Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[IceCap]

I seem to remember someone saying the Rams’ old gold and navy was an attempt to look like Notre Dame because Notre Dame is the undisputed symbol of football excellence in the Midwest or something to that effect. 

 

 

[FFWally]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

I seem to remember someone saying the Rams’ old gold and navy was an attempt to look like Notre Dame because Notre Dame is the undisputed symbol of football excellence in the Midwest or something to that effect. 

 

 

 

It was Georgia and her BSC new age crap behind the color change. I always had a hard time wilatching them w metallic gold horns and that at the time modern look. 

 

 

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

But the situation up for discussion involves precisely such a change of values and market perception, as the Rams look to re-establish themselves as a Los Angeles club, shedding the final vestiges of their St. Louis identity.  So a color change and/or logo tweak very much signify a “rebranding”. 

 

I guess I just don’t see much of a difference in how they present themselves. They don’t seem to be actively trying to position the brand differently (like, say, the Clippers or Nets did) or use anything iconic about LA to signify that they’re anything other than what they always were. Maybe it’ll change when they have a shiny new building to fill with PSL and luxury box revenue, but until then it seems like it’s just the same old Rams in the same old Coliseum, just with a new skin.

 

I’d even argue the St. Louis days don’t represent a re-brand. The “Greatest Show on Turf” represented a shift in how they were perceived, but even that was very organically cultivated as opposed to a conscious decision to change the identity of the team.

[Gothamite]

I think any change of colors is a deliberate attempt to change the conversation, as it were.  It is a conscious attempt to create a different sense in the minds of the public.

 

It’s the same reason that bad clubs so often change uniforms, or teams do when they move into a new stadium - “those bad old days are gone, this is a brand new ________ team.”

 

In this case, we know for a fact that they are dropping the navy and metallic color scheme in an attempt to create a visual separation from the St. Louis days and create one with the LA days which preceded them.  Hence all the talk about the Fearsome Foursome and blue-and-white. That’s branding as much as a new logo would be. 

[andrewharrington]

8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I think any change of colors is a deliberate attempt to change the conversation, as it were.  It is a conscious attempt to create a different sense in the minds of the public.

 

In this case, we know for a fact that they are dropping the navy and metallic color scheme in an attempt to create a visual separation from the St. Louis days and create one with the LA days which preceded them.  Hence all the talk about the Fearsome Foursome and blue-and-white. That’s branding as much as a new logo would be. 

 

I agree with that. I guess my question is how much of the brand needs to change in order for it to considered a proper re-brand? I don’t know the answer, if there is one, and really, I’m not sure it even matters. “Brand” itself is kind of a buzzword that somehow grew to represent all the non-tangible parts of a corporate identity. It’s kind of s meaningless catchall term at this point

[TJSC]

On 12/27/2017 at 11:11 AM, TJSC said:

If the Rams had their current unis in royal blue and gold it would be a perfectly fine update...

EXAMPLE:

Source: http://gsehersportsunidesigns.blogspot.com/2013/01/nfl-uniforms.html?m=1

 

[Gothamite]

35 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I agree with that. I guess my question is how much of the brand needs to change in order for it to considered a proper re-brand? I don’t know the answer, if there is one, and really, I’m not sure it even matters. “Brand” itself is kind of a buzzword that somehow grew to represent all the non-tangible parts of a corporate identity. It’s kind of s meaningless catchall term at this point

 

I agree with that, but so long as we use it at all, what the Rams are doing clearly qualifies.

 

I think the definition is very broad.  Any new segment of the core identity which supplants an old one qualifies.

 

New color scheme?  Rebrand. New primary logo?  Rebrand.  

 

Add a new alternate logo?  Not a rebrand.  Swap primary and secondary logos, as the Red Sox did a couple years ago? Not a rebrand.  

 

I tend to lump uniforms in, so adding a new alternate jersey wouldn’t in and of itself qualify but changing the homes and roads together certainly would.  

 

And here is where I think the term might actually have some value, when it indicates a desire on the team’s part to distance itself from the recent past. 

[LMU]

I really do hope that the current Ram head survives the rebrand.  It's a great rendering, it hasn't aged, and, selfishly, I don't want my jacket to be outdated.

[The_Admiral]

16 minutes ago, TJSC said:

EXAMPLE:

Source: http://gsehersportsunidesigns.blogspot.com/2013/01/nfl-uniforms.html?m=1

 

 

Moving in the right direction here, especially with the whites -- I don't need another team with a white jersey and yellow pants. But the white trim on the yellow numbers is unnecessary, the St. Louis holdover wordmark can go in the trash and be replaced with the Futura Display wordmark, and a blue-white-blue stripe on the pants would be nice for continuity and having a little white to match the NOB. The throwback can go, too.

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, LMU said:

I really do hope that the current Ram head survives the rebrand.  It's a great rendering, it hasn't aged, and, selfishly, I don't want my jacket to be outdated.

 

Well, I certainly hope that they end up in their classic color scheme.  Whether you think that makes the jacket “outdated” is up to you.

 

I do like that logo, though.   Doesn’t work very well in two-colors, but looks great in royal and athletic gold. 

[The_Admiral]

I have no strong feelings toward it. The Rams and the Bengals are in the same boat, where their respective helmet designs are so ~*iconic*~ that the logos themselves take a back seat. Of course, we all know the Bengals' tiger head is better than the letter B in whatever applications it gets, but if the Rams primary faded into the night, I wouldn't think too much about it.

[FFWally]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I have no strong feelings toward it. The Rams and the Bengals are in the same boat, where their respective helmet designs are so ~*iconic*~ that the logos themselves take a back seat. Of course, we all know the Bengals' tiger head is better than the letter B in whatever applications it gets, but if the Rams primary faded into the night, I wouldn't think too much about it.

 

Interestingly, in the NFL a rebrand to the casual fan isn't a wordmark, or Logo, (unless its on the helmet) its the uniform. Period. 

 

The Rams look is iconic, much as the Steelers, Cowboys, Packers, and Raiders. Changing the Primary is not a rebrand to the average fan. Changing the Uniform is the rebrand. 

[lbj273]

20 hours ago, Ashes of Astroworld said:

 

I've seen the light. A good idea for a Madden mockup. CR / CR / Current white pants / current socks. 

For those without Madden, this is what that looks like.

 

[Pauly]

That's a nice look.Of course a "road" uni could be the white tops with the CR pants if you can show that also that would be great.

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, TJSC said:

EXAMPLE:

Source: http://gsehersportsunidesigns.blogspot.com/2013/01/nfl-uniforms.html?m=1

 

That's actually not a direct recolor of the current so much as it's a modernization of the classics.. The currents would have blue sleeves with yellow shoulder loops, which I think I might prefer.. I like that the Rams have traditionally used their secondary color (yellow/gold) abundantly, but I think it can still take a backseat to royal on the uniforms.. The 2000 update and some of the tweaks before this season have been great, and it'd be a good way to blend eras and move forward without directly recycling an old uniform set..

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, FFWally said:

 

Interestingly, in the NFL a rebrand to the casual fan isn't a wordmark, or Logo, (unless its on the helmet) its the uniform. Period. 

Almost any time I see a blanket statement of fact, my first thought is 'do you have a source for that'? I'm not aware of a survey of what casual fans think.

[guest23]

Sorry none of that is branding.

[FFWally]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Almost any time I see a blanket statement of fact, my first thought is 'do you have a source for that'? I'm not aware of a survey of what casual fans think.

 

Fair enough... it is a blanket statement that does not have documented evidence. I've just posted a poll on a LA Rams fan site... so we shall see if my hypothesis is remotely correct even with a small sampling of fans.

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, guest23 said:

Sorry none of that is branding.

 

In your opinion.  

 

And thats cool. I wouldn’t presume to tell you your opinion is wrong. 

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, lbj273 said:

For those without Madden, this is what that looks like.

 

 

Still don’t like the navy, but the overall sense is right. 

 

Notice they can’t even get the shoulder horns to work in a video game.