Alternate uniforms and branding.

[oddball]

I've heard the term branding for so long and really never understood it until the other night. I happened to be watching NBA highlights of Utah vs. Cleveland and they were showing a Utah player falling and I thought at first that Cleveland was playing the Celtics. It took me a second to realize it was Utah and they were at home. It was right then that the whole idea of branding hit me, and I wondered if all these alternate uniforms and looks for teams ruins branding and I'm mostly talking about the NBA, but I also look at hockey too. I'm really wondering if all these alternate uniforms don't just backfire on teams as the casual observer can't recognize instantly the teams that are playing. Teams like the Dodgers, the Yankees, the Packers, the Colts, the Red Wings, and the Canadians, are easy to spot because they've been the same for years. I understand the want to bring in new revenue, I'm just wondering if they are bringing in new revenue from the same ol' same ol' and sacrificing the potential new fan or casual fan who may not be able to recognize the team each week or night because of all the alternate uniforms. It's just something that crossed my mind.

[BBTV]

Short response, because I'm about to walk out the door:

If done right, it can enhance your brand. If done even competently, it doesn't have a big effect either way. If done wrong, it can absolutely damage the brand.

I don't know enough about the Utah situation, but I'd use Cleveland as a perfect example of a team that has diluted and damaged their brand by putting their number one marketing chip in a different jersey every game, and using a different logo all of the time. They're the only NBA team I can really think that has taken it too far to the point where it's damaging.

I'd say that there are a couple of NFL teams too that do this, but I want to think about it more before I start calling teams out.

In MLB it has a lot of potential to go wrong too, since caps are so much of a teams identity - kind of like de facto logos. Teams that have caps with all kinds of different logos for different days are really making it hard to establish a consistent identity. I'd say that the early Diamondbacks were an example of this, and I'm sure that there's others that I just can't think of right now.

NBA has it right when they say no alternates for the first couple of years of a new identity.

[BallWonk]

What BBTV said. To expand a bit, it's important to recognize that branding is not just about visual identity. It's about establishing a clear identity with which others can form affinity. Possibly the best example of branding in history is Coca-Cola. What does Coca-Cola look like? Well, it's brown fizzy water that looks exactly like every other brown soda. What about packaging? Again, Coca-Cola has a wide variety of packaging, from clear bottles where you mainly see the brown liquid that looks exactly like the competition to aluminum cans. But Coke constantly alters labels on the cans and the bottles. The only real constants are the "Coca-Cola" wordmark and a preponderance of red. Yet that constantly shifting visual identity with extremely inconsistent and muddled details is strong enough to support the wider brand identity of the product, which isn't about any particular look (or even really taste) but about a sense of affinity between consumer and product.

Which is just a long-winded intro-to-marketing-case-study way of saying that it's important not to assume that uniforms or logos are the sum total, or even the most important element in, a team's branding. From a brand perspective, it's not all that important if the casual viewer momentarily confuses Utah with Boston. What's important is whether any particular fan in some way identifies with Utah or Boston -- that is, that he cares which of the two team he's seeing. A clear visual identity can play a role in branding, and it can certainly either help or hurt. But the NBA is a perfect example of the limits either way: Very few teams have anything like a clear, lasting visual identity. The NBA is constantly fiddling with uniforms, radically changing which colors teams use in different settings, and yet fans form deep and lasting attachments with teams and players despite the madhouse treatment of team uniforms and the absolute crap that passes for NBA uni and logo design. A muddled visual identity can hurt a team's branding efforts, but not by as much as uni buffs like us might expect.

That said, BBTV is absolutely right that visual identity is a part of a team's branding, and that alternate uniforms can either extend or reinforce the brand, have little effect on the brand, or undermine the brand. Alt unis can probably be divided into 20 percent that extend the brand, 30 percent that don't have much effect, and 50 percent that undermine the brand. It's hard to do it well, and easy to do it poorly, such that a team without a truly outstanding marketing and design team probably just shouldn't attempt it. There are other ways to build brand equity and merchandising sales that are easier to do well.

I would offer a couple of anecdotal examples. In the 1980s and through the 1990s, I used to see Mets caps almost as often as I'd see Yankees caps. Not anymore. The fact that the Mets started screwing with their visual identity such that the team has ceased to have any visual brand at all is only a part of the reason why Mets caps are no more common these days than Cardinals or Reds caps. There was the Yankees return to not-sucking at the end of the 1990s. There was 9/11, when thanks in large part to Rudy Giuliani, the Yankees "NY" cap became a sort of national fashion symbol, even though the Mets were more likely to be the preferred team of actual firefighters, cops, transit workers, and so forth in New York. But the fact that the Mets so muddled their visual identity that they no longer have a visual identity also played a part in the collapse of the Mets as brand with a national following.

A similar phenomenon, but on a much smaller scale, can be seen with the Twins, as a decade of proliferating, unmatching alts has left the team with no clear visual identity to differentiate them even from nearby division rivals. I visit Minnesota a couple of times a year, and it's been my experience lately that I see far fewer Twins caps, jackets, sweatshirts, and so forth being worn, and proportionally more Wild and Vikings merch. Part of that surely has to do with the relative quality of the teams in question. But the Vikings have maintained a very consistent visual identity for decades, even while significantly altering their uniforms recently. And the Wild have made tweaks year after year that have focused the brand on a visual identity that connects with Minnesotans' sense of state identity much more than the team's original look. So the Vikings are a team that has done no harm with their uniform changes; the Wild are the rare team whose alts and tweaks have extended the brand and built value; the Twins are the common team that makes changes for change's sake and thereby harms the brand.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think Utah is falling into the Cleveland category, if only because every other year seems to bring a new hot color. Not counting the "switch" from purple mountains to black and copper, but since ditching those two for double-blue -- a mistake because they were so late to the party -- they seem to have continually confused their identity.

First it was the intro of the light blue alt with blue lettering, which I actually thought did a lot to fix what they messed up in the redesign -- without looking too much like the Nuggets. It brought back the old Jazz typeface that was still used on the primary logo and they even wore them in the playoffs, handing out light blue shirts in every seat at least once. But now it seems like they've abandoned that to push the green jerseys with the older, yellow logo. So in a fairly short span, they've gone from purple to black to navy to powder to green as the color to push. (Or maybe I've just seen the green a lot lately.) Still -- what to wear as a fan? Who knows what direction they'll go next.

Strangely, new travel ads I've seen for Utah use a similar typeface and colors to that of their navy road unis.

(As a side note, I saw so much powder blue in the San Diego stands yesterday that I can't believe the Chargers haven't made those the primary homes. I bring it up because I think the Chargers did the best job of bringing their current and past looks together without hurting the brand. I wish more teams who have a throwback they like would do the same.)

[The_Admiral]

I think the Chargers did a terrible job, and if that's the best, I'd hate to know the worst. They tried to throw a bone to the throwback contingent, but did so poorly, by putting thin light blue trim inside crappy old Agency numerals and bringing back white helmets which don't look very good with navy. What made the unfairly maligned modern jerseys work so well was how the yellow popped against the navy, which the old numerals did well: big heavy athletic block trimmed in navy, itself trimmed in yellow, on navy. Bang! The yellow doesn't have the same impact against navy now that it's contending with more white and now powder blue, not to mention the thinner weaker numbers.

[Quillz]

I really do think the Chargers should go back to the blue helmets of yesteryear. White helmets are just so generic, I think, and the Chargers lightning bolt logo just looks better against blue than white.

[knnhrvy16]

It's interesting reading about your opinions on this subject, and as a Jazz fan especially, i'll throw my two cents into the jar here.

I would love the Jazz to have a consistent identity, but I can't help but love those green jerseys. Sure, from a distance, they look like a Celtics-Sonics lovechild. True. But as a fan, I don't know what it is, but I really like them. And all my friends and family (they of course are Jazz fans as well) think the same way. Every time the subject is brought up at school or the dinner table or whatever, i have never heard one person I've talked to say they didn't like them. Now, branding of course is always aiming for fan approval, and judging from the aforementioned experiences and the fact that green Jazz memorabilia sells like hotcakes everywhere here in the state, the green experiment has been a sucess here in Utah.

Which leads me to conclude that it all depends on the team, and how you execute your branding experiments. I think there are different ways branding experiments can be successful, the two most likely being 1) a one-time deal or alternate that features something completely different but acceptable for a one-time deal or alternate (Mavs, for example), or 2) bringing back a throwback that the majority of fans admire and approve of (Jazz, Magic, etc.). It will most likely fail if 1) an intended one-time deal or alternate that wasn't as appealing gets instead streched out and used too much (Celtics) or 2) you cram in multiple throwbacks or new designs repetitively, therefore eliminating your identity (Cavs).

So again, in my opinion, it's not so much the process of branding, it's just who it's for and how you execute it.

[jws008]

I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself here, but I'll try to make my point as best as I can in a few short statements:

1. I like a well-designed alternate uniform.

2. I believe every team should have ONE alternate set (well-designed, of course). Yes, I'd include teams like the Yankees here (granted, I hate the Yankees, but that's outside of this topic). I'm stressing the ONE alternate here, so that teams like the Cavs and the Mets would be forced to choose what their one alternate uniform is going to be.

HOWEVER, all alternate uniforms are currently worn way too often.

By definition, alternate sets should be worn on a limited basis, and should never upstage the regular identity of a franchise.

If you made me "Lord Czar of All Sports", I would add #1 and #2 as rules for all sports.

BUT, I would ALSO only permit alternates to be worn in the following manner:

MLB - Once per week during the season, and on "baseball" holidays (i.e.: opening day, home opener, Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day). No alts in the postseason. Ever.

NFL - Once per season, cannot wear against same team in consecutive years. I used to love it when the Chargers did this with the power blues before their last redesign. I hated that they always seemed to break them out against the Raiders. Alts not allowed in postseason.

NBA - Once every ten games. I thought about once per week, but then figured that some teams would still wear alts about as often as they did regular sets. Again, no alts in postseason (I think this would force the Lakers to decide between white or yellow/gold as their home uniform set. So be it.).

NHL - Once every two weeks. Not allowed in postseason.

NCAA football - Repeat the NFL rule. Must wear regular sets in all conference championship or bowl games. Oregon, please pick two regular uniforms and one alternate.

NCAA basketball - Alts twice a season during regular season. No alts in postseason conference tournaments, NIT, NCAA (or any other non-regular season play).

For all leagues - You have one alternate allowed. If you want it to be a throwback, faux-back, or a "regular" alternate, that is up to each franchise. Whatever is chosen must be used as the only alternate set that year. For example, the AFL uniforms worn this year would have been the only alternates allowed for those franchises in 2009.

Lastly, one more general rule for every league: all games must have one team in dark colors, one in light. No color on color match-ups allowed. If a home team chooses to wear a dark color, the road team must be in light. If home team wears light color, road team must be in a dark color.

Note: For MLB franchises, gray, powder blue, and that ugly color the Padres wear are acceptable for "normal" road uniforms (other pale non-white colors might be acceptable as long as they are not dark). Just remember that if an MLB franchise picks a color other than gray as their road color, that is your full-time road set's color.

If the leagues had rules something like the above, it would go a long way towards preventing alternate sets from mucking up their identities.

As an example, if the Mets were only allowed to wear black uniforms once a week, I might actually like them as a change of pace from the regular home pinstriped whites and the gray roads (both of which could only be worn with blue-trimmed items).

Just my two cents worth on the topic, sorry for the long post (I was trying to be brief, oh well!).

[andrewharrington]

Short response, because I'm about to walk out the door:

If done right, it can enhance your brand. If done even competently, it doesn't have a big effect either way. If done wrong, it can absolutely damage the brand.

I don't know enough about the Utah situation, but I'd use Cleveland as a perfect example of a team that has diluted and damaged their brand by putting their number one marketing chip in a different jersey every game, and using a different logo all of the time. They're the only NBA team I can really think that has taken it too far to the point where it's damaging.

I'd say that there are a couple of NFL teams too that do this, but I want to think about it more before I start calling teams out.

In MLB it has a lot of potential to go wrong too, since caps are so much of a teams identity - kind of like de facto logos. Teams that have caps with all kinds of different logos for different days are really making it hard to establish a consistent identity. I'd say that the early Diamondbacks were an example of this, and I'm sure that there's others that I just can't think of right now.

NBA has it right when they say no alternates for the first couple of years of a new identity.

To play devil's advocate: On the other hand, none of Cleveland's uniforms can easily be mistaken for another team's, so in a way, their amalgam of unique one-offs, alternates and otherwise 'brand-diluting' distractions is their brand. Utah in green is very unexpected, for one, and the green jersey will always be associated more with another team (Boston).

[BBTV]

Short response, because I'm about to walk out the door:

If done right, it can enhance your brand. If done even competently, it doesn't have a big effect either way. If done wrong, it can absolutely damage the brand.

I don't know enough about the Utah situation, but I'd use Cleveland as a perfect example of a team that has diluted and damaged their brand by putting their number one marketing chip in a different jersey every game, and using a different logo all of the time. They're the only NBA team I can really think that has taken it too far to the point where it's damaging.

I'd say that there are a couple of NFL teams too that do this, but I want to think about it more before I start calling teams out.

In MLB it has a lot of potential to go wrong too, since caps are so much of a teams identity - kind of like de facto logos. Teams that have caps with all kinds of different logos for different days are really making it hard to establish a consistent identity. I'd say that the early Diamondbacks were an example of this, and I'm sure that there's others that I just can't think of right now.

NBA has it right when they say no alternates for the first couple of years of a new identity.

To play devil's advocate: On the other hand, none of Cleveland's uniforms can easily be mistaken for another team's, so in a way, their amalgam of unique one-offs, alternates and otherwise 'brand-diluting' distractions is their brand. Utah in green is very unexpected, for one, and the green jersey will always be associated more with another team (Boston).

Funny - the previous post (suggesting more centralized regulation over alternates) had me thinking that maybe it should be left up to the teams, and if a team wants to be known as the team that'll just wear anything, then maybe they should be allowed to build their identity around that.

I get that any of us would be able to identify a team by a retro jersey, or would have the inside track on any brand new jersey, but I think that unless you're known for wearing different types of uniforms that at least follow some kind of theme (other than just having the same team name on the front), it'll be very hard to make this really work.

For an extreme example, say a team has alternate uniforms in every single neon / "hot" color out there. Even though they're wearing a different uniform nearly every night, you at least know that when you see a neon green or hot pink uni, it's that team.

I think that while their designs are all basically the same, and it's only the colors that change, the Oregon Ducks have absolutely perfected making variance their brand. I'm not sure that the Cavs have (not that they're trying to, but I don't think that they could even if they wanted to with their current alts.) I do get what you're saying though.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think the Chargers did a terrible job, and if that's the best, I'd hate to know the worst.

It's just my opinion, and I agree that the details might not be perfect. But, they had a fanbase that wanted powder blue and an owner that wanted navy. They did what they had to do to merge the two and give a unified look that is still clearly the Chargers. And a white helmet was pretty much the only way to do it.

I'll throw out the Cavs (with throwbacks in colors of different eras), the Cowboys and Brewers who are having the same struggles, whether with color, logos or both. Just off the top of my head.

Also, the Mavericks when they had a green faux throwback alt, but in the same respect, "fixed" it by making it consistent with its current color scheme. I guess I prefer that teams pick one or the other or do their best to make both work together.

But as far as the Jazz, they can "own" green and gold now in the NBA if they like (it says Sonics to me more than Celtics), but they need to pick something that works and stick with it. (Again, in my opinion.)

[supermati]

I would kill to know how many times the Cavs wore their primary wine jersey at the road and their primary whites at home; to then compare it to how many times they didn't.

The saddest part: me wanting to know this statistic proves that their identity is being really harmed by this short-term jersey selling business they are trying to pull off.

[jws008]

I would kill to know how many times the Cavs wore their primary wine jersey at the road and their primary whites at home; to then compare it to how many times they didn't.

The saddest part: me wanting to know this statistic proves that their identity is being really harmed by this short-term jersey selling business they are trying to pull off.

Proof that I belong as a member of this board (or so my wife tells me):

For the first five seasons of their "plus black" era, I kept a log of what the Mets wore for every game. The least worn set? Home pinstripes, blue trim, blue cap (their designated home uniform during those five seasons).

Hence why I came up with the long list of rules in my previous post.

I don't have the statistical proof, but I would not be surprised if the same wasn't true concerning the Cavs' primary jerseys.

Again, this goes back to why I feel the wearing of alternates should be limited/regulated by the leagues involved.

[powersurge]

Short response, because I'm about to walk out the door:

If done right, it can enhance your brand. If done even competently, it doesn't have a big effect either way. If done wrong, it can absolutely damage the brand.

I don't know enough about the Utah situation, but I'd use Cleveland as a perfect example of a team that has diluted and damaged their brand by putting their number one marketing chip in a different jersey every game, and using a different logo all of the time. They're the only NBA team I can really think that has taken it too far to the point where it's damaging.

I'd say that there are a couple of NFL teams too that do this, but I want to think about it more before I start calling teams out.

In MLB it has a lot of potential to go wrong too, since caps are so much of a teams identity - kind of like de facto logos. Teams that have caps with all kinds of different logos for different days are really making it hard to establish a consistent identity. I'd say that the early Diamondbacks were an example of this, and I'm sure that there's others that I just can't think of right now.

NBA has it right when they say no alternates for the first couple of years of a new identity.

To play devil's advocate: On the other hand, none of Cleveland's uniforms can easily be mistaken for another team's, so in a way, their amalgam of unique one-offs, alternates and otherwise 'brand-diluting' distractions is their brand. Utah in green is very unexpected, for one, and the green jersey will always be associated more with another team (Boston).

I would go even farther with playing D's advocate: What is the Cleveland Cavalier's Brand? Is it the identity of the team as it pertains to the name and look? or is it LeBron? In my opinion, the main reason that they have been able to get away with so many alternates is because of LeBron. You don't see the Milwaukee Bucks rolling out 13 alternate jerseys. I would argue that the most important facet to Cleveland's identity is LeBron. Period.

Doesn't matter what he's wearing so long as he's on the court people instantly know its Cleveland. Its kind of funny because if you think back to what Jordan did for marketing you realize that you hardly ever saw him in an alternate jersey, yet his jersey was the top selling jersey for years on end. Someone certainly missed a golden opportunity there. Seems like they are making up for it by over promoting LeBron and his 13 variations of alt jerseys (not sure how many they have but it seems like its 13)

I've said it before and I'll say it again...If the Cavs lose LeBron they might as well move to China. No one is ever going to give a rats ass about them. The only reason why they are even in the news as it pertains to the NBA is him. This is the perfect case of one man being the identity of an entire franchise.

[BBTV]

Right - when LeBron leaves, not only will nobody care about the Cavs, even when they're on TV or a jersey or logo appears somewhere, nobody will notice or instantly recognize it as the Cavs' (nobody meaning the common folk - obviously not us.)

They had the perfect chance to build their brand with LeBron. They're on TV a lot, and he appears all over the place in a jersey and / or logo. Had they just stayed consistent and had him in the same jersey or logo everytime they were on Sports Center, or their games were broadcast, or he did an interview, then the colors / logo would have been shown so many times that it may have sunk in to people and the Cavs' wouldn't fall into complete irrelevance in the post LeBron era. Instead, they chose to capitalize on the limited time that they had him by looking short term and selling as many different shirts as they could. Two opposing strategies. You could argue in favor of either one, but I think that looking long term would have been the way to go.

By having him in the same jersey all of the time (like Jordan for most of his Bulls career), he gets recognized as being on that team as well as for himself. By having him in different shirts all of the time, it becomes strictly about him, and the jersey he's wearing becomes kind of irrelevant.

[Quillz]

Right - when LeBron leaves, not only will nobody care about the Cavs, even when they're on TV or a jersey or logo appears somewhere, nobody will notice or instantly recognize it as the Cavs' (nobody meaning the common folk - obviously not us.)

They had the perfect chance to build their brand with LeBron. They're on TV a lot, and he appears all over the place in a jersey and / or logo. Had they just stayed consistent and had him in the same jersey or logo everytime they were on Sports Center, or their games were broadcast, or he did an interview, then the colors / logo would have been shown so many times that it may have sunk in to people and the Cavs' wouldn't fall into complete irrelevance in the post LeBron era. Instead, they chose to capitalize on the limited time that they had him by looking short term and selling as many different shirts as they could. Two opposing strategies. You could argue in favor of either one, but I think that looking long term would have been the way to go.

By having him in the same jersey all of the time (like Jordan for most of his Bulls career), he gets recognized as being on that team as well as for himself. By having him in different shirts all of the time, it becomes strictly about him, and the jersey he's wearing becomes kind of irrelevant.

I think this post nails it.

Maybe I'm biased, but I have to bring up the Lakers. Look at how many great players the Lakers have had in the past... Kareem, Magic, Kobe, etc. And guess what all of them have in common? The purple and gold. You didn't see Magic wearing purple and gold, red, blue, green, orange or a million other alternates, like what you see with LeBron and the Cavs. You saw purple and gold in the 80s, you knew you were seeing the Showtime era.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Right - when LeBron leaves, not only will nobody care about the Cavs, even when they're on TV or a jersey or logo appears somewhere, nobody will notice or instantly recognize it as the Cavs' (nobody meaning the common folk - obviously not us.)

They had the perfect chance to build their brand with LeBron. They're on TV a lot, and he appears all over the place in a jersey and / or logo. Had they just stayed consistent and had him in the same jersey or logo everytime they were on Sports Center, or their games were broadcast, or he did an interview, then the colors / logo would have been shown so many times that it may have sunk in to people and the Cavs' wouldn't fall into complete irrelevance in the post LeBron era. Instead, they chose to capitalize on the limited time that they had him by looking short term and selling as many different shirts as they could. Two opposing strategies. You could argue in favor of either one, but I think that looking long term would have been the way to go.

By having him in the same jersey all of the time (like Jordan for most of his Bulls career), he gets recognized as being on that team as well as for himself. By having him in different shirts all of the time, it becomes strictly about him, and the jersey he's wearing becomes kind of irrelevant.

I think this post nails it.

Maybe I'm biased, but I have to bring up the Lakers. Look at how many great players the Lakers have had in the past... Kareem, Magic, Kobe, etc. And guess what all of them have in common? The purple and gold. You didn't see Magic wearing purple and gold, red, blue, green, orange or a million other alternates, like what you see with LeBron and the Cavs. You saw purple and gold in the 80s, you knew you were seeing the Showtime era.

And I remember thinking how perfect the timing was with those new Cavs jerseys and colors -- for just that reason. New identity, new star player, new era. I guess they decided they wanted to do that every year.

I hadn't thought about LeBron as the brand before, but it wouldn't be my choice to go that route. Maybe they figured they'd do a complete overhaul once he's gone and stick with it (whether that is next year or next decade).

[powersurge]

Right - when LeBron leaves, not only will nobody care about the Cavs, even when they're on TV or a jersey or logo appears somewhere, nobody will notice or instantly recognize it as the Cavs' (nobody meaning the common folk - obviously not us.)

They had the perfect chance to build their brand with LeBron. They're on TV a lot, and he appears all over the place in a jersey and / or logo. Had they just stayed consistent and had him in the same jersey or logo everytime they were on Sports Center, or their games were broadcast, or he did an interview, then the colors / logo would have been shown so many times that it may have sunk in to people and the Cavs' wouldn't fall into complete irrelevance in the post LeBron era. Instead, they chose to capitalize on the limited time that they had him by looking short term and selling as many different shirts as they could. Two opposing strategies. You could argue in favor of either one, but I think that looking long term would have been the way to go.

By having him in the same jersey all of the time (like Jordan for most of his Bulls career), he gets recognized as being on that team as well as for himself. By having him in different shirts all of the time, it becomes strictly about him, and the jersey he's wearing becomes kind of irrelevant.

Easily one of the biggest marketing mistakes in pro sports. I've been bitching about it for years.

BTW, love this comment: (nobody meaning the common folk - obviously not us.) I can't tell you how many times I've been watching games with friends and I get looked at weird for making repeated comments about mismatched unis or :censored:ty alt jerseys during a broadcast.

[andrewharrington]

Either way, if the Cavs keep LeBron and add another marquee player, or if they lose him and have to begin anew, next year is as good a time as any to usher in a new era and simplify the brand.