Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[oldschoolvikings]

No, it won't be done.  Will. Not. The jersey isn't changing. 

[pianoknight]

IMO, either keep the Gold/Yellow as-is or ditch it completely.  Taking it off the uniform (kinda) and leaving it on the logo is a half measure. 

[The Old Gym]

Chiefs should outline their arrowhead in yellow. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 hours ago, Cosmic said:

They didn't invent straight lines until 1950? Is your story documented anywhere? The 1948 helmets are pretty smooth in their horns; I'd have a hard time believing that the detail in 1949 was unintentional.

 

5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Colour wasn't invented until the late 30s, so it checks out.

 

5 hours ago, Cosmic said:

They were so excited when they discovered sepia, the first color. It was everywhere. Made purple and teal in the 90s look like nothing.

 

 

OK, well, knowing that the original paint job was smooth...

 

 

...I thought that the lumpy version was some kind of degradation of that.  But now I understand that that variation was intentional. So thanks for the correction.

 

Nevertheless, the notch-filled horn looks pretty bad to me.

 

 

[TJSC]

9 hours ago, cubsfan2015 said:

This may be unpopular,but I think they should go back to their 1949 uniforms. It only lasted one year,but I love it. I love the detail on the horn.

Rams fans: We want royal blue and yellow or blue and white!

 

Rams management: Screw you. *reveals red and yellow unis*

 

It's a great look, but not for the Rams. Especially since Kansas City and San Francisco look identical in comparison.

 

 

[Old School Fool]

When are we going to stop this talk of "It looks too much like ______" nonsense? Nobody has a color copyrighted in sports, and nobody is going to downright plaigirize anybody detail-by-detail in a world where branding is largely important. This nonsense of the Rams looking like the Colts, Chiefs, whatever is ridiculous. Teams look different enough from each other in the NFL unlike the NBA and MLB where color-on-color is rampant.

 

 

It may be heavy on blue, but it's different enough.

[Gothamite]

I don't think that navy and white looking too much like the Colts is the problem.  

 

The problem is that navy and white don't look enough like the Los Angeles Rams. 

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

When are we going to stop this talk of "It looks too much like ______" nonsense? Nobody has a color copyrighted in sports, and nobody is going to downright plaigirize anybody detail-by-detail in a world where branding is largely important. This nonsense of the Rams looking like the Colts, Chiefs, whatever is ridiculous. Teams look different enough from each other in the NFL unlike the NBA and MLB where color-on-color is rampant.

 

 

It may be heavy on blue, but it's different enough.

 

thats a good looking uniform. and yes, it is different enough from the Colts to not be confused with them (especially when you put a blue jersey next to white which isnt the most fair comparison. the Colts no longer wear striped socks either)

 

but the uniform is only the tip of the identity spear. you csnt stop there, you have to ask how does it translate to apparel? what will people wear to the game? what will the Rams be known for? 

 

color is a very big deal in the big picture of brand identity. its something people latch on to and feel strongly about. "i bleed scarlet and gray" - and dont even think of calling it red; its Scarlet. 

 

it will be critical for the Rams to choose the right colors that represent and ignite that fanbase. they also have an extra problem with sharing a stadium with another team they will have to consider. as nice as the uniform looks, they just arn't the blue and white team

[leopard88]

15 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That's not "detail".  That's just a result of the techonogical limitations of the day.  The horns are meant to be just as smooth as the current horns.  But back then there were no decals to place on the helmets; and the helmets didn't have even surfaces. That snaggly horn is the result of having to paint by hand on an irregular surface.

 

After hitting the "quote" button, I read the rest of the thread and saw that you picked up on this.  However, I've invested too much time not to post.  

 

The original Fred Gehrke 1948 helmet used smooth horns.  The bumps/details were not a matter of technological limitations or hand painting.

 

[JWhiz96]

41 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

color is a very big deal in the big picture of brand identity. its something people latch on to and feel strongly about. "i bleed scarlet and gray" - and dont even think of calling it red; its Scarlet. 

 

it will be critical for the Rams to choose the right colors that represent and ignite that fanbase. they also have an extra problem with sharing a stadium with another team they will have to consider. as nice as the uniform looks, they just arn't the blue and white team

True statement. Yes, no team has de jure rights to them, colors become part of a team's identity. Think if (for the sake of the convo) the Suns used the purple/gold color scheme of the Lakers, or the Dodgers ditched the red accents and darkened the blue to look more like the Yankees. Both are moves that could, but should never happen. There are a multitude of reasons why, but one of the biggest being color scheme.

 

In short, the colors of a sports franchise are just as essential to a team's branding as a logo.

[CLEstones]

A couple questions:

 

1.  Has anyone mocked up the LA Rams uniform with the gold removed from the jersey, both in a template format and in a "live action" template?

 

2.  Can anyone discuss the implications, both positive and negative, to releasing the different aspects of the uniform, logo, helmet, color pallet, at different times as opposed to just releasing everything together?

 

It seems like they released the updated logo, then the updated helmet, now they released the uniform, and I'm sure next year or the year after, the jersey will lose the gold all together.  Seems terrible for a brand.

[oldschoolvikings]

17 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

It seems like they released the updated logo, then the updated helmet, now they released the uniform, and I'm sure next year or the year after, the jersey will lose the gold all together.  Seems terrible for a brand.

 

Yeah, that would be terrible if that's what they're doing, but I don't think it is.  They've been releasing these stop gap measures in increments, because none are meant to stay.  In 2019, they'll sweep all of it away, and release a whole new look from top to bottom.

[#ConceptLeagues]

26 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

1.  Has anyone mocked up the LA Rams uniform with the gold removed from the jersey, both in a template format and in a "live action" template?

 

 

[CLEstones]

5 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, that would be terrible if that's what they're doing, but I don't think it is.  They've been releasing these stop gap measures in increments, because none are meant to stay.  In 2019, they'll sweep all of it away, and release a whole new look from top to bottom.

 

But even then... isn't this worse for a brand?  They are going to have this piecemeal, awkward transition look for 3 years?  Why not just change it all together for these 3 years, or keep the current look, and debut everything fresh?

 

Is it a way to mitigate damage?  Like, man, if we screw up like the Jags, Buccs, and Browns, its going to be a disaster.  So, lets just release small changes to prepare the fan base for a potential screw up?

[Claystation360]

What if the 2019 uniform is both Navy, Yellow & White ? I mean they incorporate all the colors in the uniforms & logos, more than the regular white away jerseys. Think yellow horns outlined in white or vice versa. 

[oldschoolvikings]

37 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

But even then... isn't this worse for a brand?  They are going to have this piecemeal, awkward transition look for 3 years?  Why not just change it all together for these 3 years, or keep the current look, and debut everything fresh?

 

Is it a way to mitigate damage?  Like, man, if we screw up like the Jags, Buccs, and Browns, its going to be a disaster.  So, lets just release small changes to prepare the fan base for a potential screw up?

 

Well, I'm not saying I think what they're doing is a good idea, necessarily.  I just get it (I think). They want to have it both ways... make a few changes to distance themselves from the St. Louis version now, and still be able to have a big splashy intro with the new stadium.  And, assuming they get it right and give the fans what they want, when they do all this will be forgotten.

 

3 minutes ago, Claystation360 said:

What if the 2019 uniform is both Navy, Yellow & White ? I mean they incorporate all the colors in the uniforms & logos, more than the regular white away jerseys. Think yellow horns outlined in white or vice versa. 

 

Yeah, I'm starting to feel navy and athletic gold might be where this will end up, although I'm just completely guessing.

[hawk36]

12 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

No, it won't be done.  Will. Not. The jersey isn't changing. 

Then at least they should just remove the logo from the sleeves. That would be preferable. Weird to have a gold horn and a white horn side by side. 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

Then at least they should just remove the logo from the sleeves. That would be preferable. Weird to have a gold horn and a white horn side by side. 

Which would be changing the jersey, which I thought was already established as a non-starter.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your statement making a better uniform, but if they could change the jersey now, I have a feeling the 2019 change would be happening now.  Timing says it can't, so they're distancing themselves from the St. Louis uniform wherever possible and allowable.

[BrandMooreArt]

3 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

But even then... isn't this worse for a brand?  They are going to have this piecemeal, awkward transition look for 3 years?  Why not just change it all together for these 3 years, or keep the current look, and debut everything fresh?

 

Is it a way to mitigate damage?  Like, man, if we screw up like the Jags, Buccs, and Browns, its going to be a disaster.  So, lets just release small changes to prepare the fan base for a potential screw up?

 

a slow roll out over the course of a few years can be a fine idea. but with each change, there should always be continuity. where they have landed is the worst case scrnerio- stuck between multiple time periods and wearing a uniform that doesn't make sense even by aesthetics alone.

 

so whats the costs of this to the brand? how much does this matter and how much effect will 2 years of this have?

 

impossible to say for certain. but they definitley don't have an identity right now. the team is pushing the 1960s look, while dragging the 2000s look, while the fanbase is living in the 80s/90s. for 3 years they will have created nothing but confusion and while we can't yet say what that does for them in 2019, 3 years of visual chaos will be written into their history. ill have more to say about that later

[Chromatic]

I wouldn't mind something like this being used as a base for the rams look

 

(not my concept)

 

Go yellow heavy. Its a good way to differentiate yourself, and it fits a California team well.