Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[C-Squared]

9 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

I believe your posting over the last few days is sufficient expansion.

 

I think a degree/career in marketing is more relevant to a discussion about marketing than an onlooker parroting one-liners, but to each his own.

[rams80]

1 minute ago, C-Squared said:

 

I believe a degree/career in marketing is more relevant to a discussion about marketing than someone parroting one-liners, but to each his own.

 

You live in a giant echo chamber.  Which means you don't learn anything and the experience that you do get tends to confirm your own biases..

 

Let me tell you about this organization that you allege has a master plan to maximize merchandise profits.

 

One the things that came out when it was announced the Rams were going to be on Hard Knocks was that a few years back the decision to draft and then cut Michael Sam (the two moves combining to literally piss everyone the off at the Rams) was made in order to get out of being on Hard Knocks.

 

These are the jokers that you think have a master plan to maximize merchandise profits and marketability.

[C-Squared]

31 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

You live in a giant echo chamber.  Which means you don't learn anything and the experience that you do get tends to confirm your own biases..

 

Let me tell you about this organization that you allege has a master plan to maximize merchandise profits.

 

One the things that came out when it was announced the Rams were going to be on Hard Knocks was that a few years back the decision to draft and then cut Michael Sam (the two moves combining to literally piss everyone the off at the Rams) was made in order to get out of being on Hard Knocks.

 

These are the jokers that you think have a master plan to maximize merchandise profits and marketability.

 

A lecture on bias from a jaded fan who clumsily correlates personnel decisions with a merchandising strategy guided largely by unaffiliated third parties. I hope the irony is not lost on you. Like the designers on this site who integrate real-world experience to share educated & objective opinions about sports logos, I am integrating a relevant part of my life to share a different perspective on why the issue is more complicated than “I am a fan & teams should do what I like.”

 

Again, this whole discussion might be moot because the NFL may have told the Rams that no uni changes would be permitted for a few seasons. Whether intentional or not, the Rams/NFL/Nike/M&N/whoever else have a tremendous opportunity to limit variables by gathering authentic, real-world data from a new market instead of blindly launching new uniforms towards a new market and hoping for the best.

 

My personal prediction - locally-influenced, but fresh & modern primaries with a throwback 3rd. The vintage look as a primary would be foolish, amateur, and short-sighted. Why dissolve a cross-section of the market when they can continue catering the existing throwback market while simultaneously branching out to a (likely) younger, more contemporary market that would prefer something new and fresh? The team can integrate a throwback look as an alternate (as they already have for years) and cash in with the best of both worlds.

 

Aside from the actual on-field uniforms (which, again, might be out of the Rams hands), the Rams and Nike have bent over backwards to flood the market with blue and yellow apparel for the fans that prefer it. Given the present circumstances, I don't see how the Rams & Nike have flubbed this at all - if anything, they have maxed out this unique situation to their benefit... or Michael Sam means teams don't think about this stuff.

[miketd1]

Would love to see them adopt Michigan's colors, which would perfectly straddle old/new regimes:

[rams80]

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

A lecture on bias from a jaded fan who clumsily correlates personnel decisions with a merchandising strategy guided largely by unaffiliated third parties. I hope the irony is not lost on you.

 

This is a professional sports team.  Personnel decisions can and will be driven by merchandising and marketing strategies.  And that was just one data point.  (If you want a more recent one, Jared Goff is waving "hi" and wants to know if you know what direction the sun rises in.)

 

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

Again, this whole discussion might be moot because the NFL may have told the Rams that no uni changes would be permitted for a few seasons. Whether intentional or not, the Rams/NFL/Nike/M&N/whoever else have a tremendous opportunity to gather authentic, real-world data from a new market instead of blindly launching new uniforms towards a new market and hoping for the best.

 

Its bad enough this team is now the league's global ambassador for the sport, now they have to be the guinea pig for somebody's Masters seminar in marketing 501.  Although, again, they wouldn't be blindly launching since I think they have a pretty good idea about what colors folks want....(hint, the market already voted.)

 

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

My guts says that the throwback apparel will sell so well that the Rams will purposefully design uniforms that do NOT match the throwback design.

 

Your gut may be right, but if they were to go that way, its because the organization is once again falling back into its habits of ignoring the fans and sheer incompetence.  (Hint, the "Super Bowl throwbacks" weren't even supposed to be the uniforms in 1999, but because the Rams forgot about the deadline, they were forced to ride with the "LA" uniforms in 1999.)  Probably works for the best, though, because now the current colors are associated with failure and on-field incompetence and can be abandoned with little thought..

 

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

Why dissolve a cross-section of the market when they can continue catering to an existing market that buys throwback apparel while branching out to a (likely) younger, more contemporary market that would prefer something new and fresh?

 

Because there  are only 16 games in a season and the NFL still has rules about the number of uniforms you can wear.  Also, I thought splitting up your "brand" was one of the cardinal "don'ts" of marketing.  Additionally, I think precision-guided marketing requires a level of skill and finesse that is pretty much beyond the Rams' front office.

 

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

Aside from the actual on-field uniforms (which, again, might be out of the Rams hands), the Rams and Nike have bent over backwards to flood the market with blue and yellow apparel for fans of that style - and its working.

 

In this case "fans of that style" appear to include most of Los Angeles, so why stop?

[Gothamite]

21 hours ago, DanPoplawski said:

 

Can anyone say "transition"? 

 

16 hours ago, DanPoplawski said:

Didn't think I would have to explain that I meant transition from gold to white but I was talking about uniform colors not cities, think we all know that the cities have changed, catch up. 

 

If you're trying to suggest that these shirts are somehow indicating that the Rams are minimizing gold in favor of white, then probably should find an example that isn't a click-and-fill template used by the entire league.

 

 

 

 

[C-Squared]

40 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

This is a professional sports team.  Personnel decisions can and will be driven by merchandising and marketing strategies.  And that was just one data point.  (If you want a more recent one, Jared Goff is waving "hi" and wants to know if you know what direction the sun rises in.)

 

 

All things equal, of course you choose the more marketable player. if you are inferring that the Rams chose a lesser player with the first overall pick for marketing purposes... I am sure your blue and yellow tinfoil hat is the talk of camp.

 

40 minutes ago, rams80 said:

Its bad enough this team is now the league's global ambassador for the sport, now they have to be the guinea pig for somebody's Masters seminar in marketing 501.  Although, again, they wouldn't be blindly launching since I think they have a pretty good idea about what colors folks want....(hint, the market already voted.)

 

Again #1, this may be the team making the most of a situation they cannot control. Again #2, the throwback market is already well-established. There is little logic in sinking all merch into one market when the team can retain that throwback market while simultaneously forging a contemporary primary identity.

 

40 minutes ago, rams80 said:

Your gut may be right, but if they were to go that way, its because the organization is once again falling back into its habits of ignoring the fans and sheer incompetence.  (Hint, the "Super Bowl throwbacks" weren't even supposed to be the uniforms in 1999, but because the Rams forgot about the deadline, they were forced to ride with the "LA" uniforms in 1999.)  Probably works for the best, though, because now the current colors are associated with failure and on-field incompetence and can be abandoned with little thought..

 

Citing the '99 front office for potential issues in 2016 is like blaming Scott Norwood when Dan Carpenter misses a kick. Coincidental, clumsy & misguided musings from a jaded fan who can't or won't view the whole picture.

 

We can agree 100% that the St. Louis colors need to go

 

40 minutes ago, rams80 said:

Because there  are only 16 games in a season and the NFL still has rules about the number of uniforms you can wear.  Also, I thought splitting up your "brand" was one of the cardinal "don'ts" of marketing.  Additionally, I think precision-guided marketing requires a level of skill and finesse that is pretty much beyond the Rams' front office.

 

Under those same uniform rules, the Rams were able to wear four different uniforms last season.

 

If integrating a throwback alternate alongside a contemporary primary constitutes “splitting a brand,” most sports teams on earth are currently in violation... or you have improperly applied the concept. Flip a coin.

 

40 minutes ago, rams80 said:

 

In this case "fans of that style" appear to include most of Los Angeles, so why stop?

 

 

I think we agree here. Who said to stop? I stated plainly that I would like to see the vintage look integrated as a throwback. However, I also think that a vintage-only look is a wasteful approach that leaves money on the table. If fans will buy the throwback gear no matter what, what sense does it make to abandon the chance to market as many as three additional uniforms and matching merch? Like you said, why stop?

[TJSC]

White at home confirmed. 

[rams80]

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

All things equal, of course you choose the more marketable player. if you are inferring that the Rams chose a lesser player with the first overall pick for marketing purposes... I am sure your blue and yellow tinfoil hat is the talk of camp.

 

Back during the draft build up they sure spent a  lot of time talking about how Goff played at California and less about how drafting him would leave the team trying to hammer in a square peg into a round hole based on his strengths compared to the Rams' offensive scheme.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

 

Again #1, this may be the team making the most of a situation they cannot control. Again #2, the throwback market is already well-established. There is little logic in sinking all merch into one market when the team can retain that throwback market while simultaneously forging a contemporary primary identity.

 

Except for the distinct possibility that the market may like  the throwbacks so much they will reject anything that isn't basically a tweak of that once the Rams can change.  If you want a case study, when the Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg there were indications that the ownership wanted to use the AHL Manitoba Moose identiry for the team, but the  overwhelming enthusiasm for the Jets moniker quickly forced them to scrap that plan in favor of the Winnipeg Jets identity they used.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

 

Citing the '99 front office for potential issues in 2016 is like blaming Scott Norwood when Dan Carpenter misses a kick. Coincidental, clumsy & misguided musings from a jaded fan who can't or won't view the whole picture.

 

The front office/marketing team hasn't had THAT much turnover.  And what turnover there was did not prompt a culture change.  And while he was a minority owner, Kroenke was in the ownership group back in 1999.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

We can agree 100% that the St. Louis colors need to go

 

Yeah, although I'm in the distinct minority that actually liked them.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

Under those same uniform rules, the Rams were able to wear four different uniforms last season.

 

And the brand is starting to suffer.  The biggest problem with the color rush unis were that they were a poor attempt to compromise between the Super Bowl unis and the current colors.  In addition to not looking great in general.  Probably will be the only Rams jersey of the St. Louis era I won't own.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

If integrating a throwback alternate alongside a contemporary primary constitutes “splitting a brand,” most sports teams on earth are currently in violation... or you have improperly applied the concept. Flip a coin.

 

The throwbacks were dumb, but a cheap attempt to cash in on memories of that brief period when the team was successful.  That said, I don't have sales stats in front of me, but I'd hazard the Rams ultimately cannibalized their own purchasing base rather than  grew  it with the throwbacks.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

 

I think we agree here. Who said to stop? I stated plainly that I would like to see the vintage look integrated as a throwback. However, I also think that a vintage-only look is a wasteful approach that leaves money on the table.

 

Based on what was happening with the LA fans less than a week into the move, I strongly doubt you'd be leaving money on the table.  Jerseys and NFL branded merchandise are ing expensive, and your consumer base does kind of need to eat and pay the  rent, so they'll pick one or the other, not both.  I think you'd more likely cannibalize your current market at best, and  at worst, eat a loss on building a massive identity shift that nobody wanted.

 

15 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

If fans will buy the throwback gear no matter what, what sense does it make to abandon the chance to market as many as three additional uniforms and matching merch? Like you said, why stop?

 

Because marketing and business types never learn and consultants and designers still get paid even if they fail.

[hawk36]

It's amazing how common it is for business people, marketers, and designers to be on completely separate pages in the real world. On the rare occasion that all are in sync amazing things are created. I've often thought addressing this in a college environment would be incredibly beneficial for all.  

[guest23]

To summarize:

1. One individual believes that selling a mix of current navy/tan merchandise and throwback royal/yellow merch is a profit maximizing strategy because there will be steady and strong demand for both types of merch.
2. Another group believes that immediately relaunching a full assortment of merchandise in the historical royal/yellow scheme will yield even greater sales than the existing strategy due to the significant (albeit anecdotal) evidence that the new local fan base prefers royal/yellow and has no interest in navy/tan. To adopt this strategy the team would also incur a cost of liquidating/destroying non stl branded navy/tan product. It's also assumed that the increase in sales of fully adopting royal/yellow would more than offset any costs of making the switch.

The bottom line is without having the numbers it's next to impossible to tell which scenario makes more financial sense as we are missing two key numbers: 1)The cost to make the full royal/yellow switch and get rid of old product and 2) The incremental sales bump that would be generated by having more royal/yellow product to sell.

 

From a marketing perspective even if this was a break even proposition the smart thing to do would have been to do a full event based relaunch of all merch in royal yellow. You could market the hell out of it and do corresponding media etc to help drive sales. Event based programs are what marketers love. Having a hodgepodge of product to sell creates a very confusing message and tends to turn consumers off.

[guest23]

4 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

It's amazing how common it is for business people, marketers, and designers to be on completely separate pages in the real world. On the rare occasion that all are in sync amazing things are created. I've often though addressing this in a college environment would be incredibly beneficial for all.  

 

This is true and funny. The issue becomes that every individual business function has its own set of incentives and perceived paths to success. Short answer: Agendas drive perspective and behavior.

[dont care]

The Rams aren't changing until 2019 with the stadium opening. Even if they wanted to change they couldn't because of the NFL rules making it so they couldn't change uniforms for atleast 2 years after a request, making the earliest they could change being 2018. They could get a waiver but it wouldn't make sense to go through that headache when they can do a full rebrand at a stadium unveiling. I don't know how much this has to be beaten to death.

[hawk36]

43 minutes ago, dont care said:

The Rams aren't changing until 2019 with the stadium opening. Even if they wanted to change they couldn't because of the NFL rules making it so they couldn't change uniforms for atleast 2 years after a request, making the earliest they could change being 2018. They could get a waiver but it wouldn't make sense to go through that headache when they can do a full rebrand at a stadium unveiling. I don't know how much this has to be beaten to death.

I understand that, and know the NFL has a horribly archaic rule system. That being said my point has long been, fine, wear the St. Louis uniforms BUT only produce and sell LA, royal/yellow merchandise. There is no need to continue to make navy/gold merchandise except for maybe a few replica jerseys. This isn't the St. Louis Rams, it's the LA Rams.

[kw11333]

Rams doing what the Oilers did when they were stuck with another city's uniform set, but also doing their throwbacks + colour rush.

 

Why did the NFL not just make an exception because of relocation? If the Texans moved, would they really force another team to take that branding too?

 

 

[dont care]

This was a move that occurred over a single off season, simply put even if they were allowed to change branding the logistics needed to make a GOOD brand could not have possibly happened. There are a lot of moving parts in a move, and even more in a branding change, trying to combine them and get them done in accouple of months would not have been possible. I'll use the raiders as an example, if they decided they wanted to move to Las Vegas which totally could happen and announced it tomorrow the NFL probably would allow them to change uniforms and branding with the move because there would be more than enough time to change things and make it a good change over. Rams didn't have that luxury.

[Ben in LA]

30 minutes ago, kw11333 said:

Rams doing what the Oilers did when they were stuck with another city's uniform set, but also doing their throwbacks + colour rush.

 

Why did the NFL not just make an exception because of relocation? If the Texans moved, would they really force another team to take that branding too?

 

 

You beat me to it!

 

Frankly I pleased with the decision.  It relieves some of the disappointment of not being able to wear the throwbacks full-time.  I have no complaints whatsoever.  Sure glad I decided to order a white jersey!

[kw11333]

13 minutes ago, dont care said:

This was a move that occurred over a single off season, simply put even if they were allowed to change branding the logistics needed to make a GOOD brand could not have possibly happened. There are a lot of moving parts in a move, and even more in a branding change, trying to combine them and get them done in accouple of months would not have been possible. I'll use the raiders as an example, if they decided they wanted to move to Las Vegas which totally could happen and announced it tomorrow the NFL probably would allow them to change uniforms and branding with the move because there would be more than enough time to change things and make it a good change over. Rams didn't have that luxury.

As of right now the Rams are selling the exact same jerseys as last year. If the jerseys had a STL identity all over it, then what?

 

It would have been a relatively easy change for the Rams, as one of the jerseys they want to use is already being used twice. To me, this is just the NFL trying to get rid of the boxes and boxes of Rams jersey, and trying to make as much money as possible.

 

The fact the Rams are currently using white and the old colours in their marketing makes it obvious they want nothing to do with this gold colour.

[4_tattoos]

*I say the following having no clue to what the Rams "uniform schedule" is for this season*

 

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet a paycheck that the Rams wear the royal & yellow throwbacks/alts the first regular season home game in week 2 against Seattle. As well as on Christmas Eve when they host the Niners week 16.

[Old School Fool]