Why NFL needs 24 months to change something like a logo

[BrandMooreArt]

What's odd is that teams go through so much just to put out a new look, and yet sometimes it's horrible. So the question is, how does a horrible design make it through? Aren't there people that try to put a stop to it? How do you have surveys that say 90% of people like a new look, then you release it and everyone freaks out because they hate it? Even though it's a process, clearly there are flaws.

Design by Committee is usually the main culprit and typically the final approvers, typically owners or other high level execs have zero understanding of good design or they are simply convinced their vision is what will ultimately look good despite a designer's suggestion otherwise. As it's often said and frequently exemplified money and success often do not translate to class or good taste.

The market research/focus group thing is basically a flawed process and product by design. While in theory interviewing a target demographic on product preferences or to critique designs makes sense, the amount of bias and false positive data provided in those exercises essentially negates the value. Short answer is that participants are too often afraid/intimidated by the whole process so they are afraid to be critical. Also they are typically paid for participating and many do this frequently to get cash on the side, they are often scared that if they say they don't like stuff they won't get called back. The other big gap are some of the hypothetical questions that don't translate to real life behavior. "Would you buy XYZ if it was available for purchase". In theory many people will say yes but when it comes time to actually open one's wallet the purchase decision completely changes and often results in an "I'll pass".

yes to all of that. but good is subjective and there is a target audience they are designing for. if you're older than 20, you're probably not a part of it. they'll try to please the life long fans if they can but Nike understands the game as well as anyone. their target audience will love the Bucs, Seahawks and Jags uniforms. most of us make decisions about the brands we love by our early teens and that sticks with us for life. Nike knows when they get hooked young, they are hooked for life. the positive vibes that come with a fresh new football uniforms are associated with the brand and the products they offer. like i say, everything Nike does (and UA, and adidas) is motivated to move product, primarily shoes. Nike fans tell me, how many pairs of Nike shoes have you bought in your lifetime? and did your favorite athlete as a kid wear them?

[wonderbread]

What's odd is that teams go through so much just to put out a new look, and yet sometimes it's horrible. So the question is, how does a horrible design make it through? Aren't there people that try to put a stop to it? How do you have surveys that say 90% of people like a new look, then you release it and everyone freaks out because they hate it? Even though it's a process, clearly there are flaws.

Design by Committee is usually the main culprit and typically the final approvers, typically owners or other high level execs have zero understanding of good design or they are simply convinced their vision is what will ultimately look good despite a designer's suggestion otherwise. As it's often said and frequently exemplified money and success often do not translate to class or good taste.

The market research/focus group thing is basically a flawed process and product by design. While in theory interviewing a target demographic on product preferences or to critique designs makes sense, the amount of bias and false positive data provided in those exercises essentially negates the value. Short answer is that participants are too often afraid/intimidated by the whole process so they are afraid to be critical. Also they are typically paid for participating and many do this frequently to get cash on the side, they are often scared that if they say they don't like stuff they won't get called back. The other big gap are some of the hypothetical questions that don't translate to real life behavior. "Would you buy XYZ if it was available for purchase". In theory many people will say yes but when it comes time to actually open one's wallet the purchase decision completely changes and often results in an "I'll pass".

yes to all of that. but good is subjective and there is a target audience they are designing for. if you're older than 20, you're probably not a part of it. they'll try to please the life long fans if they can but Nike understands the game as well as anyone. their target audience will love the Bucs, Seahawks and Jags uniforms. most of us make decisions about the brands we love by our early teens and that sticks with us for life. Nike knows when they get hooked young, they are hooked for life. the positive vibes that come with a fresh new football uniforms are associated with the brand and the products they offer. like i say, everything Nike does (and UA, and adidas) is motivated to move product, primarily shoes. Nike fans tell me, how many pairs of Nike shoes have you bought in your lifetime? and did your favorite athlete as a kid wear them?

I have about 20 pairs of nikes now and yes, but I think i was a nike fan before lebron, my mom would just never get them for me because I wanted the black ones and she thought white was better

[goforbroke]

How can they really touch the color scheme if they said they're not going to touch the helmet which is orange w/ brown and white stripes? Plus what can they do to the pants either stay white, brown, bring orange back. Either keep the 3 stripe pattern on the pants or go solid. Not much you can do if you keep the helmet the same. jersey change to Jets type stripes or go from 5 to 3 on the sleeve or none or 2 tone it like the Titans. Add orange border around the #s.

What I inferred from that is that they won't be adding a logo to the helmet. The helmet will remain without a logo. They could tweak the colors of the helmet, and maybe change the stripes a little.

Then the owner is lying. “I will say there will be no change to the helmet,” owner Jimmy Haslam said exclusively to ESPN Cleveland. “But we will look at everything else.

take a chill pill! it might not be a bold-type LIE maybe its just a misinterpretation of his words. Not everyone thinks in the same terms as we do. We see a slight color change as a change, where someone else might say there was no change. Outside of the black and one-day alts, Celtics might say we haven't changed our uniforms in 50 years. Well they've added a names on back, a clover to waistband and neck clover. Doesn't make it a LIE - its just how do you interpret a change. Yankees could say the same thing, except the MLB logo on the neck was added and then changed colors.

So- i mean i think its pretty obvious that IF they are considering tweaking up the colors then they will at least match the new colors on the helmet... PANTS ON FIRE

[guest23]

What's odd is that teams go through so much just to put out a new look, and yet sometimes it's horrible. So the question is, how does a horrible design make it through? Aren't there people that try to put a stop to it? How do you have surveys that say 90% of people like a new look, then you release it and everyone freaks out because they hate it? Even though it's a process, clearly there are flaws.

Design by Committee is usually the main culprit and typically the final approvers, typically owners or other high level execs have zero understanding of good design or they are simply convinced their vision is what will ultimately look good despite a designer's suggestion otherwise. As it's often said and frequently exemplified money and success often do not translate to class or good taste.

The market research/focus group thing is basically a flawed process and product by design. While in theory interviewing a target demographic on product preferences or to critique designs makes sense, the amount of bias and false positive data provided in those exercises essentially negates the value. Short answer is that participants are too often afraid/intimidated by the whole process so they are afraid to be critical. Also they are typically paid for participating and many do this frequently to get cash on the side, they are often scared that if they say they don't like stuff they won't get called back. The other big gap are some of the hypothetical questions that don't translate to real life behavior. "Would you buy XYZ if it was available for purchase". In theory many people will say yes but when it comes time to actually open one's wallet the purchase decision completely changes and often results in an "I'll pass".

yes to all of that. but good is subjective and there is a target audience they are designing for. if you're older than 20, you're probably not a part of it. they'll try to please the life long fans if they can but Nike understands the game as well as anyone. their target audience will love the Bucs, Seahawks and Jags uniforms. most of us make decisions about the brands we love by our early teens and that sticks with us for life. Nike knows when they get hooked young, they are hooked for life. the positive vibes that come with a fresh new football uniforms are associated with the brand and the products they offer. like i say, everything Nike does (and UA, and adidas) is motivated to move product, primarily shoes. Nike fans tell me, how many pairs of Nike shoes have you bought in your lifetime? and did your favorite athlete as a kid wear them?

I tend to agree with you when I think of good design I think of a design that will not only sell jerseys to the younger demo but a design that can sell a wide range of merch for an extended period of time. I know the younger demo is highly relevant, especially 18-34 but I have to think with replica jerseys hitting $100 I think you've already priced out almost half that group.

From my anecdotal observations the key demo for the nfl to sell merch seems to be 25-50. It's my opinion that that group is more attracted to a slightly more conservative retro/fauxback design because that's what they grew up with. I think something like the gaudy jags design will only excite the very young and absolute die hards who have to own the absolute newest. The other thing is that many of these redesigns will likely only provide a temporary uptick in sales before they revert back to the middle of the pack. The only real winner that I think will stick from last year's designs is the vikings.

[BrandMooreArt]

What's odd is that teams go through so much just to put out a new look, and yet sometimes it's horrible. So the question is, how does a horrible design make it through? Aren't there people that try to put a stop to it? How do you have surveys that say 90% of people like a new look, then you release it and everyone freaks out because they hate it? Even though it's a process, clearly there are flaws.

Design by Committee is usually the main culprit and typically the final approvers, typically owners or other high level execs have zero understanding of good design or they are simply convinced their vision is what will ultimately look good despite a designer's suggestion otherwise. As it's often said and frequently exemplified money and success often do not translate to class or good taste.

The market research/focus group thing is basically a flawed process and product by design. While in theory interviewing a target demographic on product preferences or to critique designs makes sense, the amount of bias and false positive data provided in those exercises essentially negates the value. Short answer is that participants are too often afraid/intimidated by the whole process so they are afraid to be critical. Also they are typically paid for participating and many do this frequently to get cash on the side, they are often scared that if they say they don't like stuff they won't get called back. The other big gap are some of the hypothetical questions that don't translate to real life behavior. "Would you buy XYZ if it was available for purchase". In theory many people will say yes but when it comes time to actually open one's wallet the purchase decision completely changes and often results in an "I'll pass".

yes to all of that. but good is subjective and there is a target audience they are designing for. if you're older than 20, you're probably not a part of it. they'll try to please the life long fans if they can but Nike understands the game as well as anyone. their target audience will love the Bucs, Seahawks and Jags uniforms. most of us make decisions about the brands we love by our early teens and that sticks with us for life. Nike knows when they get hooked young, they are hooked for life. the positive vibes that come with a fresh new football uniforms are associated with the brand and the products they offer. like i say, everything Nike does (and UA, and adidas) is motivated to move product, primarily shoes. Nike fans tell me, how many pairs of Nike shoes have you bought in your lifetime? and did your favorite athlete as a kid wear them?

I tend to agree with you when I think of good design I think of a design that will not only sell jerseys to the younger demo but a design that can sell a wide range of merch for an extended period of time. I know the younger demo is highly relevant, especially 18-34 but I have to think with replica jerseys hitting $100 I think you've already priced out almost half that group.

From my anecdotal observations the key demo for the nfl to sell merch seems to be 25-50. It's my opinion that that group is more attracted to a slightly more conservative retro/fauxback design because that's what they grew up with. I think something like the gaudy jags design will only excite the very young and absolute die hards who have to own the absolute newest. The other thing is that many of these redesigns will likely only provide a temporary uptick in sales before they revert back to the middle of the pack. The only real winner that I think will stick from last year's designs is the vikings.

Absolutely. Thats the age group the NFL needs to focus on. Thats their fantasy players and season ticket holders. But im sure Nike is focused on long term fans, hooking at a young age. Because in most cases once hooked, youre there forever. For a lot of dumb reasons we are not always aware of. Sprite is still my soft drink of choice today and i have no doubt Grant Hill was a part of that.

[BrandMooreArt]

What's odd is that teams go through so much just to put out a new look, and yet sometimes it's horrible. So the question is, how does a horrible design make it through? Aren't there people that try to put a stop to it? How do you have surveys that say 90% of people like a new look, then you release it and everyone freaks out because they hate it? Even though it's a process, clearly there are flaws.

Design by Committee is usually the main culprit and typically the final approvers, typically owners or other high level execs have zero understanding of good design or they are simply convinced their vision is what will ultimately look good despite a designer's suggestion otherwise. As it's often said and frequently exemplified money and success often do not translate to class or good taste.

The market research/focus group thing is basically a flawed process and product by design. While in theory interviewing a target demographic on product preferences or to critique designs makes sense, the amount of bias and false positive data provided in those exercises essentially negates the value. Short answer is that participants are too often afraid/intimidated by the whole process so they are afraid to be critical. Also they are typically paid for participating and many do this frequently to get cash on the side, they are often scared that if they say they don't like stuff they won't get called back. The other big gap are some of the hypothetical questions that don't translate to real life behavior. "Would you buy XYZ if it was available for purchase". In theory many people will say yes but when it comes time to actually open one's wallet the purchase decision completely changes and often results in an "I'll pass".

yes to all of that. but good is subjective and there is a target audience they are designing for. if you're older than 20, you're probably not a part of it. they'll try to please the life long fans if they can but Nike understands the game as well as anyone. their target audience will love the Bucs, Seahawks and Jags uniforms. most of us make decisions about the brands we love by our early teens and that sticks with us for life. Nike knows when they get hooked young, they are hooked for life. the positive vibes that come with a fresh new football uniforms are associated with the brand and the products they offer. like i say, everything Nike does (and UA, and adidas) is motivated to move product, primarily shoes. Nike fans tell me, how many pairs of Nike shoes have you bought in your lifetime? and did your favorite athlete as a kid wear them?

I tend to agree with you when I think of good design I think of a design that will not only sell jerseys to the younger demo but a design that can sell a wide range of merch for an extended period of time. I know the younger demo is highly relevant, especially 18-34 but I have to think with replica jerseys hitting $100 I think you've already priced out almost half that group.

From my anecdotal observations the key demo for the nfl to sell merch seems to be 25-50. It's my opinion that that group is more attracted to a slightly more conservative retro/fauxback design because that's what they grew up with. I think something like the gaudy jags design will only excite the very young and absolute die hards who have to own the absolute newest. The other thing is that many of these redesigns will likely only provide a temporary uptick in sales before they revert back to the middle of the pack. The only real winner that I think will stick from last year's designs is the vikings.

Absolutely. Thats the age group the NFL needs to focus on. Thats their fantasy players and season ticket holders. But im sure Nike is focused on long term fans, hooking at a young age. Because in most cases once hooked, youre there forever. For a lot of dumb reasons we are not always aware of. Sprite is still my soft drink of choice today and i have no doubt Grant Hill was a part of that.

[Fresno St. Alum]

How can they really touch the color scheme if they said they're not going to touch the helmet which is orange w/ brown and white stripes? Plus what can they do to the pants either stay white, brown, bring orange back. Either keep the 3 stripe pattern on the pants or go solid. Not much you can do if you keep the helmet the same. jersey change to Jets type stripes or go from 5 to 3 on the sleeve or none or 2 tone it like the Titans. Add orange border around the #s.

What I inferred from that is that they won't be adding a logo to the helmet. The helmet will remain without a logo. They could tweak the colors of the helmet, and maybe change the stripes a little.

Then the owner is lying. “I will say there will be no change to the helmet,” owner Jimmy Haslam said exclusively to ESPN Cleveland. “But we will look at everything else.

take a chill pill! it might not be a bold-type LIE maybe its just a misinterpretation of his words. Not everyone thinks in the same terms as we do. We see a slight color change as a change, where someone else might say there was no change. Outside of the black and one-day alts, Celtics might say we haven't changed our uniforms in 50 years. Well they've added a names on back, a clover to waistband and neck clover. Doesn't make it a LIE - its just how do you interpret a change. Yankees could say the same thing, except the MLB logo on the neck was added and then changed colors.

So- i mean i think its pretty obvious that IF they are considering tweaking up the colors then they will at least match the new colors on the helmet... PANTS ON FIRE

I didn't know I wasn't chilled,you're the one cap locking it, not me. What I do know about the Browns owner is that he changes his mind a lot, so we'll just have to wait and see. Like that other guy said maybe the mask isn't considered the helmet to him. It will probably be the least exciting of NFL changes since there is no helmet decal to change. So indecisive is a better word, then. I'm still chilled, not excited or mad or anything, maybe a little over stuffed.