Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WFT Branding Study (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

There was definitely more than one. And I remember the first one early in the video being amazingly prominent, like a single guy with a towel taking up half the screen.

There was also stock footage of past large crowds with people holding up HTTR scrolls. Off the top of my head that makes at least two, with multiple scrolls being in sight on the crowd scene

 

After watching the five minute video again ( I guess we're talking about the same one ), I do see the first one you're talking about. And the reason they are showing that at that point - early on in the video - is because they are still talking about the " Redskins " name being retired before starting to talk about " making the ( new ) brand ", in the second part of the video.

 

And of course they are going to show large crowds from 2019 and before. What else would they do ? Show the massive crowds from last season?

That was done to show a full stadium of excited fans. Not to make " HTTR " prominent in the video. Which it isn't.

 

 

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

The idea is not to sell t-shirts. They don't make money off of unofficial merch after all.

 

And I wasn't talking about unofficial merchandise.

 

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

And of course they are going to show large crowds from 2019 and before. What else would they do ? Show the massive crowds from last season?

 

They were perfectly fine showing a bunch of clips of 2020 displaying the limited size crowds throughout the video. If their intent was to eliminate HTTR from being seen, they could have easily continued to show those.

 

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

And I wasn't talking about unofficial merchandise.

 

Can't exactly go to the team website and buy the Wolf and Warrior gear you referenced. Their goal is not to sell you merch.

 

Not yet anyway. Still a year away from that

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

They were perfectly fine showing a bunch of clips of 2020 displaying the limited size crowds throughout the video. If their intent was to eliminate HTTR from being seen, they could have easily continued to show those

 

Yes, there are those shots too, but the point is " HTTR " is not a regular occurrence in the video. Not even close.

 

42 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Can't exactly go to the team website and buy the Wolf and Warrior gear you referenced. Their goal is not to sell you merch.

 

Not yet anyway. Still a year away from that

 

And again, I'm not talking about any merchandise that's available right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Football Zombie @Dissident2

 

I have read both your arguments repeatedly, and you have read mine as well.

 

Put simply, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking on why Warriors can't be chosen.  I simply can't, because if I do I will have lost faith completely in common sense and rational thinking.  Society cannot continue on this path.  There must be room for reasonable objective thought, logic, subtlety, nuance, and gray area.

Edited by Painkiller
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Painkiller said:

I have read both your arguments repeatedly, and you have read mine as well.

 

Its all good

 

I honestly don't think we are all that far apart in the grand scheme.

 

 

I don't think there is anyone on this board that thinks we can get away with calling ourselves the Indian Oceans, with a tidal wave for a logo. I believe everyone knows we'd get absolutely pimp slapped for trying and would have to re-name our team all over again.

 

Its an extreme example, but acknowledgment of this means we all agree there is some kind of spectrum that exists that makes some names/ideas off limits even if they do not include any kind of NA branding. Where we disagree is where certain names and concepts fall on that specific spectrum.

 

 

Everyone has different experiences in life, so what one person really strongly correlates with a word or topic another may not, or at least to the same extent.

 

Redskins itself is a perfect example. Most of us around here grew up Redskins fans, and saw nothing but valor and respect attached to the name. Loved it enough to defend its honor in legendary bar brawls that are never to be spoken of.

 

There are other people, with different life experiences, who saw it the exact opposite however. It was insulting and degrading.

 

It makes sense that we would all see individual topics in different areas on a spectrum. We are not all clones of each other.

 

 

 

 

Unless everyone wants to suddenly agree with me, in which case I have to let it be known that you guys are all the clones and I am the original.

 

Edited by FootballZombie
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Painkiller said:

@Football Zombie @Dissident2

 

I have read both your arguments repeatedly, and you have read mine as well.

 

Put simply, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking on why Warriors can't be chosen.  I simply can't, because if I do I will have lost faith completely in common sense and rational thinking.  Society cannot continue on this path.  There must be room for reasonable objective thought, logic, subtlety, nuance, and gray area.

 

I agree with a lot of that. Let me stress, however, that I think the main backlash by far they'd get from NAs would be if they changed the name to "Warriors" and stuck with the "W" or just a very nondescript logo. I think that is 100 percent off the table at this point. If they did that, it would be very easy for those groups to say that we're still referencing NAs, no matter what we'd say publicly, and we'd be pretty much right back where we started on some level. 

 

Now, if they changed it to "Warriors" but came up with a knight or a Spartan or whatever, I think they'd get MUCH less push back from the NA community (although they'd still get some) and could theoretically get away with doing that. However, I honestly don't think they will choose this option, and I don't think it's appealing to them at all, nor to most of the fan base to change our entire brand that drastically. Plus, I really do think the Golden State issue is a detriment, even if GS is open to "sharing." Besides, Snyder apparently let that trademark lapse not too long ago. Don't think he'd have done that if he was still interested in that name. I just think that, without the NA attachment, "Warriors" is far, far less interesting to the owner, and probably to the fan base as well.

 

There are other options that would allow them to keep the NA ties in a way that would be pretty much protest-proof and that wouldn't force us to change our entire identity in a very drastic way. I think that's what the team ultimately wants in a new name. I think that's what the fan base ultimately wants in a new name. Yes, there are some who want the colors changed and EVERYTHING changed. I get the logic of that sentiment, but I don't think that's what will ultimately happen, nor do I think it's what most fans want.

 

As I've said before, if Snyder had any foresight, he could've changed the name to "Warriors" ten years ago and kept just about everything else. We'd still probably be getting flak for it, but it would be a lot less than the flak that came from decades of "Redskins," and it would be a level of flak that the team could probably withstand. It's way too late for that now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

There are other options that would allow them to keep the NA ties in a way that would be pretty much protest-proof and that wouldn't force us to change our entire identity in a very drastic way. I think that's what the team ultimately wants in a new name

 

I'm starting to think this at least a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Painkiller said:

Society cannot continue on this path.

Sing it with me...

 

Livin' easy
Lovin' free
Season ticket on a one way ride
Askin' nothin'
Leave me be
Takin' everythin' in my stride
Don't need reason
Don't need rhyme
Ain't nothin' that I'd rather do
Goin' down
Party time
My friends are gonna be there too
I'm on the highway to hell
On the highway to hell
Highway to hell
I'm on the highway to hell
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm starting to think this at least a possibility.

 

I would love for this to be the case as well.  I just don't want cheese.  To me a name with a color is for college and below.  I know some other professional teams have done this, but I don't think it works at this level, because it would make us an outlier in the NFL.  As I stated several pages back, one of the ways I try to look at this is with how a name sounds when used in conjunction with the other team names in the NFL.  I like Warriors because of alliteration and the symbolism that could be used.  I also like Wolves for the same thing.  Sentinels, Sentries, as well.  For me, Wolves conveys more strength than Redwolves does.      

 

"The Washington Warriors travel to Dallas to play the Cowboys on Sunday."  "The Washington Wolves head to Detroit on Monday night to face the Lions."  "The Giants head to Fed Ex Field on Saturday to face the Wolves in Washington.  "The Sentries take on the 49'ers this week."  

 

Redwolves, or any name with Red for that matter just doesn't feel right to me when compared that way.  Honestly, I haven't seen one Redwolves design that really sets me off either, which is a big part of the problem.  To me with respect to the designers they all look soft.  They don't convey that level of aggression that I want to see.  Now, the featured Wolves design by Daniel Hopkins is the only one that seems to capture what I want to see in a logo.

 

If the team eventually unveils something that looks like this...I would be ecstatic.      Fan Submission -"Wolves" by Daniel Hopkins - Washington Journey          

 

Daniel-Hopkins-1.png

Edited by Painkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another point to consider, is look at all the NFL logos side by side.  Note all the logos that aren't simply a symbol, like the Puke's Star or the Saint's Fleur-de-lis.  They all convey (even the birds) a certain kind of menace and aggressiveness.    

 

 

Logos.png

Edited by Painkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just for fun, I sorted the types of names and logos in the NFL...  

 

5 Birds - Ravens, Seahawks, Cardinals, Eagles, Falcons.

10 Animals - Bengals, Bills(Buffalo), Dolphins, Colts, Jaguars, Broncos, Bears, Lions, Panthers, and Rams

12 People - Browns, Steelers, Patriots, Texans, Chiefs, Raiders, Packers, Vikings, Cowboys, Washington, 49'ers, and Buccaneers

5 Myths/Objects/Symbols - Titans, Jets, Saints, Giants, Chargers

 

What precisely does this mean to the conversation at hand...I'm not sure, lol.  I had fun sorting them though. 

 

I will say that the group representing people, whether historic or not is the largest.  "Random ass" animals are the next largest. "Random ass" birds are the smallest.

 

😄  

Edited by Painkiller
One posted twice
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

There are other options that would allow them to keep the NA ties in a way that would be pretty much protest-proof and that wouldn't force us to change our entire identity in a very drastic way. I think that's what the team ultimately wants in a new name. I think that's what the fan base ultimately wants in a new name. Yes, there are some who want the colors changed and EVERYTHING changed. I get the logic of that sentiment, but I don't think that's what will ultimately happen, nor do I think it's what most fans want.

 

This is the heart of it all, and I think it is much more about what Snyder wants for a name than what most fans do. I continue to be shocked at how that factor is significantly downplayed as many get excited about Wolves and Warrior Spartans. I totally disagree with the money making marketability aspect swaying him away from something with deep ties to the original name. I think much of this divide over how much to change the name and what it represents, actually roughly falls across generational and political lines which is why this is so tough for them. One very large group is going to be displeased. 

 

Snyder is going to absolutely preserve as much as possible, and do everything he can to make people remember Redskins. There's a big enough chunk that back him on it that it's not just his voice, or him standing on a table alone, and it cuts into the "make more money with a more marketable brand" argument.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that Painkiller. One other conclusion that can be drawn from your analysis is how many of those logos are abstract. Maybe we are focussing too much on the logo being a wolf or a warrior or whatever?

 

Even just taking the animals - Bears, Bengals, Colts (kind of), and Rams aren't actually logos of those animals. Curiously all five birds are though.

 

(This is fun!!)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

 

Shouldn't birds be lumped in with animals?

 

Birds are very well represented across numerous sports. Grossly over represented. Cats n Bovines are pretty populous as well

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Painkiller said:

5 Birds - Ravens, Seahawks, Cardinals, Eagles, Falcons.

10 Animals - Bengals, Bills(Buffalo), Dolphins, Colts, Jaguars, Broncos, Bears, Lions, Panthers, and Rams

12 People - Browns, Steelers, Patriots, Texans, Chiefs, Raiders, Packers, Vikings, Cowboys, Washington, 49'ers, and Buccaneers

5 Myths/Objects/Symbols - Titans, Jets, Saints, Giants, Chargers

I still feel the people group is the best, with the Pats, Vikings and Redskins (not W) sticking out the most.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DCF said:

I think much of this divide over how much to change the name and what it represents, actually roughly falls across generational and political lines which is why this is so tough for them. One very large group is going to be displeased. 

 

The name issue was made a political one, which is why it's so hard to keep that aspect out of this debate.  Political and social concerns are at the heart of this whole thing, but like @Football Zombie said earlier...we all disagree on what would be acceptable or not in this rebrand.  I'm turning 46 in a couple of weeks.  I have dedicated a huge portion of my identity and fortune into being a Washington Redskins fan.  Now that identity is gone, and I worry about what replaces that brand.  Will I be able to connect on the same level again?    

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Shouldn't birds be lumped in with animals?

 

Birds are very well represented across numerous sports. Grossly over represented. Cats n Bovines are pretty populous as well

 

For the sake of argument, if you do that you have 15 Animal Mascots, and 17 People/Objects/Myths, Symbols (or not Animals)

Edited by Painkiller
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

The name issue was made a political one, which is why it's so hard to keep that aspect out of this debate.  Political and social concerns are at the heart of this whole thing, but like @Football Zombie said earlier...we all disagree on what would be acceptable or not in this rebrand.  I'm turning 46 in a couple of weeks.  I have dedicated a huge portion of my identity and fortune into being a Washington Redskins fan.  Now that identity is gone, and I worry about what replaces that brand.  Will I be able to connect on the same level again?    

 I've thought about this as well, and I think I'll be able to connect again with almost anything as long as I find the origin of that name to be from honest beginnings. I don't find Washington Football Team to be that, I would resent it forever in a way that would give me such cognitive dissonance over the team I'd probably just step away from it all. There is only one thing that can keep me from connecting to this team, and that's it. I also think eventually the league wouldn't be ok with WFT, it's so obvious what it represents (Redskins placeholder). I have a lot of passed down Redskins gear from my deceased Dad, and much of it now sits in a box because I don't feel comfortable putting it out (that's my choice, others are fine with putting it up and that's ok too). Regardless, I'm not raising my kid under a brand so he can forever be teased about it being an offensive placeholder, until the 2050 version of the NFL bans that name too for it's clear intention to keep Redskins alive.

 

Edit: I realize the NFL didn't actually ban the name, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't in the future under a new commissioner and younger generation of owners with a new consensus, or that 2050 advertisers wouldn't force the name to change too if it met enough backlash for it's clear intentional use (which would never leave it).

Edited by DCF
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stoshuaj said:

No red please, the color is burgundy.

No yellow either, the color is gold.

 

Thanks in advance.

Great point that has been lost in this also.  We were never Red with the color, it’s always been burgundy. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stoshuaj said:

No red please, the color is burgundy.

No yellow either, the color is gold.

 

Thanks in advance.

I never thought about this, but it's true. Our colors are burgundy and gold. The only thing actually associated with us that has to do with "red", is the name itself that became too offensive to use. It's WFT light and we would be better served to think about the longevity of a brand that's even borderline offensive. Because borderline offensive today, could mean very offensive in a few decades. I can see them forcing us to drop the "Red" in 30 years too, just for its clear ties to the past (even with the endangered wolf species we tried to link it with). On the flip side of this, if someone can talk Dan into having Redskins preserved through Redwolves over WFT, where we at least have a new wolf brand identity to carry, I think it would be a way to appease both sides of this thing, where as they say with negotiating nobody leaves happy, but they leave satisfied.

 

Alternatively I think it would be better to name the team the Washington Wolves and then have an unofficial or official fan group called "the Redwolves". Almost like a Raiders "black hole" kind of situation, where you can call yourself a redwolf and it means something, but the team brand itself is a more generic Wolf. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, DCF said:

 I've thought about this as well, and I think I'll be able to connect again with almost anything as long as I find the origin of that name to be from honest beginnings. 

 

That NA connection to the team is just incredibly strong for me, and I personally really need to have some sort of avenue to preserve that, or it will be very, very tough. I know a lot of people couldn't care less about that kind of thing, but it's why I switched from the Baltimore Colts as a little boy, because I was obsessed with NA culture, and this was clearly the team for me.

 

I've felt the "Redskins" name should've been changed for some time. I was always under the impression that the imagery would remain with a better name. Once I realized that wasn't happening, that was a bit of a gut punch. I was able to connect with the WFT a lot more than I thought I would, probably because it WAS so generic while preserving the colors, etc. If we went with something like a knight or a Spartan, that would be like the death blow for me as far as maintaining those NA connections that resonate so strongly with me and always have.

 

This is one of the main reasons I'm so into the "Redwolves" idea. It's a way to preserve those NA ties in a subtle, non-disparaging way. I could deal with "Wolves," too. I just think "Redwolves" is superior for many reasons that have already been beaten to death.

 

What I truly can't wrap my head around is how anyone can be truly excited by "Wolves" but absolutely HATE "Redwolves." I just can't understand that tremendous swing based solely on the word "red."

 

The only way this makes sense to me is if someone doesn't realize that "Redwolves" are real animals and that we're just tagging "Red" onto "wolves" for no good reason. If that was the case, I'd be 100-percent on board with the idiocy of that idea. We all know that isn't the case. 

 

I mean, while I'd truly prefer "Redwolves" for so many reasons, if they choose "Wolves," that wouldn't send me to the opposite end of the spectrum like it seems it would for others if the opposite scenario occurred. Again, I just don't get it. You have something that enables you to preserve a two-syllable name, preserve "Red" in the name in a way that's far from forced and makes absolute sense, preserve the fight song with minimal changes, use the name for a great environmental cause (and no, I don't believe you'd be able to do that with "Wolves" in anywhere near the same way), etc. It's so much more unique and specific than "Wolves." I mean, there's a reason Minnesota went with "Timberwolves" and not just "wolves." That specificity gives the fan base even more of a sense of ownership. 

 

Redwolves gives me a 10 on the feels scale. Wolves probably a 6. I seriously can't grasp how "Wolves" can be a 10 for others while Redwolves takes them down to a 0. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dissident2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it now for those that keep balking at 'redwolves' but think wolves is okay.  Many of us will find ourselves slipping the word red before wolves simply because of habbit.   If you think you are getting rid of the red by not including it in the name, I seriously disagree with that idea, you underestimate how much the previous name was cherished by many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...