College Football 2012 Season

[guest23]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

[Brave-Bird 08]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

THIS is the best response and statement made about the giant Oregon debate. Now, can we please end it or move it to another thread?

[evanmaldonado]

Ithe oregon aregument is inevitable. It'll die. then we'll move on to having the same argument with a new school. Then back to Oregon. It happens

[thespleenenator]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

[Brave-Bird 08]

[evanmaldonado]

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

When Oregon wore their green uniforms last year where they looked puke green I had no idea that was Oregon (and that's their actual school color too). When they wore the all white I didn't know either.

Now you've heard a story of someone mixing up Oregon, and I'm a pretty big follower of college football.

[thespleenenator]

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

When Oregon wore their green uniforms last year where they looked puke green I had no idea that was Oregon (and that's their actual school color too). When they wore the all white I didn't know either.

Now you've heard a story of someone mixing up Oregon, and I'm a pretty big follower of college football.

How long did it take you to identitfy them?

[vicfurth]

I think I'll chime in on the branding aspect, given that my degree is in marketing and my projects won awards and prizes for branding...

Color is so tied to branding that it creates a physiological change in people. The red/yellow scheme for McDonald's, for instance, actually induces the subconscious into making a consumer feel hungry. I cannot, off-hand, think of a company that changes colors so often as Oregon. Therefore, oregon's "brand" couldn't possibly creates feelings because there's no mental attachment there.

I believe the mixup here is one thinking that cult-following and publicity is a strong brand. What Oregon has is not brand strength; it is brand anarchy. They can be known for and publicized for this anarchy, but their tendency to be consistently inconsistent only hurts them in the long run.

[oldschoolvikings]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

Well, apparently, says everyone but you. A few pages back you stated, as though it's a well known fact, that color is no longer important in branding. When I asked you what studies you had read that back up this assertion, you didn't respond. Not surprisingly, since none exist.

I teach Foundations of Studio Design at an art school. Color is a HUGE part of the curriculum, and it always will be. In fact, when I was first hired at this school, I taught a course in just Color Theory that EVERY incoming freshman was required to take. If a student at my school was to state in class that "color is no longer important in branding" he/she would be laughed out of the room.

And you know who really understands how important color is to a marketing plan? Nike does. Because its Nike's corporate colors that are being inserted into the color schemes of college sports teams. Now, why do you think they're doing that, hmm?

[guest23]

I think I'll chime in on the branding aspect, given that my degree is in marketing and my projects won awards and prizes for branding...

Color is so tied to branding that it creates a physiological change in people. The red/yellow scheme for McDonald's, for instance, actually induces the subconscious into making a consumer feel hungry. I cannot, off-hand, think of a company that changes colors so often as Oregon. Therefore, oregon's "brand" couldn't possibly creates feelings because there's no mental attachment there.

I believe the mixup here is one thinking that cult-following and publicity is a strong brand. What Oregon has is not brand strength; it is brand anarchy. They can be known for and publicized for this anarchy, but their tendency to be consistently inconsistent only hurts them in the long run.

thanks for the new marketing term that I'm coining: BRANDarchy

I'll share the credit with you...could be a cool name for a ad/design firm

[thespleenenator]

I think I'll chime in on the branding aspect, given that my degree is in marketing and my projects won awards and prizes for branding...

Color is so tied to branding that it creates a physiological change in people. The red/yellow scheme for McDonald's, for instance, actually induces the subconscious into making a consumer feel hungry. I cannot, off-hand, think of a company that changes colors so often as Oregon. Therefore, oregon's "brand" couldn't possibly creates feelings because there's no mental attachment there.

I believe the mixup here is one thinking that cult-following and publicity is a strong brand. What Oregon has is not brand strength; it is brand anarchy. They can be known for and publicized for this anarchy, but their tendency to be consistently inconsistent only hurts them in the long run.

I think we'll just have to wait and see if it does. So far, it's been serving them well.

[thespleenenator]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

Well, apparently, says everyone but you. A few pages back you stated, as though it's a well known fact, that color is no longer important in branding. When I asked you what studies you had read that back up this assertion, you didn't respond. Not surprisingly, since none exist.

I teach Foundations of Studio Design at an art school. Color is a HUGE part of the curriculum, and it always will be. In fact, when I was first hired at this school, I taught a course in just Color Theory that EVERY incoming freshman was required to take. If a student at my school was to state in class that "color is no longer important in branding" he/she would be laughed out of the room.

And you know who really understands how important color is to a marketing plan? Nike does. Because its Nike's corporate colors that are being inserted into the color schemes of college sports teams. Now, why do you think they're doing that, hmm?

If you look back at my posts, I conceded that in every single other medium, color is very important. However, I think that college football is becoming the exception, as more and more, teams are straying away from their schools colors, and fans are becoming more accustomed to having to look at the uniform elements, rather than just the color alone.

Now, I'm going to dispel the fact that I think Oregon is perfect at branding.

I hate our carbon helmet (although that's mostly just because I think it's ugly), and I especially hated the 2010 civil war uniform. The wings and O were not visable at all, and in that way, it was a terrible jobe at branding. In general, I very much dislike the silver wings on the white jerseys.

That brings me to another thing. I really don't like the new pattern on the jerseys. Sure, they work pretty well with the green jerseys, but I can't imagine them standing out on the other jerseys. I'm hoping that if we switch, they will find a way to make up for this.

Now, I think Oregon can get away with this because of the numbers and the O on the helmet, but still, it would be nice if they could keep the wings.

[vicfurth]

I think I'll chime in on the branding aspect, given that my degree is in marketing and my projects won awards and prizes for branding...

Color is so tied to branding that it creates a physiological change in people. The red/yellow scheme for McDonald's, for instance, actually induces the subconscious into making a consumer feel hungry. I cannot, off-hand, think of a company that changes colors so often as Oregon. Therefore, oregon's "brand" couldn't possibly creates feelings because there's no mental attachment there.

I believe the mixup here is one thinking that cult-following and publicity is a strong brand. What Oregon has is not brand strength; it is brand anarchy. They can be known for and publicized for this anarchy, but their tendency to be consistently inconsistent only hurts them in the long run.

thanks for the new marketing term that I'm coining: BRANDarchy

I'll share the credit with you...could be a cool name for a ad/design firm

Lol true. I like the research part more though.

[Brave-Bird 08]

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

When Oregon wore their green uniforms last year where they looked puke green I had no idea that was Oregon (and that's their actual school color too). When they wore the all white I didn't know either.

Now you've heard a story of someone mixing up Oregon, and I'm a pretty big follower of college football.

How long did it take you to identitfy them?

Probably as long as it took to find the score bug on the screen, or read the description on the screen graphic coming from the provider. Which is why this whole identify thing is so freggin stupid to talk about.

[thespleenenator]

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

When Oregon wore their green uniforms last year where they looked puke green I had no idea that was Oregon (and that's their actual school color too). When they wore the all white I didn't know either.

Now you've heard a story of someone mixing up Oregon, and I'm a pretty big follower of college football.

How long did it take you to identitfy them?

Probably as long as it took to find the score bug on the screen, or read the description on the screen graphic coming from the provider. Which is why this whole identify thing is so freggin stupid to talk about.

I completely agree, I was just genuinely curious.

[BigDmo]

Hold on, Nike's corporate colors are not volt/anthracite. Yes those are colors they have made up, but Nike's corporate colors are orange and white, you know, the color of almost every Nike shoe box.

Carry on.

[shaydre1019]

Holy crap, this discussion is downright unbearable. By this point everyone on this board already knows the arguments on both sides of the "Oregon branding strength" issue. Can we just accept at some point that some people think it's good and some think it's bad? It's not like there is some killer argument out there that is going to make one side agree with the other.

Unfortunately this topic is not one where one both sides deserve equal merit. Supporters of the current ducks look often argue that their football team has a strong brand image. By all traditional measures and measurable criteria, the ducks simply do not measure up due to lack of visual consistency compared to traditional leading brands.

What the ducks have created is a strong reputation and a tremendous amount of buzz due to ever changing cutting edge designs and a myriad of colors that generates a tremendous amount of publicity. The major difference is that they have to constantly reinvent themselves visually which is the opposite of a strong brand. A strong brand relies upon simple iconography and a consistent color scheme.

Says who? I say a strong brand is a brand that is recognizable and unique. I have never heard a story of someone not being able to tell when Oregon is playing. I have heard stories about people not being able to tell when Alabama is playing, because they don't watch college football, and if you don't watch college football, there is no way to tell that Alabama is in those uniforms.

Well, apparently, says everyone but you. A few pages back you stated, as though it's a well known fact, that color is no longer important in branding. When I asked you what studies you had read that back up this assertion, you didn't respond. Not surprisingly, since none exist.

I teach Foundations of Studio Design at an art school. Color is a HUGE part of the curriculum, and it always will be. In fact, when I was first hired at this school, I taught a course in just Color Theory that EVERY incoming freshman was required to take. If a student at my school was to state in class that "color is no longer important in branding" he/she would be laughed out of the room.

And you know who really understands how important color is to a marketing plan? Nike does. Because its Nike's corporate colors that are being inserted into the color schemes of college sports teams. Now, why do you think they're doing that, hmm?

Nike's corporate colors are black and orange. Go into any nike store/website etc. and the color scheme will be black and orange. They use other colors (volt, etc.) for some of their products but their corporate colors are black and orange.

[oldschoolvikings]

Hold on, Nike's corporate colors are not volt/anthracite. Yes those are colors they have made up, but Nike's corporate colors are orange and white, you know, the color of almost every Nike shoe box.

Carry on.

OK, fair enough. But if highlighter yellow and charcoal gray (I feel silly using the Nikespeak) aren't exactly "Corporate colors", they are instantly identifiable as "belonging" to Nike.

[shaydre1019]

Hold on, Nike's corporate colors are not volt/anthracite. Yes those are colors they have made up, but Nike's corporate colors are orange and white, you know, the color of almost every Nike shoe box.

Carry on.

OK, fair enough. But if highlighter yellow and charcoal gray (I feel silly using the Nikespeak) aren't exactly "Corporate colors", they are instantly identifiable as "belonging" to Nike.

Bigdmo beat me to it

I agree and i really liked the idea until adidas shat all over it in the NCAA tournament, but "they weren't inspired by Nike, they were inspired by the fasion world like 5 yrs ago" apparently. But like a lot of things in the sports fashion world, Nike made it cool (imo) and other companies were "heavily inspired" to say the least.

[oldschoolvikings]

If you look back at my posts, I conceded that in every single other medium, color is very important. However, I think that college football is becoming the exception.

And I still don't know what makes you think that. If anything, I'd say the color is significantly more important in sports branding/marketing than it is in any other arena. Think about it... no one puts on green and yellow before going to fill their tank at the local BP. No one paints their face red before eating a Red Lobster. No one insists on wearing red, white, and blue while drinking a Pepsi. (Actually, I can't prove any of that, but I'm hoping...) However, the largest majority of college football fans will most likely attend a game in their team's colors. When I was a freshman at Ohio State, my roommate threw away his scarf on the way to our first OSU / Michigan game when he realized it was blue. At many schools, simply shouting the school colors is considered an official school battle cry. These things are not changing