Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[ScubaSteve]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

This is a good take. The key to branding in LA is that you can't give the impression that you are trying to be socal cool or LA. That just comes organically...time and time again you can spot the transplants or relocated businesses that are trying to mimic the vibe without actually understanding what it is. You really have to take your time to understand the local culture before you can attempt to integrate yourself. Rams management thought they could just show up, be welcomed back with open arms, and gain instant credibility because they once played in socal when in reality most Angeleno's moved on 25 years ago. As I'm typing this what really amazes me is how as an expansion team how LAFC got it so right and how piss poor both the rams and chargers arrival has been.

 

Yeah, just look at the Raiders. Their LA-ness came from rappers like NWA wearing their merch and the identity itself doesn't scream sunshine and sand

[Digby]

It definitely has the "try hard to be new" vibe, but in multiple ways at once, which is part of the issue. Like I look at this and I'm seeing:

 

- hypebeast streetwear LA (the soccer-y parts, weird stitching, the off-white color, that Los Angeles Rams typeface) 

- utopian rich-person good vibes LA (monogram, gradients, forward motion)

- but ALSO retaining the classic helmet, the classic color scheme that's an NFL icon

- and then the ram-skull logo which I don't even know

 

Now, yeah, the brands of say the Dodgers and Lakers can carry all those constituencies ... but it's much harder to do when you're starting fresh, and frankly trying hard at it. (It does make that LAFC branding job that much more impressive.)

[El Scorcho]

28 minutes ago, jws008 said:

I know I've mostly made jokes in my posts since the Rams uniform unveiling, but I still can't help but think that these were the result of trying too hard to be "new".

 

Clearly, the team wanted something "new", which I still think is the major flaw in their thinking. I mean, I get it, you're moving into a new stadium, you want new and shiny and even revolutionary to match up with your new multi-billion dollar palace.

 

But, the reality is, you're not new and shiny. Even, for a moment, putting aside your previous history in the City of Angels, you've been back in LA for four seasons now, including a Super Bowl run in the postseason. I think it's clear that people wanted an evolution of what you were in the previous stint in LA, combined with your recent set (which, again, you've worn for four seasons in Los Angeles). It's why most people are happy with the royal blue and bright yellow colors -- that points back to your roots. It's why there's such a split on the new horns, though I think even those who like it would admit it isn't an improvement on the old horn (and I think the majority opinion is that old horns > new horns). 

 

Basically, I think an "evolution" from the classic Rams set is what was expected; instead, they came up with something that vaguely (in two colors) relates to what the LA Rams have always looked like.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Oh, and I'm now very curious about these two alts that are coming in the next two years -- I'm wondering, especially after the reactions to the 2020 set, if those will revert to more of a classic look (or an evolution of it) versus more "new" and "shiny".

 

On this board we talk about timelessness, because timeless design works for sports. They've clearly and definitively cast aside timelessness for stuff that is on trend right now. 

 

They wanted something very modern and very fresh. They wanted something they very clearly don't intend to keep around for 30 years. That might be sacrilege on these boards, but it's pretty common across modern sports design. 

 

Soccer clubs have been changing their kits annually for a few decades. The NBA has regularly rotating alternates. Teams want to be true to themselves but they also want to be new and fresh. This is clearly and definitively the Rams. They haven't thrown that much out, they've just done a very modern iteration of their most classic designs. It's still blue and yellow, and there is still horns on the helmet and shoulders.

 

Some teams trade so heavily on tradition that they can't or shouldn't change anything. Packers, Colts, Giants, Browns etc. Outside of that, I don't really have a problem with teams experimenting a bit inside their defined boundaries. It's much more interesting as a sports design nerd than seeing 32 teams with block numbers. These unis will change in 5 years, it's almost certain. They're designed that way. I'm not sure that is as bad a think as is made out on this forum. 

[Digby]

3 minutes ago, El Scorcho said:

 

Some teams trade so heavily on tradition that they can't or shouldn't change anything. Packers, Colts, Giants, Browns etc. Outside of that, I don't really have a problem with teams experimenting a bit inside their defined boundaries. It's much more interesting as a sports design nerd than seeing 32 teams with block numbers. These unis will change in 5 years, it's almost certain. They're designed that way. I'm not sure that is as bad a think as is made out on this forum. 

 

I think most people would agree, actually, that teams should switch it up now and then. That's why there's legitimate debate around the best look for, say, the Milwaukee Bucks (who introduced one of the more successful trendy-but-good updates in recent years).

 

I'd say across town the Lakers are probably the best example... If you look at their core jerseys through the years they HAVE changed with the times here and there, more than the teams like the Bulls or Celtics that change almost nothing, but they've also kept the essence of what makes them classic and legendary while doing it. That's a very difficult thing to do, admittedly!

[guest23]

9 minutes ago, El Scorcho said:

 

On this board we talk about timelessness, because timeless design works for sports. They've clearly and definitively cast aside timelessness for stuff that is on trend right now. 

 

They wanted something very modern and very fresh. They wanted something they very clearly don't intend to keep around for 30 years. That might be sacrilege on these boards, but it's pretty common across modern sports design. 

 

Soccer clubs have been changing their kits annually for a few decades. The NBA has regularly rotating alternates. Teams want to be true to themselves but they also want to be new and fresh. This is clearly and definitively the Rams. They haven't thrown that much out, they've just done a very modern iteration of their most classic designs. It's still blue and yellow, and there is still horns on the helmet and shoulders.

 

Some teams trade so heavily on tradition that they can't or shouldn't change anything. Packers, Colts, Giants, Browns etc. Outside of that, I don't really have a problem with teams experimenting a bit inside their defined boundaries. It's much more interesting as a sports design nerd than seeing 32 teams with block numbers. These unis will change in 5 years, it's almost certain. They're designed that way. I'm not sure that is as bad a think as is made out on this forum. 

 

I think the problem is that many of the added elements are actually not new or modern. For example:

• gradient numbers in football 1st seen about a decade ago (e.g. arizona state)
• swirls inside numbers came into fashion about 4ish years ago (e.g. iowa state)
• bright metallic/anodized helmet finish give or take 10 years ago (e.g. oregon apple green)
• wearing non-white as a road color started about a decade ago (e.g. seattle grays)

 

Aside from the helmet finish there's really nothing in this uniform or logo set that will have staying power. The only question is within 5 years after merch sales flatline will they pull the "we heard the fans loud and clear and they want the old rams" or do they F it up again?

[hawk36]

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

I wonder if part of the problem is that they bet pretty big on the new horn shape and it just doesn't really do it. 

 

Exactly. The new horn failed and thus the rest fails. At the very least they should've added another break making the horn into thirds. It's like they started with the twisting motif but then didn't finish it. 

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

9 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Exactly. The new horn failed and thus the rest fails. At the very least they should've added another break making the horn into thirds. It's like they started with the twisting motif but then didn't finish it. 

 

 

It didn't even need to fail. As much as I don't like it, the idea isn't as bad as the two tone Jags. It's just not as good as what came before it. 

 

The problem is that the entire identity is banking on this being seen as terrific. 

[BrandMooreArt]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's interesting. That would imply that the helmet redesign happened first, and everything else followed?  I'd like to know why you think that.

 

im not sure i follow? i think every visual element, no matter how disjointed, is a reflection of what they were trying to accomplish. i dont think they would have done the horn first for no reason, like that has to come from some idea of a "modern vision of LA".

[Ridleylash]

56 minutes ago, Digby said:

Now, yeah, the brands of say the Dodgers and Lakers can carry all those constituencies ... but it's much harder to do when you're starting fresh, and frankly trying hard at it. (It does make that LAFC branding job that much more impressive.)

It makes it obvious that LAFC had one identity concept and worked towards that, whereas the Rams seem to have just thrown things in when they decided it'd be neat to have.

[VikWings]

20 hours ago, CrookedThumb said:

I’m just gonna say it.  2013-2017 Jaguars were better.

 

The white patchwork on the bone jersey is egregious.

 

They absolutely were from the neck down. I know the Rams screwed up the helmet horn but at least it's not two different colors.

[The_Admiral]

I'm really ambivalent on LAFC in a way I'm not used to being ambivalent. It's not bad at all, doesn't blow me away, can't think of what I would have done instead. It's pretty good, better than Chivas USA or the Galaxy.

[oldschoolvikings]

3 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

im not sure i follow? i think every visual element, no matter how disjointed, is a reflection of what they were trying to accomplish. i dont think they would have done the horn first for no reason, like that has to come from some idea of a "modern vision of LA".

 

No, I mean, in your experience, are the helmet and/or logos designed before the whole process of designing the uniform begins? (I believe you've said in the past that Nike has little to no input on helmets and logos, if I'm remembering that correctly.) Like, in this instance, would Nike be given the job of designing a uniform based on that helmet, which would obviously dictate their choices? Or would it all be happening simultaneously?

[VikWings]

Can't wait til 2025 when the Rams go back to the throwback look only with the current helmet shade, a custom font (similar to the new Browns) and a pair of blue pants for monochrome/mix and match purposes.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

1 hour ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

Yeah, just look at the Raiders. Their LA-ness came from rappers like NWA wearing their merch and the identity itself doesn't scream sunshine and sand

That's one part of LA, and one that sports teams overlook.  The Raiders were made up of thugs and badasses, so it was a good fit.  Now we have the Lakers for Hollywood, the Rams and Chargers for the beach, and nothing for the hood. 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

18 hours ago, QCS said:

if (Rams.location.equals("Los Angeles")) {
  Rams.owner.spend(owner.netWorth, "LA Stadium");
}
if (Rams.Uniforms.Age > 5) {
  begin.redesign();
}

redesign() {
  if (Rams.fanbase.hasFavoriteJersey == True) {
    pass; // Do whatever we're doing already
  }
  if (Rams.workingWith.Nike) {
    Nike.add(chaos);
  }
  if (Rams.Uniforms.Home) {
    Rams.Uniforms.add(Nike.gradient);
    Rams.Uniforms.add(Nike.SegmentedHorn);
    Rams.Uniforms.Pants.add(Nike.gradient);
    //Rams.Uniforms.add(tvNumbers);
  }
  else if (Rams.Uniforms.Away) {
    Rams.Uniforms.add(Nike.stupidColor);
    Rams.Uniforms.add(Nike.stupidStripe);
    Rams.Uniforms.remove("Blue");
    Rams.Uniforms.add(tvNumbers);
  }
  else if (Rams.Uniforms.All) {
    Rams.Uniforms.Combos.toUse("All");
  }
}

I can only imagine this is how Demoff's mind went throughout the process.

Hello fellow sports loving programmer!

[sky1324]

3 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Hello fellow sports loving programmer!

How's it going? I haven't touched an IDE in months so I had to think for like 10 minutes to get some solid code in there, lol.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

1 minute ago, QCS said:

How's it going? I haven't touched an IDE in months so I had to think for like 10 minutes to get some solid code in there, lol.

I mainly do websites and multimedia programming, but I got laid off.  I was looking into learning Python and React Native to learn some new things.

[CreamSoda]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

Exactly. The new horn failed and thus the rest fails. At the very least they should've added another break making the horn into thirds. It's like they started with the twisting motif but then didn't finish it. 

 

 

[sky1324]

19 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I mainly do websites and multimedia programming, but I got laid off.  I was looking into learning Python and React Native to learn some new things.

Dang, I have some experience in Python but I prefer Java and other C languages. The code in the joke is mostly fake Java, lol.

[Around the Horn]

21 hours ago, j'villejags said:

Cooper's white/black cleats are clashing hard with these uniforms. The players almost need to wear royal or gold shoes for the look to work. Especially if they are wearing bone socks. 

 

Maybe Nike will get them some team-issued bone cleats? 

 

The Sixers ran into the same problem with their parchment colored city jerseys. They first wore them with white accessories but it just didn't work and they've worn blue accessories ever since.