Tradition Evolved: Tennessee Titans Unveil New Uniforms

[buffalo50]

On 2018-04-16 at 5:52 PM, daveindc said:

 

Nice. The blue helmet is a much better fit for their look, imo.

 

 

 

 

I mean, the damn jersey looks like something a bunch of ship-wrecked castaways would make whilst stranded on an island, collecting bits of scrap fabric from their tattered clothes... 

 

Shame. 

 

 

[BrandMooreArt]

2 hours ago, buffalo50 said:

 

I mean, the damn jersey looks like something a bunch of ship-wrecked castaways would make whilst stranded on an island, collecting bits of scrap fabric from their tattered clothes... 

 

Shame. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, buffalo50 said:

 

I mean, the damn jersey looks like something a bunch of ship-wrecked castaways would make whilst stranded on an island, collecting bits of scrap fabric from their tattered clothes... 

 

Shame. 

 

 

 

thats a great concept for the Bucs

[kroywen]

20 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

Jesus, this set is going to look very dated within a few years. 

 

I would contend that it was designed just to do that - to look dated by the time these uniforms' five-year window closes, so that a new set would need to be designed then. And then rinse, wash, repeat.

 

The Jags, Seahawks, Browns, Bucs, and now Titans are all clearly trying to cash in on uniform changes every five years - those uniforms are a hodge podge of super of-the-moment trends and poor design choices. The jury is still out on the Lions, while I think the Vikings are going to stand the test of time and remain in place for quite awhile.

[whitedawg22]

5 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I would contend that it was designed just to do that - to look dated by the time these uniforms' five-year window closes, so that a new set would need to be designed then. And then rinse, wash, repeat.

 

The Jags, Seahawks, Browns, Bucs, and now Titans are all clearly trying to cash in on uniform changes every five years - those uniforms are a hodge podge of super of-the-moment trends and poor design choices. The jury is still out on the Lions, while I think the Vikings are going to stand the test of time and remain in place for quite awhile.

I think the Lions' uniforms will stand the test of time, at least give or take the awful all-gray set. I'd be relatively shocked if they changed four years from now.

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

I would contend that it was designed just to do that - to look dated by the time these uniforms' five-year window closes, so that a new set would need to be designed then. And then rinse, wash, repeat.

 

The Jags, Seahawks, Browns, Bucs, and now Titans are all clearly trying to cash in on uniform changes every five years - those uniforms are a hodge podge of super of-the-moment trends and poor design choices. The jury is still out on the Lions, while I think the Vikings are going to stand the test of time and remain in place for quite awhile.

I think you're right. We're all rooting for teams to come up with something we perceive as classic, but I doubt that's the goal of the design process anymore.

 

We like to blame Nike for underwhelming designs when maybe we should be blaming it for conditioning teams and consumers into accepting the notion of planned obsolescence. Maybe it's just me buying into my own conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole five-year cycle of uniforms becomes a new standard. Not even the Vikings, seemingly the best of the bunch, would be spared. They'll just come out with a new twist on the same theme, like a chef who can't stop tinkering with a dish that works. It's the death of the "instant classic."

 

/rant

[C-Squared]

Its also entirely possible that we overrate the value of consistent uniforms and that NFL franchises won't really be hurt by tweaking their look every five years because their core identities generally remain intact.

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, C-Squared said:

Its also entirely possible that we overrate the value of consistent uniforms and that NFL franchises won't really be hurt by tweaking their look every five years because their core identities generally remain intact.

 

thats something ive thought about as well; how much does it all really matter? hardcore fans will always buy whatever the team is wearing. 

 

but what is it about the Colts, Yankees, Celtics, etc that is so cherished? why do uniforms become sort of untouchable? first, its a proven record of success. Championships and Hall of Fame players build up the folklore of the team and what they wear matters. positive experiences tied to certain visuals makes those visuals important, makes them valuable. there are teams that won't (or shouldnt) change things drastically because they already have that equity— this is where i think the Packers and Steelers despite their hacked sleeve stripes should just leave things as they are. If they do they can never have a perfect uniform, but no on else can have theirs and thats more important

 

theres also a legacy and nostalgia aspect to it. its the same reason people buy old things at antique stores; we like things that are older than ourselves. it ties us to the past and helps define who we are. the fact that Manning wore the same uniform as Unitas, or i wear the same logo as my grandfather, makes a powerful, emotional connection. and al of this is emotional, theres nothing rational about wearing a jersey with someone elses name on it and paying thousands of dollars for tickets to 8 games. and if teams change every 5 years? theres nothing emotional about that, it takes time to build it. its all for a cash grab or just not knowing who you are as a team/brand and people see through it. 

[Sec19Row53]

On 4/24/2018 at 12:22 PM, whitedawg22 said:

I think the Lions' uniforms will stand the test of time, at least give or take the awful all-gray set. I'd be relatively shocked if they changed four years from now.

I would go the opposite direction. The Lions seem intent on tweaking their unis every five years to get the most bang for the buck. I said somewhere else on here that you could have any of the last 4 iterations of the Lions' unis on the field at a given time and they wouldn't excessively stand out. Small changes that don't abandon their look, but force the buying public into buying the new jersey.

[tBBP]

21 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I think you're right. We're all rooting for teams to come up with something we perceive as classic, but I doubt that's the goal of the design process anymore.

 

We like to blame Nike for underwhelming designs when maybe we should be blaming it for conditioning teams and consumers into accepting the notion of planned obsolescence. Maybe it's just me buying into my own conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole five-year cycle of uniforms becomes a new standard. Not even the Vikings, seemingly the best of the bunch, would be spared. They'll just come out with a new twist on the same theme, like a chef who can't stop tinkering with a dish that works. It's the death of the "instant classic."

 

/rant

I hadn't said anything about it, but I've been suspecting ever since the NBA first made the announcement of placing ads on their game uniforms that revenue in sports uniform design would trend this way--and by that I mean the systematic cycling of updated uniforms. As we all know, this has been the norm in soccer for the longest time, so long in fact its accepted as "normal". How much of that was originally due to purposely generating merchandising  revenue and hoe much of that was "just because" I don't know, but regardless, we see many clubs cycle through kits about every other year. (Which makes the more "iconic" looks, such as Argentina's and Brazil's primaries, stand out that much more, IMO.)

 

It wouldn't surprise me if [certain clubs in] the NBA and now the NFL have taken notice of the potential for even more merchandising $$$ by engaging in this "tweaking cycle", if you will, knowing there will be people who will continue to throw down moola to keep updated with the newest stuff.

 

(Edit: I see two of y'all already beat me to the punch on this point.)

[tBBP]

5 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

...but what is it about the Colts, Yankees, Celtics, etc that is so cherished? why do uniforms become sort of untouchable? first, its a proven record of success. Championships and Hall of Fame players build up the folklore of the team and what they wear matters. positive experiences tied to certain visuals makes those visuals important, makes them valuable. there are teams that won't (or shouldnt) change things drastically because they already have that equity— this is where i think the Packers and Steelers despite their hacked sleeve stripes should just leave things as they are. If they do they can never have a perfect uniform, but no on else can have theirs and thats more important

 

theres also a legacy and nostalgia aspect to it. its the same reason people buy old things at antique stores; we like things that are older than ourselves. it ties us to the past and helps define who we are. the fact that Manning wore the same uniform as Unitas, or i wear the same logo as my grandfather, makes a powerful, emotional connection. and al of this is emotional, theres nothing rational about wearing a jersey with someone elses name on it and paying thousands of dollars for tickets to 8 games. and if teams change every 5 years? theres nothing emotional about that, it takes time to build it. its all for a cash grab or just not knowing who you are as a team/brand and people see through it. 

 

I know why you mentioned the Colts, of course ?...but how do we continue to leave the Kansas City Chiefs out of these types of discussions?? I think they may be the one team who, short of a helmet logo change (for obvious reasons--and if one really wants to split hairs, a slight number font change and a move of TV numbers from sleeve to shoulder), have NEVER changed their uniforms in their history. They look exactly as they did as the original Dallas Texans--that's quintessential equity there. Unless I'm missing something somewhere, that's a claim really only the Carolina Panthers, short of their tweaked primary logo, can make. (Speaking of maintaining a consistent look since inception.)

 

Which leads to an interesting case study in brand equity from a more recent perspective: the expansion brethren Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars, who inside of 23 years (?) are now on their fourth different on-field brand identity. (As a matter of fact, a similar juxtaposition can be made amongst the Colorado Rockies and the Arizona Diamondbacks, Florida Marlins, and Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays--but that's for another thread.) The Panthers are well on their way, barring some as-yet-unforseen change, to establishing a lasting brand continuity; meanwhile, the Jaguars have entered into San Diego Padres/Chicago White Sox "uniform history trivia hunt" territory. 

 

Which brings us back around to the Titans. They too were on their way to entrenching themselves with a lasting brand--after all, it had been 19 years--and then cut that straight off with this near-wholesale change, effectively torpedoing that equity.

 

So i guess one question to ask is: how much is brand equity really worth in present day (to the head brass of these teams) versus the potential to generate more $ via cyclical uniform updates? 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

Looking at how Soccer teams work, there is brand equity but its in broader strokes. 

 

For example, you can change the width of the stripes but God help you if you ever put Inter in anything but black and blue stripes, Juve in black and white stripes, or Milano in red and black stripes. Its sort of similar in College sports where designs change frequently but so long as the broad strokes remain the same no one cares. 

 

American brand equity is a lot more specific in pro sports. It isn't just a pattern and color scheme, its also a specific number font, stripe pattern, etc. 

[Gr3g3]

 

The numbers get skinnier every time I see them.

 

Also that flame is mighty close to the sword stripe.

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

13 minutes ago, Gr3g3 said:

The numbers get skinnier every time I see them.

 

Also that flame is mighty close to the sword stripe.

 

 

Oh that looks terrible.

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, Buc said:

 

I know why you mentioned the Colts, of course ?...but how do we continue to leave the Kansas City Chiefs out of these types of discussions?? I think they may be the one team who, short of a helmet logo change (for obvious reasons--and if one really wants to split hairs, a slight number font change and a move of TV numbers from sleeve to shoulder), have NEVER changed their uniforms in their history. They look exactly as they did as the original Dallas Texans--that's quintessential equity there. Unless I'm missing something somewhere, that's a claim really only the Carolina Panthers, short of their tweaked primary logo, can make. (Speaking of maintaining a consistent look since inception.)

 

Which leads to an interesting case study in brand equity from a more recent perspective: the expansion brethren Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars, who inside of 23 years (?) are now on their fourth different on-field brand identity. (As a matter of fact, a similar juxtaposition can be made amongst the Colorado Rockies and the Arizona Diamondbacks, Florida Marlins, and Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays--but that's for another thread.) The Panthers are well on their way, barring some as-yet-unforseen change, to establishing a lasting brand continuity; meanwhile, the Jaguars have entered into San Diego Padres/Chicago White Sox "uniform history trivia hunt" territory. 

 

Which brings us back around to the Titans. They too were on their way to entrenching themselves with a lasting brand--after all, it had been 19 years--and then cut that straight off with this near-wholesale change, effectively torpedoing that equity.

 

So i guess one question to ask is: how much is brand equity really worth in present day (to the head brass of these teams) versus the potential to generate more $ via cyclical uniform updates? 

 

that is the question of all questions, and one i dont think i have the knowledge or experience to answer properly. but i like the long game. building a brand and identity that lasts, because a lot of times the memories and associations tied to those things trumps a quick-turn $ maker. i'd say there is even a point when a terrible piece of art (logo) becomes untouchable because of the equity in it. the Lakers are a great example of this and i believe this discussion could continue into Juventus, but that only raises more questions for me. Nike/Oregon really works for Oregon, their whole thing is about throwing out tradition and doing something new. the downside is, other teams cant get past the surface of that and want some of it for themselves. they want the "what" without understanding the "why". and when it doesnt fit? when its a miss? i think people feel it and it turns them off

[IceCap]

This new Titans uniform would have looked dated ten years ago. 

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, Gr3g3 said:

 

The numbers get skinnier every time I see them.

 

Also that flame is mighty close to the sword stripe.

 

I actually still love the numbers, but see why people hate them.  I still hate the helmet.  

[Carolingian Steamroller]

59 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

that is the question of all questions, and one i dont think i have the knowledge or experience to answer properly. but i like the long game. building a brand and identity that lasts, because a lot of times the memories and associations tied to those things trumps a quick-turn $ maker. i'd say there is even a point when a terrible piece of art (logo) becomes untouchable because of the equity in it. the Lakers are a great example of this and i believe this discussion could continue into Juventus, but that only raises more questions for me. Nike/Oregon really works for Oregon, their whole thing is about throwing out tradition and doing something new. the downside is, other teams cant get past the surface of that and want some of it for themselves. they want the "what" without understanding the "why". and when it doesnt fit? when its a miss? i think people feel it and it turns them off

 

I think the question of where equity comes from can be boiled down Cultural Imprint.

A particular design or motif has to make a significant impression on popular culture, especially within the target market, in a positive way to extend beyond the immediate novelty. 

 

Usually this boils down to winning championships. The imprint of a team wearing a specific design during periods of success tends to last. Hence the royal/orange Islanders, Broad Street style Flyers, Yankee pinstripes, and the Jordan era Bulls. 

 

However, it can extend to anything particularly memorable. The LA Kings wear black and silver because, despite wearing purple for most of their existence, the greatest connection between the Kings and the wider pop culture occurred when Gretzky joined the team and sported the silver and black. The Bills have had far more success in their red helmet, Jim Kelly uniforms but they now wear ripoffs of the OJ Simpson era because there is a better cultural connection between the earlier era than those with 4 Super Bowl loses (side note: figure out for yourself what it means that any fan base would rather make an OJ Simpson connection than 4 Super Bowl loses)

 

Indeed, Oregon's model works for Oregon because the cultural association of Oregon as the "team with all the wacky uniforms" solidified early at a time when few teams were doing that. 

 

So for a template to last it has to make that significant Cultural Impact when it appears. I don't think the Carolina Panthers uniforms have made that impression but the Seahawks maybe have because they were the first "Nike-fied" uniform of the era and it included a Super Bowl victory. 

 

[C-Squared]

When you step back far enough, most teams adequately preserve their core identities, even when their uniforms change. The Sabres slug is probably the best example of a team abandoning its core identity and turning its fan base against them in the process... as much as I hate the new Titans gear, I don't think they abandoned their brand, per se.

 

I know that a logo or uniform tweak constitutes the technical definition of a rebrand, but aside from irritating us sticklers, there is no real evidence (yet) that any NFL teams have sustained objective damage from Nike gear.

[BrandMooreArt]

^yea maybe not abandoned their brand, but i think they've added confusion to it. one of my favorite designers, Brandon Rike, says "branding/design is taking someone else's 'crazy' and handing it back to them in a more organized way". i dont feel theres anything organized about the Titans look right now.

[Esco]

https://instagram.com/p/BiB5UuklagL/