New Browns uni coming 2015

[WSU151]

In addition, they have introduced a new Dawg Pound logo. What is the "Dawg Pound?" It's more than just a name for their seating section on one end of the field... It's the name for which Browns fans are affectionately known. The new Dawg Pound logo is new, it is distinct, and it creates association; fans can now use this distinctive character as their own--they are part of the Dawg Pound. This is far more important to Cleveland than people think, in my opinion. If anything, this is the logo fans will love. This is their logo.

I'm not sure about this. If you designed a legitimate logo for the Cameron Crazies, my gut tells me more people will still wear the Duke logo than the Cameron Crazies logo.

Likewise, if the Raiders had an alternate logo for the Black Hole...people would still overwhelmingly wear the Raiders logo.

[TaylorMade]

The ear hole looks like the mouth. Like he's going "OHHHHHH!"

[mbannon92]

This is a rebrand because they are establishing an association among the city and the logo, using colors as cues. They are trying to establish a "perception loaded with emotions and feelings" as well as trying to "transform [the Browns brand] into something more meaningful than the product itself."

Yes, according to the Nikespeak released it appears that they're trying to do that, but I would argue that there's a difference between establishing new perceptions and marketing BS. I don't think anyone is buying that the recolored helmet represents "modern Cleveland" and that the brown facemask represents strength, and I highly doubt these changes will inspire any fans to love the team more.

On top of that, they remained similar to previous logos (the helmet) by remaining distinctive--the only team with a blank helmet in the league, and the only team with a helmet acting as the primary logo. The logo still carries heritage. The logo is simple. And it still creates association.

Why ditch the helmet? IT IS THE BROWNS. What do people think of when they see that orange helmet with stripes? They think of the Browns--even if it pains them.

Their color scheme is also distinctive (in all of professional sports), whereas their primary logo is a graphic that exists for every team in the NFL. While they're the only team that actively promotes that logo, it's hardly distinctive. A new logo in the orange and brown would have created just as much of an association, especially if it was the elf or a dog, which are already associated with the Browns. These also would have created more of an emotional connection, especially if they incorporated some elements of the city of Cleveland, or even a "C".

---

Your marketing theory is solid, but personally I wouldn't say this "new" identity is an example of good marketing.

[JPDesign]

Hoping to get some insight from the Browns Creative guy (via twitter @SportDesign) regarding today's unveiling -- Insight like, did he actually get paid for this?

If I had to guess, I would say he probably didn't do it. A lot of times teams go outside their internal team for rebranding.

[CitizenTino]

Hoping to get some insight from the Browns Creative guy (via twitter @SportDesign) regarding today's unveiling -- Insight like, did he actually get paid for this?

If I had to guess, I would say he probably didn't do it. A lot of times teams go outside their internal team for rebranding.

He did not. The new logos came from the league:

https://twitter.com/sportdesign/status/570252991791439874

[vmd9]

I guess I still don't understand why they have to wait until April for the uniform unveil. Obviously they are done. Most people are underwhelmed right now because they haven't seen the whole package. The "rebranded" logo is nothing that deserved the amount of hype they gave it. Most teams that tweak colors don't even make an announcement about it. Because really, most fans would never notice.

Just another poor marketing move by the Browns.

[mmajeski06]

The ear hole looks like the mouth. Like he's going "OHHHHHH!"

I laughed wayyy too much at this. Can't unsee it now

[LEWJ]

Hoping to get some insight from the Browns Creative guy (via twitter @SportDesign) regarding today's unveiling -- Insight like, did he actually get paid for this?

Via his twitter--"NFL designed Cleveland Browns primary and secondary marks have been released." I would like to think he wasn't paid. Even if he was, he picked the right logo (of the logos presented to the team), from what I know.

Also, he claims Nike was not involved with the logo--"they came from the NFL". (But Nike could still have been involved, who knows...)

[Cujo]

Hoping to get some insight from the Browns Creative guy (via twitter @SportDesign) regarding today's unveiling -- Insight like, did he actually get paid for this?

If I had to guess, I would say he probably didn't do it. A lot of times teams go outside their internal team for rebranding.

He did not. The new logos came from the league:

https://twitter.com/sportdesign/status/570252991791439874

So then why is his job title "BROWNS CREATIVE" and even employed by the Clevelnd Browns if he's got absolute-zero input on the rebrand? Paid to throw together Browns' community and Play 60 logos?

Yeah...I'm calling Brownsh1t on his comment that he had no say.

[mmajeski06]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/2/24/8101617/cleveland-browns-logo-redesign-nfl-every-logo-lol

The Rams and Titans one is actually an improvement

[Cujo]

Hoping to get some insight from the Browns Creative guy (via twitter @SportDesign) regarding today's unveiling -- Insight like, did he actually get paid for this?

Via his twitter--"NFL designed Cleveland Browns primary and secondary marks have been released." I would like to think he wasn't paid. Even if he was, he picked the right logo (of the logos presented to the team), from what I know.

Also, he claims Nike was not involved with the logo--"they came from the NFL". (But Nike could still have been involved, who knows...)

This is what confuses me....Is Nike in charge of designing league uniforms? Logos? Both??

@SportDesign is clearly trying to push blame for Cleveland's laziness onto Nike on the "fill job". But unless he's just posing as "the Browns creative guru", he's likely just passing the buck.

[Jersey Monster]

No matter what people say, this is a rebrand. There was a lot more that went into this than people think. They had to do tons of research, perform a SWOT analysis, and now have to change all the logos in merchandise, advertisements, stadium, ect. even if it's similar. This is something that costs millions of dollars believe it or not.

That being said....do I like it? No. I've never liked any of the browns helmet logos. Did they miss an opportunity? It's possible. Maybe something a bit different would excite people and get them to go out and get new merchandise. I don't know if the general public would even notice the difference if they didn't put the logos side by side in comparison.

Other teams have made conversions from helmet logos, it just might be tougher to do with the browns since they never had a logo on their helmet.

[pianoknight]

The ear hole looks like the mouth. Like he's going "OHHHHHH!"

I laughed wayyy too much at this. Can't unsee it now

[CLEstones]

No matter what people say, this is a rebrand. There was a lot more that went into this than people think. They had to do tons of research, perform a SWOT analysis, and now have to change all the logos in merchandise, advertisements, stadium, ect. even if it's similar. This is something that costs millions of dollars believe it or not.

And there lies my major issue. We, as a City and County, are paying for this rebrand with our Sin Tax money. So, we are literally paying for the browns to tear down every logo, in all the facilities, to replace them with a more vibrant orange and a brown facemask? Sorry... that is a disgrace.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know the Sin Tax goes to stadium and facilities, but lets be honest, its all going to the same place. The fact that even a penny of money goes to support this is disheartening.

Once again, the Browns take a steaming, wet, juicy dump on all our faces and we thank them for it.

[LEWJ]

This is a rebrand because they are establishing an association among the city and the logo, using colors as cues. They are trying to establish a "perception loaded with emotions and feelings" as well as trying to "transform [the Browns brand] into something more meaningful than the product itself."

Yes, according to the Nikespeak released it appears that they're trying to do that, but I would argue that there's a difference between establishing new perceptions and marketing BS. I don't think anyone is buying that the recolored helmet represents "modern Cleveland" and that the brown facemask represents strength, and I highly doubt these changes will inspire any fans to love the team more.

On top of that, they remained similar to previous logos (the helmet) by remaining distinctive--the only team with a blank helmet in the league, and the only team with a helmet acting as the primary logo. The logo still carries heritage. The logo is simple. And it still creates association.

Why ditch the helmet? IT IS THE BROWNS. What do people think of when they see that orange helmet with stripes? They think of the Browns--even if it pains them.

Their color scheme is also distinctive (in all of professional sports), whereas their primary logo is a graphic that exists for every team in the NFL. While they're the only team that actively promotes that logo, it's hardly distinctive. A new logo in the orange and brown would have created just as much of an association, especially if it was the elf or a dog, which are already associated with the Browns. These also would have created more of an emotional connection, especially if they incorporated some elements of the city of Cleveland, or even a "C".

---

Your marketing theory is solid, but personally I wouldn't say this "new" identity is an example of good marketing.

Fair points. (All of the below points aren't directed toward you, just more food for thought--for anybody reading).

I will say a simple "CB" logo of some sort would do wonders--even if just an alternate logo on the sleeve or field.

I've accepted the fact that little ol' "Brownie" is a thing of the past--in terms of whether or not it will ever be a prominent part of their brand.

There are still plenty of fans who don't think it's really the way to go--being that it's hardly intimidating, even if there were a grimace on his face. Not to mention, they could totally miss on the logo, if they updated it. The elf is symbolic of the Browns success in the past, yes, but updating it would be a tough task. I've seen plenty of attempts, all of which were underwhelming to me. I'm glad they didn't risk it--in that regard.

I'm even more against the dog being the primary logo. It's a relatively contemporary association with the Browns--what, 70s or 80s?

To me, the dog has always symbolized their fans. I think that its pretty obvious the Dawg Pound logo won't be seen in any extent on the uniform or as a primary identification for the organization--it is presented with the words "Dawg Pound" right underneath--the Browns are not called the Dawg Pound--this is and always has been a reference to the fans (much like Buzz City, Rip City, Motor City, etc. We are the Dawg Pound--the fans, the city.)

In conclusion, why completely hange something that has worked in identifying the team? The elf was obviously ditched at some point in the past, it was not always used to identify the Browns. The "Dawg Pound" is a relatively contemporary concept, in comparison. The helmet has (almost) always been there--in Orange, in Brown, in White. With the elf, with the dawg pound--the Helmet was there. It's an undeniable trademark for the Browns. It drives people nuts that the Browns claim a helmet as their logo. But it's the way it is, and it has always worked. I don't think the Browns are just passing on a primary logo because they couldn't think of anything. The blank helmet is their brand.

Not to mention, the Browns (Paul Brown in particular) were instrumental in making helmet technology standard in the NFL and all of football.

I'm happy--especially knowing the junk that has been produced for teams in recent memory. I'll gladly take this over a potentially crappy new primary logo.

[LEWJ]

Anywhooo...

This is worth sharing at this point...

My former roommate held a position in the graphics department with NFL Films in the fall/winter of 2013-14.

He told me:

___

-he was involved with presenting/pitching the NFL's choice for the logo to the Browns, through a video

___

-"the logo pitched was not the one chosen

Well... The version that was pitched was a frontal view of the helmet with a face inside it" (his exact words in quotes)

___

-"I wasn't a huge fan but that's what the NFL came up with for the Browns"

___

-"There was also a flaming football that looked like an arena league team but they didn't end up pitching that one"

___

I'm pleased with the logo, and it sounds like the Browns ultimately made a wise decision.

Quoting myself for those who didn't see this.

Tell me they chose the wrong logo... haha

I guess it's worth noting that he also said the "player-in-helmet logo" looked eerily like Brady Quinn. haha

[TruColor]

I've added the Browns' graphics to my site as well:

http://www.colorwerx.net/portfolio/cleveland-browns-nfl-srgb-optimized-graphics-2015-through-present/

[PaleVermilion81]

So then why is his job title "BROWNS CREATIVE" and even employed by the Clevelnd Browns if he's got absolute-zero input on the rebrand? Paid to throw together Browns' community and Play 60 logos?

Yeah...I'm calling Brownsh1t on his comment that he had no say.

It's very common for companies to go to outside agencies for rebranding, and then the internal creative employees just maintain that brand and put it into circulation within the company.

[Jersey Monster]

No matter what people say, this is a rebrand. There was a lot more that went into this than people think. They had to do tons of research, perform a SWOT analysis, and now have to change all the logos in merchandise, advertisements, stadium, ect. even if it's similar. This is something that costs millions of dollars believe it or not.

And there lies my major issue. We, as a City and County, are paying for this rebrand with our Sin Tax money. So, we are literally paying for the browns to tear down every logo, in all the facilities, to replace them with a more vibrant orange and a brown facemask? Sorry... that is a disgrace.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know the Sin Tax goes to stadium and facilities, but lets be honest, its all going to the same place. The fact that even a penny of money goes to support this is disheartening.

Once again, the Browns take a steaming, wet, juicy dump on all our faces and we thank them for it.

I agree with this for the most part. But don't forget that they are getting "new" uniforms too, so it might have been necessary to match up their helmet logo with the helmets. It's probable that the new uniforms influenced the new logo. Everybody would be complaining on here if they changed the actual helmets and not the logo.

That being said, could they have gone without a uniform change? Probably, but the new owner wants to increase profits and thus created new uniforms to help market to younger generations. It's all a money thing. It kind of scares me because I love traditional uniforms, but maybe they just don't appeal to their target market.

[illwauk]

The Browns did a great rebranding.... FOR ME TO POOP ON!