. It's basically a riff off of a Jolly Roger flag..

 

PIRATE-3X5-V1-607-300x185.jpg

 

http://raidernationtimes.com/article.php?id=9020

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

You don't think the 1960s are a pretty distant era, at this point?

 

Whatever flaws it has, and it's certainly not perfect, the logo is strong enough, and has enough resonance, that making changes would ruin its value.  I don't see a Cardinals-style option; for better or worse, it is what it is. 

 

Not distant enough to be untouchable, no.

 

The strengths of the logo are exactly why an update would not “ruin its value.” Tweaking the poorly-rendered face and helmet while leaving the badge, colors, and overall motif intact is the exact “cleanup” an historic, but discarded team could knock out of the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man, i don't know. obviously that logo is rough and there are plenty of reproduction issues with it. it doesn't scale down at all, its poorly drawn; it's an average at best logo. but my best advice to the team is don't touch it. i just don't think its a brand you want to go messing around with even if it meant making the identity look better. 

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

man, i don't know. obviously that logo is rough and there are plenty of reproduction issues with it. it doesn't scale down at all, its poorly drawn; it's an average at best logo. but my best advice to the team is don't touch it. i just don't think its a brand you want to go messing around with even if it meant making the identity look better. 

 

This speech reminds me of another AFC team...

 

2-444.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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