Columbus Crew Will "Refresh Brand" In Time For 2015 MLS Season

[fuzzy510]

As long as they keep the name and the colors its fine. One of only 3 inaugural MLS teams (DC United, NE Revolution) to still have their original colors/name.

Actually, it's only New England and Columbus. D.C. had a different logo for their 1st year and were officially called, "Washington D.C. United," but then switched it up to the one they have now, and dropped the "Washington" moniker.

The logo has certainly changed, but I'm pretty certain the team has never gone by "Washington D.C. United," mainly because that is a truly awful name.

[dbadefense1990]

As long as they keep the name and the colors its fine. One of only 3 inaugural MLS teams (DC United, NE Revolution) to still have their original colors/name.

Actually, it's only New England and Columbus. D.C. had a different logo for their 1st year and were officially called, "Washington D.C. United," but then switched it up to the one they have now, and dropped the "Washington" moniker.

The logo has certainly changed, but I'm pretty certain the team has never gone by "Washington D.C. United," mainly because that is a truly awful name.

This coming from the same league which gave us these as official names from the onset:

My point is that when MLS began, they had such "Americanizing" names, it was laughable. The "New York/New Jersey" Metrostars? The "Wiz?" Even though announcers referred the team as "D.C. United," the league officially recognized the "Washington" part of the name to begin. Then it was quickly dropped from the official name because it sounded so stupid, and it was a part of a reform effort of changing names to more traditional styles. While "Washington" was dropped, so was "NY/NJ," the "Wiz" nickname for a more appropriate name (though the Wizards revamped themselves to "Sporting Kansas City" a few years ago), and the "Dallas Burn" (to F.C. Dallas),

[Sport]

Knowing nothing about soccer as a 9 year old I thought that the team was called the United in the same vein as the Crew or the Revolution or the Magic or the Heat or the Avalanche. I thought it was just another singular nickname that was all the rage in the 90's.

Is this the first time we've seen a marketing department thoroughly reject "blue-collar team" branding?

I barely follow the Crew so I'm not sure if they still use this or not, but their slogan used to be "America's hardest working team". So at one point they were trying the "blue-collar team" branding.

The problem with that and Columbus is that I don't think the sport of soccer really identifies with "blue-collar team" branding and I don't think the city's soccer fans or Columbus (not anymore at least) fit that mold either. The city's far more white collar folk than it is blue collar and Crew fans tend to be either yuppies or twenty something/thirty something artsy fringe types. So while being counter-cultures, neither are "Lunchbox Joe" blue-collar.

[mmajeski06]

I don't hate the current logo by any means, but I never liked how it does not contain the city name in it.

They could go Columbus Crew FC as the full name, that way you could either refer to them as Columbus FC, Crew FC, or Columbus Crew FC.

[Brian in Boston]

The logo has certainly changed, but I'm pretty certain the team has never gone by "Washington D.C. United," mainly because that is a truly awful name.

At least initially, the league's plan was to use "Washington D.C. United" and "D.C. United" interchangeably. In fact, two logos for the franchise were both registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the same day, October 13, 1995. One was the original iteration of the badge that is still in use today (albeit, after a couple of tweaks along the way). The other featured the ubiquitous United eagle head atop the word WASHINGTON, which was - in turn - positioned atop D.C. UNITED. Those were filed just three days after MLS had sought trademark protection for the D.C. United name with the USPTO. Both logos were initially used, as was the Washington D.C. United name, with the more cumbersome moniker gradually being phased-out.

MLS suits had originally planned to dub DC's franchise the Washington Revolution, going so far as to register that moniker for trademark protection in April of 1995.

[The_Admiral]

Revolution ended up working better for New England, I'd say. "DC United" is the only Euro-style name I don't really mind because it works within the context of the federal government.

The problem with that and Columbus is that I don't think the sport of soccer really identifies with "blue-collar team" branding and I don't think the city's soccer fans or Columbus (not anymore at least) fit that mold either. The city's far more white collar folk than it is blue collar and Crew fans tend to be either yuppies or twenty something/thirty something artsy fringe types. So while being counter-cultures, neither are "Lunchbox Joe" blue-collar.

Agreed. It's just interesting because it seems like teams in every sport engage in "we're a blue-collar, lunch-pail team" pandering: Phoenix Coyotes, Memphis Grizzlies, Pittsburgh Steelers, SWEET JESUS CHRIST THE GODDAMN CHICAGO BEARS. There's not much I find dumber than "they're a blue-collar team to reflect this city" hackery in a nation where nobody sees fit to manufacture anything. This bit of honesty from Bayern Columbus (I don't care, I'm gonna call them that, because lol) is refreshing.

[crashcarson15]

I wouldn't be shocked to see them do something with the "C-Ball" in one of the flags Crew supporters wave.

[Digby]

As long as they keep the name and the colors its fine. One of only 3 inaugural MLS teams (DC United, NE Revolution) to still have their original colors/name.

Actually, it's only New England and Columbus. D.C. had a different logo for their 1st year and were officially called, "Washington D.C. United," but then switched it up to the one they have now, and dropped the "Washington" moniker.

The logo has certainly changed, but I'm pretty certain the team has never gone by "Washington D.C. United," mainly because that is a truly awful name.

This coming from the same league which gave us these as official names from the onset:

My point is that when MLS began, they had such "Americanizing" names, it was laughable. The "New York/New Jersey" Metrostars? The "Wiz?" Even though announcers referred the team as "D.C. United," the league officially recognized the "Washington" part of the name to begin. Then it was quickly dropped from the official name because it sounded so stupid, and it was a part of a reform effort of changing names to more traditional styles. While "Washington" was dropped, so was "NY/NJ," the "Wiz" nickname for a more appropriate name (though the Wizards revamped themselves to "Sporting Kansas City" a few years ago), and the "Dallas Burn" (to F.C. Dallas),

Not sure your timeline is quite correct. Kansas City was only called the Wiz in 1996 before switching to Wizards. MetroStars going name only happened a year or two after that, I believe. And Dallas Burn didn't become FC Dallas until much later -- 2005.

[Red Wolf]

The most surprising thing about this thread are the amount of people who don't think the logo is that bad. I feel like there's no way anybody could actually think it was a half-decent logo, let alone a good one. So, just for clarification, this is the logo: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/ku5ltmts84hniong8nzwdiu20/Columbus_Crew/1996/Primary_Logo

[Berlin Wall]

The most surprising thing about this thread are the amount of people who don't think the logo is that bad. I feel like there's no way anybody could actually think it was a half-decent logo, let alone a good one. So, just for clarification, this is the logo: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/ku5ltmts84hniong8nzwdiu20/Columbus_Crew/1996/Primary_Logo

Actually I think the logo is decent!

It looks even better with a grey outline:

[MJWalker45]

I'm in agreement. I love the current logo so I'm afraid of what will happen with a rebrand.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I swear there was a show called "Hat Squad" on NBC that came out around the same time the Crew started and I always think of it when I see this logo. (Thanks for finally posting it.) I thought then that it was one of the worst logos I had ever seen and it hasn't grown on me... but to each his own.

It also could be a bad hip-hop act.*

EDIT: Found the Hat Squad pic rather easily, to my surprise:

Could be any three guys in hats, I guess. Just one of those things that stuck in my head.

*EDIT 2: Close enough. (It's late.)

[Est1980]

I think that all MLS teams that have FC in their name should change it to SC, because it is called soccer in the markets that they are located in (hence why the league is called MLS, not MLF).

SC Crew "Screw" Ha!

I know what you mean. Future teams should be "SC".

AC/AS/SC/FC/AFC ... it all sounds nice but sometimes it can be repetitive.

[Est1980]

If they go ahead with this "rebrand", they should incorporate stripes like the Crew concept in this thread:

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/94156-nike-takes-over-major-league-soccer/page-2

.... and even though it maybe out there...the Crew logo from this one:

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/91500-bigred618s-soccer-concepts-new-york-city-fc-added/

[Discrim]

Have you ever seen a concept that makes sports teams out of famous movies (like Ghost Busters FC or something)? The Crew's logo looks like someone wanted to make a team for some mafia movie. This in itself makes the logo look cheesy imo, and I hope they either ditch the whole mafia-man (or I guess it is supposed to be a firefighter?) theme or do a better way of portraying it.

Never heard the mafia bit...I always thought they were steel or construction workers.