Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WFT Branding Study (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DCF said:

There are simply two ends of this spectrum, those that want to move on entirely, and those that want to keep as much as possible. Some people hold value in those bits and pieces, and want them preserved be it through a name or other ways.


Specifically to these points, and I’ve said this before but we seem to have a lot of new people chiming in...I think the color scheme should never go.  We have been the burgundy and gold since the beginning and colors are just that...colors.  I question the sanity of anyone who insists the colors must also be changed.  Beyond that, all else should be retired with the name, to include the use of “Red” in the new name.  To me the use of “Red” in the new name is much more an allusion to Redskins than a W on the helmet and the name Warriors would be.  Especially if the organization clearly stated what the purpose and meaning is behind our use of Warriors.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UK Skins said:

 

I respect your views on this, and you make some great arguments, but the simple reason is that it feels as if we are trying to keep Redskins. You even said "keep the fight song". I know you personally relate to the species of wolf but the vast majority of WFT fans, and all the fans of other teams are going to see it as Washington Redskins in everything but (half a) name. Same song, same colours, same stadium, just Redwolves instead of Redskins. I'm sorry but I just can't buy in to that and would be really surprised if the League do too.

So if it's Warriors you are going to call them Red Warriors? That's a really odd thought.

St. John's University changed their name, but they kept Red in it when the Redmen became the Red Storm. It didn't make you still think of the NA aspect. I'm not saying Red Storm was a good choice. I'm just using it as an example. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dissident2 said:

So no, it's not just about, "Why don't we name the team after any endangered animal we can find?" I'm not pretending to be that environmentally minded. It has to be something that FITS with the legacy of the team first and foremost, and if you get that PLUS those bonuses of all the other things mentioned? That to me is just too obvious and incredible an opportunity to miss. Which is probably why the name, inevitably, won't be chosen, lol.

 

To make it not self defeating I'll change it to Goldwolves, which still wouldn't crack the top 1,000, because it's not red (which isn't even our color it just matches Redskin).

 

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. You like the name first and foremost because it ties back to Redskins, and the other stuff is all bonuses as you said. We agree that this name wouldn't be a thing if not for it having Red in front. So now it's just about how much the extra wolf stuff matters to you. My point is that it's hard to take any of the extra bonus stuff seriously as an argument for that name, when we all know that very clearly it's here because of Red, as you said first and foremost. Having Red in the name is why it's popular by a mile, so hearing other reasons about the actual wolf aren't bad, but they can easily come off as trying to explain away the real reason you want it (Red).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DCF said:

 

To make it not self defeating I'll change it to Goldwolves, which still wouldn't crack the top 1,000, because it's not red (which isn't even our color it just matches Redskin).

 

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. You like the name first and foremost because it ties back to Redskins, and the other stuff is all bonuses as you said. We agree that this name wouldn't be a thing if not for it having Red in front. So now it's just about how much the extra wolf stuff matters to you. My point is that it's hard to take any of the extra bonus stuff seriously as an argument for that name, when we all know that very clearly it's here because of Red, as you said first and foremost. Having Red in the name is why it's popular by a mile, so hearing other reasons about the actual wolf aren't bad, but they can easily come off as trying to explain away the real reason you want it (Red).

 

Lol, I literally started to write something about "Goldwolves," saying I would even consider that if it was a real thing, but that one just doesn't flow well enough for me. 

 

No, we are generally in agreement. The main thing I'd stress is that just because "Redwolves" is so close to "Redskins" and thus so much simpler and easier to accept for those who want to preserve as much of our tradition as possible does not at all negate the legitimate feelings one may have for the literal plight of the Red Wolf. I would be incredibly proud to see the team adopt a name that could actually help this animal, but I wouldn't pretend that its name had nothing to do with me wanting it at the outset. 

 

I can honestly say, though, that I have gone out and really researched this animal since learning of the name and truly fallen in love with it, as silly as that may sound. What I've learned has taken me from simply "preferring" Redwolves to being utterly and completely passionate about it. And the fact that the Red Wolf was once the area's "top predator" and has now become endangered fits so perfectly with the narrative of this team's decline over the last 25 years. We can build back the team right alongside the native population of this wolf. It is just SO much more powerful than simply "Wolves."

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Painkiller said:

but you make my point precisely.  The name Redwolves is on the table because it sounds like Redskins, or reminds people of Redskins.  If the team changed from Washington Caucasians...would Redwolves be the favored replacement?  Nope.

No, it wouldn't. If was Caucasians it would probably sound something like "caucasians." The problem is we're going from a name that we've used all of our lives--I don't imagine there are too many fans left that remember them as the Braves. So to ease that transition, people are going to identify something closer. I think Redwolves is a cool assed name--but the association makes it better.

As far as what does the nickname have to do with the city? How many nicknames have to do with their city: Giants? Panthers? Jaguars? Bengals? Bears? Lions? Titans? Falcons? Cardinals? Rams? Chargers? Raiders? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

No, we are generally in agreement. The main thing I'd stress is that just because "Redwolves" is so close to "Redskins" and thus so much simpler and easier to accept for those who want to preserve as much of our tradition as possible does not at all negate the legitimate feelings one may have for the literal plight of the Red Wolf. I would be incredibly proud to see the team adopt a name that could actually help this animal, but I wouldn't pretend that its name had nothing to do with me wanting it at the outset. 

 

It's like if everyone knew you loved this one red car, and now you were out looking for a new red one. Then you come home with a new red car, but then tell people part of the reason you chose a red one again is because they gave a little money to the homeless. That's not the real reason though, it's not even a reason, it's a feel good bonus. You just like red cars and everyone already knows that, so hearing this homeless stuff comes off as a little "eye-rolley".  You know what I mean? Do you feel good about helping the homeless? Yes! So you can't say it's a bad thing. Just like with helping this beautiful animal if it were the mascot. It's just not really something most people are going to buy as a significantly weighted reason as to why you like Redwolves when they know about Redskins. They know you like it primarily because it replaces Redskins and hearing charitable kind of stuff is kind of like trying to sell them on it being ok that you like it.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think the defense of Redwolves in part because of the Redwolf animal and its good PR, helps to counter and defend keeping Red in the name going forward with any baggage it may bring. That's not to take away from any desires to help or honor the animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

As far as what does the nickname have to do with the city? How many nicknames have to do with their city: Giants? Panthers? Jaguars? Bengals? Bears? Lions? Titans? Falcons? Cardinals? Rams? Chargers? Raiders? 

Yes, but they have repeatedly stated the name needs to speak to the DMV area.  The people who most support the team financially, and the area the team calls its home.  We are the Nations Capitol and we have a chance to represent this area in a way that has not been done before.  I covered why I think it’s more important to focus on Washington (DMV) over Redskins a few pages back.

1 minute ago, DCF said:

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think the defense of Redwolves in part because of the Redwolf animal and its good PR, helps to counter and defend keeping Red in the name going forward with any baggage it may bring. That's not to take away from any desires to help or honor the animal.


Your candor and clarity on this is refreshing.  Welcome to the cove, lol.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Yes, but they have repeatedly stated the name needs to speak to the DMV area.  The people who most support the team financially, and the area the team calls its home.  We are the Nations Capitol and we have a chance to represent this area in a way that has not been done before.

 

You can force a name that "represents" the area too--most of the names suggested in that area are incredibly lame (Monuments?)

 

I think with any name, there is going to be some pushback--but, with proper marketing, it'll sell. Except Football Team/Club. Those are dumb.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DCF said:

 

It's like if everyone knew you loved this one red car, and now you were out looking for a new red one. Then you come home with a new red car, but then tell people part of the reason you chose a red one again is because they gave a little money to the homeless. That's not the real reason though, it's not even a reason, it's a feel good bonus. You just like red cars and everyone already knows that, so hearing this homeless stuff comes off as a little "eye-rolley".  You know what I mean? Do you feel good about helping the homeless? Yes! So you can't say it's a bad thing. Just like with helping this beautiful animal if it were the mascot. It's just not really something most people are going to buy as a significantly weighted reason as to why you like Redwolves when they know about Redskins. They know you like it primarily because it replaces Redskins and hearing charitable kind of stuff is kind of like trying to sell them on it being ok that you like it.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think the defense of Redwolves in part because of the Redwolf animal and its good PR, helps to counter and defend keeping Red in the name going forward with any baggage it may bring. That's not to take away from any desires to help or honor the animal.

 

I'd use this metaphor. Let's say I love a very particular model of sports car and I'm going to buy that sports car no matter what, and someone says, "You can buy that car from Dealer A for $500 less than Dealer B. But if you buy it from Dealer B, they will make a $1,000 donation to a homeless shelter." Unless I'm really hurting financially, in which case I shouldn't be buying a new car to begin with, I'm going to go with Dealer B and feel good about it. 

 

I didn't set OUT to help the homeless, and if I start running around telling people I bought a car "to help the homeless," that would make me a real douchebag, as I was going to go with that car either way. But the fact is, it was great that I COULD help the homeless, and the opportunity to do that greatly influenced my choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there was an opportunity in the early 2010s for us to change to the Red Clouds and still leverage the incredibly respectful logo we had. Something similar to the arrangement the Seminole tribe has with Florida State. A partnership of sorts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can't shame a fan-base for choosing a name that brings the best of all worlds. Those just focusing on the "Red" of Redwolves are not seeing the big picture.

 

Some names:

 

-provide the opportunity for clear and new iconography, allowing for a fresh start

-let you respect and preserve NA connections in an acceptable way

-give you extremely familiar alliterations, that muscle memory has built over decades of fandom

-provide a real world impact, giving a chance to do serious good

-provide the opportunity to build added culture by intimately tethering your team to a noble pursuit with its name alone

-have already proven to pass the censor smell test, even in our exact situation

-utilize and underrepresented classification of mascots

-are simply more marketable than others

-allow for the easy continuation of fan favorite marketing devices and traditions (HTTR n fight song)

-capture the attention and imagination of the youth

-just sound BA as F

 

Nothing wrong with wanting everything. Fans see the opportunity to have all of the above with a new name, not just one or two.

 

Redwolves goes far beyond just the use of the word red. We were dealt a hand when it comes to forcibly changing our name and an opportunity is now available in a way where it almost feels like the stars themselves are aligning. It fits perfectly with the traditions we want to keep, the new identity we want to forge, and has even passed the censor test with other exact Redskins-to-Redwolves conversions. Goal #1 is name we won't have to change again. Consider that box checked

 

I haven't seen a name that checks as many boxes as Redwolves. The vast majority don't even come close. The only competition is Wolves itself, but that is obviously because the two are closely linked.

 

I'm not standing on a table for Redwolves just b/c it has red in the name. As I have stated before, I would be over the moon w/ just Wolves as well. Redwolves just gives a little bit more. It just scratches every itch your looking for in a team name. Why settle for just acceptable NA connections, or just familiar alliteration, or just new iconography when you can instead have everything on the menu, and feel amazing while doing so thanks to monumental real world impact.

 

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MetallicColossalAfricanclawedfrog-size_restricted.gif

 

 

When the salesmen asks you if you want Car A or Car B, and Car B comes with a option of making the world a better place, you are not a monster/condescending for choosing to do the most good. Your just taking the first step in re-building our legacy, and forging a strong culture that will last.

 

Edited by FootballZombie
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

I didn't set OUT to help the redwolves, and if I start running around telling people I chose this name "to help the redwolves" that would make me a real douchebag, as I was going to go with that name either way. But the fact is, it was great that I COULD help the redwolves, and the opportunity to do that greatly influenced my choice. 

 

It only greatly influenced your choice to pick one of the same thing over the other though. That's what I mean, there are 2 different things at play.

  • You can justifiably feel good about helping Redwolves, even if it has it's origins and most of its weight behind a parallel coinciding choice
  • There are negative connotations with trying to use too much of the Redwolf animal history as a way to convince people as to why you chose it,  when everyone knows why you were buying that car either way (as you explained with your douchebag example).

I'm curious, do you think you might also like the Redwolf history and feel good story, because it helps counter the negative weight behind keeping "Red" in the name?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like WFT because it satisfies both camps. It doesn't have "red" in it so it's a clean break from the old name. But it maintains the colors and doesn't introduce a new mascot so there is still a tie to the past. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

When the salesmen asks you if you want Car A or Car B, and Car B comes with a option of making the world a better place, you are not a monster/condescending for choosing to do the most good. Your just taking the first step in re-building our legacy, and forging a strong culture that will last.

 

That's a purposeful misrepresentation of my example to fit this narrative that I'm somehow shaming anyone that wants to help animals. It's a tactic I've seen used over and over with anyone that goes against Redwolves, and honestly it's one reason Redwolves works as a counter to anyone that brings the Redskins association to it negatively. Part of its appeal to some, is the fact you can take part of Redskins with you, and if anyone comes at you then you can throw endangered animal back at them.

 

For the record I don't even hate Redwolves. I will root for the Redwolves happily, and buy my son gear, and howl with him. It would be great. I would prefer Wolves, but I will live with Redwolves. I am ready to move on from red anything, though I understand some people are not, and that's a compromise I'd have to make. My argument is against the reasoning, I don't like playing up the endangered/storied animal aspect as a reason for choosing it, because it just comes off as so fake to me when its got Red in its name. We know why it's in contention, most don't even know about the actual wolf. 

 

My enemy is the WFT, which I fully believe will be the name of this team due to Snyder. I'll work with all of the names besides that absolutely atrocious one.

12 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

I like WFT because it satisfies both camps. It doesn't have "red" in it so it's a clean break from the old name. But it maintains the colors and doesn't introduce a new mascot so there is still a tie to the past. 

It absolutely does not satisfy both camps. It satisfies literally one camp, the ones that like WFT. Not even all the people that want as much tradition as possible want that name to stay. It's the farthest thing from a clean break, it's a forever placeholder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DCF said:

 

It only greatly influenced your choice to pick one of the same thing over the other though. That's what I mean, there are 2 different things at play.

  • You can justifiably feel good about helping Redwolves, even if it has it's origins and most of its weight behind a parallel coinciding choice
  • There are negative connotations with trying to use too much of the Redwolf animal history as a way to convince people as to why you chose it,  when everyone knows why you were buying that car either way (as you explained with your douchebag example).

I'm curious, do you think you might also like the Redwolf history and feel good story, because it helps counter the negative weight behind keeping "Red" in the name?

 

Negative to who? A small, vocal minority? It’s time we stop caring about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, DCF said:

[Quote about WFT satisfying both camps]

 

It absolutely does not satisfy both camps. It satisfies literally one camp, the ones that like WFT. Not even all the people that want as much tradition as possible want that name to stay. It's the farthest thing from a clean break, it's a forever placeholder.

 

Maybe "satisfies" is the wrong word. It's a compromise. As you say, it is neither a full clean break, nor does it maintain the entire tradition. It is a middle ground solution. I like it for that reason. I also really like the idea of no new mascot.

Edited by Stadium-Armory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #httr1979 said:

Negative to who? A small, vocal minority? It’s time we stop caring about that.

 

Speak for yourself, there is no "we" here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DCF said:

 

Speak for yourself, there is no "we" here.

Just wrong. You’re in the minority where as we all recognize this name change was not done altruisticly. It was forced by corporations who should’ve been sued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

Negative to who? A small, vocal minority? It’s time we stop caring about that.

 

This was always about appeasing sponsors $$$$.

 

And everybody else is left trying to make the best out of a tough situation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stadium-Armory said:

 

Maybe "satisfies" is the wrong word. Its' a compromise. As you say, it is neither a full clean break, nor does it maintain the entire tradition. It is a middle ground solution. I like it for that reason.

I've already expressed why I think it's the least compromising, and most utterly defiant choice you could make with this name. It is a question mark for as long as it lives: "Why is that team just called football team?". The answer, is because people found the name offensive and the owner refused to change it to anything else after. It doesn't even tie us to Redskins, it ties us to this period in time where they took it from us and then left us in limbo. It's a jab and a middle finger back at those that told the team to change it, which might make some of this generation feel good, but then saddles every one after it with some grudge of a name that's not even really a name. That's just putting aside how insanely dumb and embarrassing I think it sounds to call us "Football Team".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

Just wrong. You’re in the minority where as we all recognize this name change was not done altruisticly. It was forced by corporations who should’ve been sued.

 

Yeah not wasting my time rehashing all of this. There is no "we". I liked it, but it's gone. Time to move on, you're not getting the name back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

DCF said:

I've already expressed why I think it's the least compromising, and most utterly defiant choice you could make with this name. It is a question mark for as long as it lives: "Why is that team just called football team?". The answer, is because people found the name offensive and the owner refused to change it to anything else after. It doesn't even tie us to Redskins, it ties us to this period in time where they took it from us and then left us in limbo. It's a jab and a middle finger back at those that told the team to change it, which might make some of this generation feel good, but then saddles every one after it with some grudge of a name that's not even really a name. That's just putting aside how insanely dumb and embarrassing I think it sounds to call us "Football Team".

 

Fair enough. I like it. I like not having a new mascot. I like maintaining the colors. I like its unique nature.

Edited by Stadium-Armory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the big question is what are we trying to preserve with the Red in Redwolves? The subtle respect to Native American culture or the Red itself?
And as many people said, they never knew the Red Wolf existed before our name change. 

And honestly, first impression is important.

People see the team name Wolves, they know exactly what that is. And putting Wolves next to Redskins looks like a smooth transition.
People see Redwolves, they think the Red is crammed into that wolves name.  Next to Redskins, Redwolves looks like every college trying to maintain just the Red part.
People see Warriors (Golden State aside), they are confused as to what KIND of warrior, even more if it becomes an abstract meaning. Next to Redskins, it looks like an incomplete idea.

Even if we bring awareness about the Red Wolf (which we can still do if we were named the Wolves),  it still won't be the first thing people think about when they see Redwolves. And with our decades long controversy, it will always look like we were trying to be sneaky with our name change.

At least with Wolves, we have alliteration, a new marketing direction, and a subtle nod to our Redskins past that doesn't get shoved in people's faces. And our nod lies in what we have been claiming all long, respect in the NA culture, not because of the Red part. We can let Washington give the name Wolves more character.

This name change process has been a real balance act. Trying to find a name that satisfies many factors and also figuring out how much of our past we can preserve without looking like we are creating another controversy.
What it seems is that we cannot preserve everything from our Redskins past, but only keeping the team colors is not enough preservation.


Unlike Wizards, the Wolves has a connection to our past that is there for those who want to look for it.
And for those who don't want a mascot, a Wolves mascot, named Rufus Latin for Red), can be as underused as the eagle mascots for Nats and Caps. Not entirely necessary, but it's there.
 

Edited by DCdangerous
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, DCF said:

That's a purposeful misrepresentation of my example to fit this narrative that I'm somehow shaming anyone that wants to help animals

 

 

Its a simplification, and in no way disparages those who want to go with option A, just clarifies someone does not acquire condescending traits for wanting option B, which your example heavily implied. Your example was a textbook case of shaming anyone who wanted option B

 

"That's not the real reason though, it's not even a reason, it's a feel good bonus. You just like red cars and everyone already knows that, so hearing this homeless stuff comes off as a little "eye-rolley"."

 

If part of the reason people like Redwolves is b/c it helps a species in a big way more power to em.

If people like it b/c it keeps familiar alliteration, is that some kind of crime? Let em be

If some people are really attached to HTTR and the fight song, why would they not want to persevere it.

If having Red in the name helps some people feel more connected to their past, and it does not offend anyone (Redwolves has passed the censor test) who does it hurt?

 

or maybe people like all those reasons and more.

 

Many of us don't need to act like we are hiding behind an endangered animal to use the name Redwolves. There are a metric ton of other reasons to justify the name, your just focusing on one and acting like we will use it as a shield to justify the use of "Red" like we are lying to ourselves and everyone around us. 

 

I would absolutely love to use a name that helps save a species

I would also be ecstatic with a name that preserves our history and traditions in an acceptable way

I can have a name that lets me do both. Pretty easy to see why someone in my position would like it.

 

 

Many of us have a multitude of reasons to get behind Redwolves and to boil it down to hide behind the endangered doggos is in itself a purposeful misrepresentation

 

Edited by FootballZombie
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mbws said:

The Bullets were originally named after a train. 

 

didn't stop people from the stupid association to DC gun violence.  

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...