Two Sundays ago, Bryan posted this photo and complained about all the ACC logos visible therein. This led to a lengthy back-and-forth in the comments section about logo creep — mostly about swooshes and other maker’s marks, not about conference logos. The discussion, which I did not take part in (I was at a bar watching football and caught up on the comments later), featured several arguments and analogies that I hear again and again regarding logo creep — arguments that are, frankly, way off-base. Some similar arguments came up yesterday regarding Michael Jordan’s taped-over Adidas logo.
As you all know, I hate logo creep and see it as a symptom of a much bigger problem (i.e., the encroachment of advertising into public space). I know some of you feel differently, and I also know that to a certain extent this is generational: I grew up in an era when there were no manufacturer’s logos on uniforms; many of you have grown up in an era when such logos are ubiquitous. But even if we disagree on whether logo creep is a problem, we can at least try to keep the debate on a logical plane and not make straw man arguments or apples/oranges comparisons.
With that in mind, I’m going to try to address many of the arguments that came up two Sundays ago, along with some other arguments I frequently hear. I know some of you are tired of this topic, but you’ll have to deal with it for one more day — I wanted to get all my thoughts on the matter in one place, and that place is here.
Let’s start with a simple premise that I think everyone here can agree with: Uniforms are special. They serve as the primary bond between fan and team. Players come and go, yet we keep rooting for (or against) that uniform, no matter who wears it. Jerry Seinfeld described this as “rooting for laundry”; I go further and say it’s a unique form of brand loyalty. Elsewhere on the consumer landscape, your loyalty to a brand is at least somewhat dependant on the content and quality of that brand — it has to taste good, or function well, or whatever. If the content changes, your loyalty will probably change too (that’s what the Coke execs learned with the New Coke debacle). But with sports, the content of a team, and the quality of that content, is changing all the time, yet we remain loyal to that logo, those colors, that uniform.
Just to make the point in a more specific way: Everyone here knows that I love the Mets and hate the Yankees. But if those two rosters were traded for each other today — straight up, 25 guys for 25 guys — who would I root for tomorrow? It’s a no-brainer: I’d root for the guys wearing the Mets uniforms, even if I hated them the day before. That, my friends, is a very special and unique bond. And that’s ultimately why most of us are here at this site to begin with.
Personally, I feel that cluttering up the fan/team bond with advertising logos — whether it’s a Nike swoosh, a McDonald’s patch, or a big soccer sponsorship insignia — cheapens and sullies that bond. It diminishes the team and, by extension, all of us. You may disagree. Let’s discuss…
Look, of course companies are gonna put their logos on the uniforms they make. Duh, it’s called marketing.
Yes, we all know it’s called marketing. The question isn’t about why they do it; the question is whether there are some places — like, say, on a uniform — where marketing is inappropriate.
But it is appropriate on a uniform. It makes sense for a company to put its logo on the clothing it makes. They’d be stupid not to do it.
Take a look at your feet right now. Unless you’re wearing sneakers, I’m willing to bet that there are no logos on your footwear. There are probably no visible logos on your shirt or sweater, either. If you’re wearing a tie, there’s almost certainly no visible logo on that. Are the manufacturers of those products stupid?
More to the point, look at any pre-1990 major-level sports photo. You won’t see any manufacturers’ logos there, either. Were Spalding, Wilson, and Rawlings all stupid for decades, and then they suddenly wised up in the 1990s? Or did the sportswear industry decide to push the boundaries to see how much advertising they could push into the public eye?
While we’re at it, let’s look at some non-sports uniforms, like the ones being worn by UPS deliverymen, cops, airline pilots, or Burger King employees. See any manufacturers’ logos on any of those?
Look, a sports uniform is a logo, and it already stands for a brand — the brand of the team that wears it. The uni manufacturer is simply a vendor providing a product to a client. The client (i.e., the team) is what’s important, not the vendor.
Here’s another way to look at it: Some company made the buttons on the uniform, and another company made the zippers, and some mill made the fabric, and another mill made the thread, and some sewing shop stitched all the components together. But you don’t see all their logos on the uniform, right? Of course not — what matters is the end-product brand, not all the little sub-contracted components. And in the case of a uniform, the end-product brand is the team.
Saying that the Reebok logo shouldn’t appear on, say, the Cowboys’ football uniform is like saying a car company shouldn’t put its logo on a car that it makes.
No, that’s a poor analogy. Let’s take, for example, the Ford Focus. The brand that it stands for is, y’know, the Ford Focus, so of course Ford is gonna put their name on it. But the Cowboys uniform stands for the Dallas Cowboys — it has nothing to do with Reebok. (In fact, the Cowboys’ uniform has been largely unchanged for decades, so what exactly is the difference between their uniform now, when it has the Reebok logo on the sleeve, versus 10 years ago, when it had the Nike swoosh on the sleeve? Nothing, except for the change in logos. In short, a different company bought advertising space on the jersey.)
Getting back to the car analogy: What if the steel mill that produced the steel for the Focus insisted that its logo be visible on all of the car’s doors? And what if the manufacturer of every other component of the car did the same? That’s the proper analogy — that would be the automotive equivalent of logo creep. But of course those companies don’t put their logos all over a car, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so.
Wait a minute, my car has Firestone tires and AC sparkplugs, and those logos are visible.
But those are items that you, the driver, can switch out and replace with other brands — they’re more akin to a fielder’s glove or a goalie’s pads. They’re equipment, which can be purchased from a variety of sources, not part of the car’s “uniform.” I’ve never had a problem with logos on equipment, because equipment is a matter of personal choice, not team uniformity.
OK, maybe you have a point when a company is just the latest manufacturer to produce an old, pre-existing design. But in a lot of cases, the sportswear companies are actually creating the designs we see on the field. Why shouldn’t they take credit for that in a visible way?
Do you know who designed the chair you’re sitting in right now? Or the building where that chair is situated? Or any of the hundreds of objects with which you interact on a daily basis? For better or worse, designers in our culture generally don’t get to sign their work — they, like the manufacturers they work for, are simply vendors supplying a service for a client.
Even if you think designers should get visible credit (an argument that I agree has some merit, but one that we’ll save for another day), that doesn’t really change the parameters of the logo creep debate as it applies to uniforms. Small example: Todd Radom designed the Anaheim Angels’ uniforms — so should his logo or initials be on the sleeve? I think most of us (maybe even Todd) would agree that the answer is no. And if that’s the case, then why should a uniform designed by Nike carry a swoosh?
Look, sports is all about business now, so logo creep is just part of the deal.
Romantic nostalgia aside, sports has always been a business. You think Walter O’Malley wasn’t a businessman? Or Calvin Griffith? Or Charles Comiskey? In fact, the team owners from that era were arguably more revenue-obsessed than today’s owners, because most of them had no other business holdings besides their teams, while many of today’s owners got wealthy in other industries and then bought a team as a vanity project. So while the dollar amounts may be bigger today, it’s not as though sports has suddenly morphed into a business after spending generations functioning as something else.
Anyway, the “It’s just business” argument misses the larger point: Yes, sports teams are business entities, but I would argue, strongly, that they’re also civic entities — that’s why we care about them so much! They carry the name of our cities and states, we rally around them, we live and die with them. Moreover, most of them have gotten big tax breaks and/or play in facilities that were built with public money, and many college and most high school teams represent public scholastic institutions, so the public has a stake in their behavior — a stake that goes beyond the bottom line of the accounting ledger. In short: I don’t want to see my team, in which I have a huge emotional investment, selling out part of its uniform to an advertiser. These teams already make tons of money — there’s a big difference between business and greed.
How can you tell a team, or a league, or anyone else, not to capitalize on a potential revenue stream? That’s just common sense, plus it’s the American way.
Just because you can sell something, that doesn’t mean you should sell it. You could make a lot of money selling a kidney, putting your family’s heirloom silverware up for auction on eBay, or pimping out your sister, but that doesn’t mean any of those things is a good idea. There are certain things that we, as a society, have said are not for sale. Remember the outcry when MLB wanted to put Spider-Man 2 ads on the bases a few years back? Personally, I see little difference between that and a swoosh on a uniform sleeve, although I realize many fans don’t see those as comparable examples.
In the larger sense, the “It’s just business” argument essentially boils down every human interaction to its economic value, which is both reductive and offensive. The things we value most highly — love, faith, art, genius, charity, friendship, family, nature, community, etc. — all transcend monetary issues. In fact, that’s a big part of why we value them so highly. I believe the fan/team relationship, as symbolized by the uniform, should fall into that category too.
As for the “American way” argument, putting ad logos on uniforms is actually the European way. We’ve mostly avoided that here in America, except for manufacturer’s marks. I wish we could avoid those, too.
Well, good for you, Mr. Holier Than Thou, but the horse is already out of the barn. Look around you — you’ve lost the argument. Logo creep is everywhere in sports. Give it up already!
First of all, it’s not everywhere. There are no manufacturer’s logos on NBA uniforms (to David Stern’s everlasting credit), or on college basketball jerseys, or on MLB caps, or on socks in any of the four major pro leagues, and I want to make sure those situations stay that way. Moreover, I want to raise awareness about the encroachment of advertising in places where I don’t think it belongs. Even if it’s too late to keep the Majestic logo off of a baseball uniform, I hope it’s not too late to make sure a MasterCard sleeve patch never appears there. And it’s never too late to make people think a bit harder about what they see during a sporting event — that’s what Uni Watch is all about.
Well, it’s fine for you to say a team shouldn’t maximize its revenue. But Nike gives college athletic departments a lot of money in return for all those swooshes, and that money goes a long way toward helping all sorts of student athletes. If they turn down that money, how are you gonna replace it? Are you gonna write a big check yourself?
I’m not going to get into a long discussion over the cesspool of money that characterizes so much of college sports, but the above-stated argument makes two major suppositions: (1) Major funding for college athletics is an entitlement, and (2) the athletic department is essentially for sale to the highest bidder. I reject both of these notions.
But for the sake of argument, let’s go along with the idea that big money for college athletics is a good thing. Now, we both know that Nike isn’t giving out all that money from the goodness of their hearts — they’re doing it because they think they’ll get a good return on that investment, which means it’s essentially dirty money. By way of analogy, let’s say American Express offered to give the state of Illinois a huge sum of money targeted for the state’s school system — but in return, the AmEx logo would have to be printed on the statehouse dome, AmEx ads would have to be posted throughout state facilities, and the state itself would have to be renamed “American Express Presents Illinois.” Would that be a good idea? Not to me, no matter how much money they were offering. And if you think that hypothetical example is ridiculous, ask yourself how ridiculous “the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl” and “the FedEx Orange Bowl” would have sounded 15 years ago.
I’m sick of all this corporate-bashing — you just hate brands and products and capitalism and consumerism.
If you knew anything about my pre-Uni Watch writing, you’d know that I’m fascinated by consumer culture. Hell, I have an iconic product tattooed on my right arm. Again, my problem isn’t with consumerism per se — it’s with consumerism run amok. We may all have different ideas of what “run amok” means, but to me it means, among other things, a Nike logo on a uniform sleeve. And it certainly means MJ having to tape over the Adidas logo on his practice jersey.
You’re such a hypocrite. If you hate logos so much, why do you slap the Uni Watch logo on T-shirts, coffee mugs, and lots of other merchandise?
Yes, I put my logo on T-shirts, just like the Mets put their logo on T-shirts, and Nike puts a giant swoosh on T-shirts. I have no problem with any of that — I just don’t want a swoosh and a Mets logo together on the same shirt, because they have nothing to do with each other. I’m not taking issue with marketing per se — my gripe is about marketing in inappropriate places, like on a uniform.
Yeah, but you’re still a big phony, because the Google logo appears all over the Uni Watch home page. Now there’s some logo creep!
Actually, quite a few logos appear on the Uni Watch home page. That’s advertising for ya. Publications and web sites are traditional and appropriate places for ads to appear — that’s how publications and web sites stay in business (especially web sites, since most of them — including this one — give away their content for free, as opposed to most publications, which have a cover price). One more time: I’m not opposed to advertising and marketing per se — I’m simply opposed to them in places where I feel they don’t belong. I think a team’s uniform is one of those places.
You know, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m sick of hearing about it. I love sports, I love uniforms, and I want to enjoy them without thinking too hard about any of this stuff.
I’m actually more sympathetic to this point of view than you might expect. I think we all have areas where we’d rather have blinders on and ignore troubling information because it gets in the way of our enjoyment. Case in point: I love animals, but I also love eating meat. When I hear vegetarians talking about the deplorable conditions in cattle feedlots and such, I tend to tune it out — not because I think they’re wrong, but because I want to keep enjoying my steak without wrestling too hard with any ethical and moral implications. This is, as Al Gore puts it, an inconvenient truth.
So I understand that I may come across as a crank regarding this issue. And really, I’m not trying to ruin your good time — it’s just something I happen to feel strongly about. And that feeling comes from the same place as the rest of Uni Watch.
Thanks for listening. From now on, when logo creep discussions break out in the comments section, I’ll just refer people to this page.
Raffle Results: The five winners of the holiday raffle, in descending order from first prize to the fith prize, are M. L. Durón, Dave Kendrick, Patrick Taylor, Gabe Kleinfeld, and someone who didn’t leave his name but whose e-mail address starts with “Shadydem” (I’m not printing his full address, to protect his privacy). These five people should all contact me as soon as possible to claim your prizes.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Yet another reason to always wear your helmet. … Maybe the Vikings were actually ahead of the curve. … Jared Wheeler just sent me some awesome photos. First, check out these 1940s shots of the Freddy Shubach, who was the Eagles’ equipment manager. Next, look at this gorgeous game-worn Phillies jersey from 1945, with black felt insignia, chain-stitched sleeve patch, and nylon underarm ribbing. Meanwhile, what the fuck is that on Pete Rose’s head? … I’ve previously run this shot of Clarence Weathers and his FNOB. But Randy Williams was watching footage of the 1986 Jets/Browns divisional playoff game and noticed Weathers wearing a handwritten “20″ on his helmet. Anyone know what that was about? … The first trailer for Leatherheads is out, and the uniforms look sensational. Check it out here (with thanks to Ronnie Poore). … Quick someone buy Vince this for Xmas (good find by Brendon Yarian). … In a vaguely related item, check out the best Browns helmet design concept ever here. … Ohio State and LSU will both wear home uniforms in the BCS title game, but that’s not exactly a major story since LSU normally wears white at home anyway. … In the spirit of the season, and to provide a light-hearted counterpoint to today’s lengthy and serious main entry, here’s my favorite Christmas video (if the embedded video isn’t visible below, just click here). The dialogue is definitely NSFW, so use headphones. Enjoy.
#1 by Rich on 12.20.07 9:32 am |
I think the “20″ on Clarence Weathers’ helmet was for Don Rogers, a safety for the Browns who died in June 1986 from cocaine poisoning, not too long after Len Bias’ death.
#2 by Fez Whatley on 12.20.07 9:34 am |
Is that Pete’s Cherry Hill, NJ place in it’s 1980’s glory? Maybe Pete had to help paint the Sade Olympique too.
#3 by Talon Lardner on 12.20.07 9:40 am |
Pretty cool write-up on logo creep overall, and made me think quite a bit about how much logo creep I have on me. For example, on my person, I have the Apple logo on my iPod (with the podcast I am listening to’s logo on the screen), an adidas hoodie with its three stripes along the length of each sleeve, a small “Vans” tag on my shoe, that little leather thingie on my jeans which displays who made my jeans, “Sonoma” on my backpack, “Mountain Dew” on my drink, Dell’s logo on the back of my laptop screen, and the only thing WITHOUT a logo visible on it is my winter coat and underwear. I wonder how this compares to generations past…
#4 by Eric S. on 12.20.07 9:41 am |
A million things to discuss about this picture, but I’m posting it here for logo creep purposes.
#5 by Nicefellow31 on 12.20.07 9:41 am |
That’s correct Rich. If I remember correctly Rogers died the night before his wedding. He was going to be a heck of a player too.
#6 by u2horn on 12.20.07 9:42 am |
No logos on college basketball uniforms?
http://d.yimg.com/us...
http://d.yimg.com/us...
http://us.i1.yimg.co...
#7 by Frank on 12.20.07 9:42 am |
Just glancing at this, at work here.
I’m somewhere between the “I don’t necessarily disagree but..” and outright disagreeing categories. That said the article looks great, I’m probably not going to agree with everything, but that’s okay and even where I disagree you made good arguements. Certainly a fine piece to turn refer to next time the logo creep issue comes up.
#8 by al on 12.20.07 9:44 am |
Great piece Paul.
When you wrote, “Here’s another way to look at it: Some company made the buttons on the uniform, and another company made the zippers, and some mill made the fabric, and another mill made the thread, and some sewing shop stitched all the components together. But you don’t see all their logos on the uniform, right? Of course not — what matters is the end-product brand, not all the little sub-contracted components. And in the case of a uniform, the end-product brand is the team.” —
Made me think about today’s “look at me” players who celebrate to get all the attention, while the other 10 men on the field who did their job get “overlooked”.
#9 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 9:44 am |
Not on jerseys. That’s banned by the NCAA.
#10 by steve on 12.20.07 9:46 am |
Forget about Pete’s hat. Check out the white velcro closure shoes.
#11 by Jason Axel on 12.20.07 9:49 am |
Great article Paul. I agree with pretty much everything and I feel like I’m very simple in my ideals on uniforms, but being in Marketing for a professional arena, my job conflicts with my ideals. We make SWAG all the time that has Van Andel Arena logos and wordmarks all over it to get our name out to everyone. Our logo is on all the promo posters we send out. Like you said though, there are the right time and place for logo’s to be had, but even in the real world with marketing, sometimes I feel like the exposure to a company’s logo can be overwhelming.
#12 by Original Jim on 12.20.07 9:50 am |
Might be just a fashion cap that Rose is wearing. He played for Montreal in the early 80’s when painter’s caps were the trend. Maybe that’s what it is.
It’s certainly no worse than the helmet-cut of hair he usually had.
#13 by Shaftman on 12.20.07 9:51 am |
Would this be considered logo creep?
#14 by Hank on 12.20.07 9:51 am |
Paul: Good article on the proliferation of logo creep. Another point that could be made is this. With all the advertising already in arenas and stadia, and the endless TV time outs and commercials, why not just let the uniforms be adorned with the team’s logo? Is that asking too much?
#15 by Rick on 12.20.07 9:52 am |
There are probably no visible logos on your shirt or sweater, either.
Paul, I must disagree with your statement about no visible logos on shirts or sweaters. Nearly everyone in my office wears shirts and sweaters with either a Polo Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste, Nautica, Express, Timberland, or some other sort of logo. I’d say there are more shirts and sweaters with logos than without!
#16 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 9:55 am |
Well, I guess it depends on your office. Your average dress shirt, unless it’s made by Lauren or Hilfiger, is logo-free. Same goes for your average sweater.
#17 by TBDRO on 12.20.07 9:58 am |
I probably agree with 99.99% of what you wrote about logo creep.
If I think I can do it without damaging the item, I remove the manufacturer’s logo from my sports gear. For example, a manufacturer’s logo visible on the outside of a cap. I buy it for the team logo. I don’t mind if there is a league logo on the side or back, but the manufacturer’s logo must go.
And for that my wife thinks I’m crazy.
#18 by dgc on 12.20.07 9:59 am |
I think this would be the difference between designer brands and the no-name stuff you would get at Walmart. If you buy a Polo, you want people to see the Polo logo otherwise you just overpaid for a shirt (quality of material/workmanship assumed to be the same).
For a sports jersey, you want people to see your team’s logo, the Majestic/Reebok/Nike/Adidas logo isn’t what you care about.
#19 by Kevin on 12.20.07 9:59 am |
That Brown’s logo is a riot. Very funny stuff.
#20 by jhack on 12.20.07 10:01 am |
There is logo creep on cars - It may be on the inside of the car, rather than the outside - but it is there. One could purchase the standard base model, but for a few thousand more dollars, I can opt for the model with the infinity sound system or jbl sound system. Isn’t this at the very least comparable? It makes the consumer consciously aware of what brand of stereo they get in their cars and in turn, maybe but in their house. The same thing reebok is doing with their logos on the unis…
#21 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:03 am |
Again, that’s equipment — like a fielder choosing a Rawlings glove instead of Wilson, or goalie choosing Reebok pads instead of Nike. Equipment is different than the uniform.
#22 by Eddie Jay on 12.20.07 10:04 am |
You know what also kinda bothers me? How on NFL Jerseys it is the NFL Equipment sheild at the neck, if there’s gonna be something there, it should JUST be the nfl sheild logo.
#23 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:04 am |
Um, go to any department store (Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Saks, Nordstrom, etc.) and look at all the dress shirts. The vast majority of them have no visible logo on the outside of the shirt, even if they’re made by big menswear designers like Jospeh Aboud, Ike Behar, Calvin Klein, etc.
#24 by jsdryden on 12.20.07 10:05 am |
Totally off topic, but in this article from NHL.com, I found this little tidbit.
“Players on both teams will be outfitted in retro team jerseys bearing “football-sized numbers,” for better viewing.”
http://www.nhl.com/n...
I hope it does not coming off cartoony…
#25 by Jeff B on 12.20.07 10:06 am |
How do you feel about conference/league logos? Do you mind a Big Ten logo say or an MLB logo?
#26 by Colin on 12.20.07 10:08 am |
I have to disagree with the Paul on the non-sneaker shoes to a point. I’m a teacher (currently on my prep hour, so don’t worry about wasted tax dollars)and I wear Dr. Martens to work. When I first started wearing them, kids would point them out because of the yellow string used to connect the sole to the leather upper. It would be hard to convice me that they do this to make a better product. It’s to single out thier product, just like a logo. I know this isn’s the case with all shoes, but I’m sure there are othe examples as well.
#27 by Steve on 12.20.07 10:08 am |
I am not looking forward to the day when NHL hockey, or any sport for that matter, looks like European Hockey
#28 by Robert on 12.20.07 10:08 am |
Wow, I just made it through the manifesto. Well done.
#29 by Charlie on 12.20.07 10:08 am |
Gotta love Women’s volleyball…
on a side note…what’s with the really scary black girl!?!
#30 by Jeff B on 12.20.07 10:09 am |
Also, I like the infinite regressions on that Browns helmet. It would almost be better if the helmet logo was the Browns blank helmet, ie our logo is our blank helmet
#31 by douglas on 12.20.07 10:10 am |
Very good article!! Excellent and truthful!!
I differ in the brand/customer conception as today, uniforms are designed for retail, not the game itself, wich brings lots of money and exposure to the teams. Removing the brands would therefore decrease the value and quality perception of the uniforms. I think if you check uni sales volume and quality before the Nike era (1990’s), that should prove my point.
As for corporate uniforms, I see a lot of cobranding (i.e Mc Donalds uni made by some famous clothing brands, or celeb fashion designer creating new unis for police or mailmen, etc…)
Another example of next step sponsorship : has anyone heard of 2002-2005 spanish powerhouse Atletico Madrid? They have worn a different jersey for each game, sponsored by a giant studio (warner or paramount I don’t remember) that advertised the blockbuster of the week. Interesting…
#32 by Robin on 12.20.07 10:11 am |
Looks like Pete Rose is the conductor for the Expos Railroad.
Oh, and Paul, the link to your book says used copies start at $.01!!!
We actually ARE paying a penny for your thoughts.
#33 by Jeff B on 12.20.07 10:11 am |
What’s with the photographer who probably told the one black girl on the team to look scary?
#34 by Jay on 12.20.07 10:12 am |
Been kinda waiting for this. Well said Paul.
No to turn back to the disasters that are my beloved Bengals…
#35 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:14 am |
And that is a huge part of the problem.
#36 by Tim on 12.20.07 10:18 am |
the “20″ on Clarence Weathers’s helmet was to honor Don Rogers who dies of a drug overdose during the offseason prior to 1986.
#37 by JoeS on 12.20.07 10:18 am |
Nice article, Paul. I agree on all your points in an ideal world, but in the actual world I am torn, as my girlfriend is an advertising copy writer and she is constantly trying to come up with new and creative ways of advertising. Though, she doesn’t call it “logo creep”, she calls it “alternative media”.
#38 by Tom Carlson on 12.20.07 10:18 am |
I am curious if the uniform companies prior to the era of logos on uniforms were in the business of producing consumer sportswear. Would you be able to walk into a clothing store in the 1950s and buy a Spaulding shirt that you intended to wear as a casual piece of clothing and not during an athletic endevour?
Would the relaxed standards of dress that we currently enjoy be a contributing factor to logo creep?
#39 by BuckeyeMark on 12.20.07 10:18 am |
I agree with about 105% of what was said but you need a better analogy than the car thing. many Dodge pick up trucks are now branded “Cummins Diesel.” Cummins makes engines (hardly optional equipment, pretty much mandatory in a car or truck) and somehow manages to get their logo on the truck.
so logo creep has reached the automotive world…
#40 by Jeff B on 12.20.07 10:18 am |
How do you respond to the idea, as you have mentioned before, that consumers get ‘advertising numb’ where they/we just don’t notice or respond to more ads, and adding more ads is ineffective, as we don’t see them? If we don’t respond to them, does it matter that they’re there? Maybe in this situation, a uniform without advertising stands out more than any ad ever will.
#41 by Mark N on 12.20.07 10:21 am |
I noticed that the 1973 Browns helmet on ebay has the newer clear hardware clips on it. I believe it should have the bigger grey clips.
#42 by FC on 12.20.07 10:21 am |
Logo creep rant = living in the past = only
appealing to an older generation.
Why make your website’s appeal narrower?
Then again, I’m the same guy who LOVES it when the ‘traditional’ stadium name gets replaced with the corporate name. (U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago)
#43 by Craig on 12.20.07 10:21 am |
I think people are forgetting the best arguement Paul made. That uniforms are the biggest bond we have with the team. When the evil Modell sold his soul to satan and moved the team, the fans of Cleveland flooded the NFL and all the owners’ faxes and emails demanding they do something. What did they do? They gave us an expansion team complete with colors, history and name that we grew up with. If they had gone with the Baltimore Browns and the Cleveland Dawgs, it wouldn’t have been the same. I dont have a bond with my shirt or sweater…I have a bond with that orange helmet and those brown jerseys. Reebok, Nike, Adidas et al are slapping their brand on our tradition and history. No one…not one single person, would buy a jersey simply because it has a swoosh or three stripes on it. We buy the team. Logos are unnecessary and intrusive. They add nothing and subract plenty from the value of the jersey. Let em slap that crap on ball caps, knit caps, coaches gear and sweatshirts. Lets leave the uniforms alone.
#44 by Jeremy Brahm on 12.20.07 10:23 am |
Having grown up in Oregon, with Nike based here, we always forget that Nike is a brand. When we see the University of Oregon here in this state, we tend to associated Nike and University of Oregon as one and the same, even though they are two separate brands.
This is where the controlling of a brand comes into play. Has Oregon given control of it’s sports branding to Nike, without a doubt, that is why we have the funky colors and designs.
But, when you look at the university, itself, it has to separate itself from the Nike brand entirely, because for the education portion of the school, Nike is not sponsoring the math department. (Just imagine the professor walking in an all lightning yellow suit with a big green swoosh) It would just look weird in a classroom setting.
With all of the stuff I send in on Japanese sports, many of the high schools and colleges do not have have athletic sponsors of any kind on their jersey. Only Waseda University, which has only recently acquired sponsorship from Adidas is the only major school with any athletic sponsorship. Most institutions still keep the logos off the field for athletes until they are professionals. It just is not as invasive there for the uniforms.
As for the professional baseball leagues, they have always had some sort of company sponsorship (company ownership), but have added small patches to the uniforms for additional sponsorship money. They are not big in size, but get the job done. Do I like seeing these ads, not necessarily.
Lastly, sumo wrestling in Japan has had sponsorship. It is always shown as the guys hold up signs before the big matches, but you will never see a sponsor on the belts. If I ever saw one, I would say that sumo’s days were numbered because there is not enough money to support the sport at that point.
#45 by anthony on 12.20.07 10:24 am |
Awesome article! As a creative director for a national marketing agency, you couldn’t have been more dead on about the role of manufacturer and brand logos in the culture of the sports world today.
#46 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:24 am |
In response to this brilliant analysis, I’d like to announce that this site will become a porno hub as of tomorrow. The appeal should be massive.
#47 by S. Bennett on 12.20.07 10:24 am |
PL wrote: “Elsewhere on the consumer landscape, your loyalty to a brand is at least somewhat dependant on the content and quality of that brand — it has to taste good, or function well, or whatever. If the content changes, your loyalty will probably change too (that’s what the Coke execs learned with the New Coke debacle). “
Coke claims it’s about taste, but it remains largely a branding issue Content is rarely an issue with branding. - “cool” is. In fact, branding is the attempt to substitute critical thinking skills about the product with images of how cool it is, and how cool you are by extension. Regardless of how crappy the product is, people will continue to buy. Brand loyalty, once established, is very difficult to break. In a solidly branded market, product product becomes immaterial (unless it REALLY fails to hold expectations - a recall or history of recalls, for example). The reason why Coke floundered with new Coke wasn’t about taste, it was about going against their own brand. After convincing people for almost 100 years that it was “the real thing” - telling people that it was an essential key to being part of Western pop culture - you can’t turn around and change what “real” is to them. You make them feel gullible and stupid, which is not a good idea. Especially when you’re casing in on gullibility and forfeiture of critical thinking skills (a.k.a. stupidity) to make profits.
Had they changed the formula and said nothing, they could have passed off the transition as people’s imaginations getting the best of them and nobody would have challenged otherwise. After a few weeks, the new flavour would “be” Coke, plain and simple. By making a big production about the shift, they basically tried to compete against their own brand and got beat down. Whoever hatched this idea at Coke clearly underestimated just how thoroughly branded they were.
PL:
“More to the point, look at any pre-1990 major-level sports photo. You won’t see any manufacturers’ logos there, either. Were Spalding, Wilson, and Rawlings all stupid for decades, and then they suddenly wised up in the 1990s?”
To play Devil’s Advocate, in a word, YES. Nike and Reebok blew the doors off of advertising budgets in the 1990s, not just in sports, but advertising, period. Adapt or die is the nature of the beast. As Louisville, you might hate slapping a scary huge logo on Ricky’ Henderson’s bats, but it’s a better better option than bankruptcy.
SB
#48 by dgc on 12.20.07 10:25 am |
Does it? Did anyone really wear replica jerseys until the ’90s? I don’t think it was a quality/value thing as much as it being unfashionable to wear a jersey at all.
#49 by The Ol Goaler on 12.20.07 10:27 am |
And the logos on the pants may only be a certain (fairly small) size.
Then there’s golf, where a certain player has created a “brand” of his own… (All the other guys wearing logos on their hats/visors/shirts are using that company’s equipment, so I guess that would fall into the “non-uniform” category.)
#50 by diz on 12.20.07 10:29 am |
looks like he told them all to look scary. and all but one of them failed.
#51 by Shaftman on 12.20.07 10:29 am |
True…and what about the Ford Explorer; “Eddie Bauer Edition” or the F150; “Harley Davidson Edition”. Not to mention all the times you see a dealers logo on a car that they sold.
#52 by Shane on 12.20.07 10:31 am |
Imagine how Sufjan Stevens’ album would’ve turned out if it actually was “American Express Presents Illinois”.
Heh. My logo-creep count today is 5. Four Converse/All-Star logos on the shoes and a Levis patch on the jeans.
#53 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:31 am |
Depends on the brand. Some brands aren’t about “cool”; they’re about integrity, stability, trust. There are different core values all across the consumer spectrum.
#54 by David on 12.20.07 10:32 am |
not to demean the ticker or anything, but that OSU-LSU article about both teams wearing home uniforms was the most useless piece i’ve ever read. i really hope someone didn’t get paid for writing that article. and if they did, where do i sign up?
#55 by Cullan on 12.20.07 10:32 am |
You had me at Makers Mark. Ummm…
#56 by Robin on 12.20.07 10:33 am |
I don’t get why someone would want a crappy corporate logo attached to their home stadium. It’s why I hope they never sell the naming rights to the Louisiana Superdome, I don’t care how much money is involved.
Same thing with the college bowls. WTF is the Chik-Fil-A Bowl??
#57 by ryan c #40 on 12.20.07 10:34 am |
“But if those two rosters were traded for each other today — straight up, 25 guys for 25 guys — who would I root for tomorrow?”
…hey, is any team out there willing to do that with the pirates?!?! please???
#58 by Jeff B on 12.20.07 10:34 am |
“…let’s say American Express offered to give the state of Illinois a huge sum of money targeted for the state’s school system — but in return, the AmEx logo would have to be printed on the statehouse dome, AmEx ads would have to be posted throughout state facilities, and the state itself would have to be renamed “American Express Presents Illinois.” Would that be a good idea? Not to me…”
While I agree with the almost sanctity of the uniform, I have written in the past for multiple venues that this would in fact be an excellent idea. I think corporate sponsorship, from a purely financial and marketing standpoint would be a good move on America’s part. I feel a higher quality education for more people is worth a few say Coke or McDonalds ads in a school, provided these sponsors only provide funding, not educational materials.
#59 by TBDRO on 12.20.07 10:36 am |
I’m 28. Am I part of the older generation?
#60 by Kevin M. on 12.20.07 10:36 am |
#61 by Bill on 12.20.07 10:37 am |
Well said Paul. Any discussion of logo creep always makes me think of NASCAR vehicles and how silly they look plastered with logos.
#62 by Robin on 12.20.07 10:38 am |
I agree here, I’m 26, and I’m not a fan of logo excessiveness.
#63 by JoeS on 12.20.07 10:41 am |
I’m not usually anal about stuff like this, but that was the first thing I did when I bought my car was remove the dealer sticker and dealer plate on the front. Mustang is the brand I’m loyal to, not the dealership.
#64 by Paul Lukas on 12.20.07 10:42 am |
That’s a whole different scene. I feel individual sports are different than team sports, because there are no team uniforms involved. And yes, I know there are NASCAR “teams,” but you know what I mean — it’s still an individual sport. Let’s please NOT turn this into a discussion on NASCAR or other individual sports — keep the discussion on team uniforms, please.
#65 by Kent Skor on 12.20.07 10:43 am |
I grew up in an era when there were no manufacturer’s logos on uniforms; many of you have grown up in an era when such logos are ubiquitous.
When I played Little League in the Bronx, the name of my team was “Daisy Cleaners”. The name was written right across the shirt. We played against teams like Zarro’s Bakery and B’nai B’rith. And this was back in 1966. So commercial involvement has always been there—just in different ways.
#66 by Eriq Jaffe on 12.20.07 10:43 am |
Here’s a bit of logo creep circa 1988. Of course, since I’m posting it, it’s a White Sox jersey:
Please note the “Rawlings” script on Dave LaPoint’s right sleeve.
#67 by TBDRO on 12.20.07 10:43 am |
Not to mention all the times you see a dealers logo on a car that they sold.
Yep, those either never go on (by my request) or come immediately off.
I’ll never forget the day I picked up my first car. Brought it home, pulled it in the garage and admired the beauty. Then I noticed the huge, white dealership decal they added to the back of the car while prepping it before I picked it up. My dad spent about an hour carefully removing the decal, and then proceeded to call the dealership and let them know that if they wanted to advertise on his son’s car they’d need to provide us with monetary compensation.
Whenever I’m in traffic, I can’t help but notice all of the decals and license plate covers with dealer names and logos.
#68 by Eriq Jaffe on 12.20.07 10:44 am |
Of course, there was also the Federal League’s Brooklyn Tip Tops, who were named after the Tip Top Bakery, which was owned by team owner Robert Ward.
#69 by Robert on 12.20.07 10:46 am |