Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WFT Branding Study (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

Change it from Red traffic light to traffic light with dark shading. I mean, if they don’t change it from red light it will remind me too much of Redskins. And we just can’t have that in our Brave New World. It’s okay to say brave or is that wrongspeak?

I don’t think you can say brave or Warrior because some native Americans might get upset

1 minute ago, redskin301 said:

 

Edited by redskin301
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

My somewhat contradictory experience has been... 

 

1. Calling something a lazy copout is itself a lazy copout.

2. Lazy copouts aren’t necessarily bad things if they produce good results.

3. Intentionally spitting into the wind, on a dare, is both a test of manhood and insecurity.

 

 

You're a lazy cop out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Sounds like a test in stupidity to me.

 

Look, there's four things you gotta know:

 

1. You don't tug on Superman's cape.

2. You don't spit into the wind.

3. You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger.

4. You don't mess around with Jim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Never get less than 12 hours sleep.

2. Never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

3. Never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mbws said:

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. 

Valid point, I don't think anyone gave st John's grief for keeping red in the name and reminding ppl of the old offensive name.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I go to sleep for a few hours, come back and there are two more pages of posts.  Awesome, lol.  

 

Something else I've been thinking about is that I continuously hear from some in this thread that Warriors without a specific Warrior featured in the logo is confusing.  Really?  Are people really "confused" by an ambiguous use of that name?  I also hear that Golden State is eventually going to be forced to change their name.  Really?  Why?  I can't find anything substantial to show that Warriors presents a problem for people other than Carmelo Anthony's tweet from last July indicating that it was a problem.  A google search has turned up nothing.  Also, on their Wikipedia page unlike ours there is no mention of a "Golden State Warriors Name Controversy" Only a tidbit about them possibly changing from Golden State Warriors back to San Francisco Warriors in 2015.

 

Golden State Warriors - Wikipedia

 

"In April 2014, the Warriors began the purchase process for a 12-acre (4.9 ha) site in Mission Bay, San Francisco, to hold a new 18,000-seat arena, which was expected to be ready beginning with the 2019–20 NBA season.  The location was selected after an original proposal to construct the arena on Piers 30 and 32, just south of the Bay Bridge, met with vocal opposition due to concerns about traffic, environmental impacts and obstruction of views.  The new location, which still faced some vocal opposition in San Francisco, eliminated the need for voter approval as required with the original site.  The move also elicited criticism due to the perceived alienation of a loyal fanbase in Oakland.  The sale was finalized in October 2015 and naming rights were sold to JPMorgan Chase for the arena to be called the Chase Center.  Although the Warriors considered a name change, possibly returning to their former name of San Francisco Warriors, it was ultimately decided that they would remain the Golden State Warriors upon their return to San Francisco."

 

"The Warriors have utilized several different logos and uniform designs throughout their history, with the most recent redesign occurring in 2010.  However, on June 12, 2019, the Warriors unveiled subtle adjustments to their primary logo, including a new custom font.  The club then unveiled six new uniform designs using the newly updated logo on September 17, 2019."

 

If you don't like the name Warriors because it's "generic" or you like something else better...fine, but I don't think there is any real validity to the argument that there is nothing on the Earth or in Heaven that would make them pick this name, because Warriors with an ambiguous logo would still be seen by some as synonymous with Redskins.   

 

Seems like their logo and this Washington Warriors concept logo from 2014 are pretty much doing the same thing.  They picked a landmark(s) from the place they call their home and made it their logo.  What's confusing?

 

Edit: You could even make an obvious argument that this Washington Warriors logo if used would be far less ambiguous than theirs, and is therefore an even more appropriate use of that nickname.

 

GS Warriors.png

Washington Warriors.jpg

Edited by Painkiller
couple corrections
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

2. Never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

 

Also...

1.) You've got to know when to hold them. 

2.) Know when to fold them. 

3.) Know when to walk away. 

4.) Know when to run. 

5.) Never count your money, while you're sitting at the table. 

6.) Count your money when the dealing is done and you have some time.

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

but I don't think there is any real validity to the argument that there is nothing on the Earth or in Heaven that would make them pick this name, because Warriors with an ambiguous logo would still be seen by some as synonymous with Redskins.   

 

Its not hard to find. You don't have to look very far. First page of google stuff.

 

 

Other programs have been forced to change their names from Warriors in the past. I'm pretty sure Marquette University used to be the Warriors but had to change. I think Syracuse University had the same issue as well.

 

They talked about this very topic on The Team 980 last month. There was a lot of issues presented due to racial undertones: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/russell-warriors-name-a-losing-fight-for-washington-football/ar-BB1fJwPr

 

There are articles by a USA today columnist and in SI that labeled it unusable for us as well for similar reasons.

 

Examples are numerous, and easy to find.

 

 

 

As for the GS Warriors, we know they faced pressure b/c they changed their imagery. We know they continue to face pressure b/c prominent people call for their change. Its not the kind of pressure we face for sure, but it is still there.

 

 

 

We have been associating with NA imagery for decades, and it would be very reasonable to think that some people will see the adoption of the name warriors akin to naming Washington the Braves or the Tribe, both of which would be obviously a no-go from a social standpoint due to it being view as virtual non-action and a slap in the face.

 

While the argument about how big the blowback will be is debatable, and whether that could create enough pressure to force another name change, there is little doubt that the rebuff would be substantial. Faced with such a prospect, there should not be a businessman or branding manager on the planet that can hit the Washington Warriors name button and 100% guarantee it will not go Chernobyl.

 

In that sense, the debate changes. It does not matter if you would face enough pressure to withdraw the name, just the knowledge that you will face large amounts of fallout is enough. It makes the names utilization beyond inception and reveal far from guaranteed. If you are not 99.99% positive a name will not get mowed down, there is virtually no chance it can be utilized in our case. Too much money on the line and no one will risk billions of dollars like that. Not when names that are virtually assured to pass the smell test are out there for the taking.

 

Smart logos would help change the focus a lot, but even that is likely not enough in this case. It will never be a sure enough bet to be a viable name for a billion dollar franchise that just had to drop its previous name w/ native American imagery.

 

If a new team goes with the Warriors w/ non-descript imagery, it will pass w/ no problem. We would have to walk through a mine field to use it, and there is no guarantee you make it to the other side. Nobody with influence is signing up for that.

Edited by FootballZombie
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Its not hard to find. You don't have to look very far. First page of google stuff.

 

Other programs have been forced to change their names from Warriors in the past. I'm pretty sure Marquette University used to be the Warriors but had to change. I think Syracuse University had the same issue as well.

 

The consensus was that it was unusable due to racial undertones:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/russell-warriors-name-a-losing-fight-for-washington-football/ar-BB1fJwPr

There are articles by a USA today columnist and in SI that labeled it unusable for us as well for similar reasons.

 

Examples are numerous, and easy to find.

 

As for the GS Warriors, we know they faced pressure b/c they changed their imagery. We know they continue to face pressure b/c prominent people call for their change. Its not the kind of pressure we face for sure, but it is still there.

 

While the argument about how big the blowback will be is debatable, and whether that could create enough pressure to force another name change, there is little doubt that the rebuff would be substantial. Faced with such a prospect, there should not be a businessman or branding manager on the planet that can hit the Washington Warriors name button and 100% guarantee it will not go Chernobyl.

 

In that sense, the debate changes. It does not matter if you would face enough pressure to withdraw the name, just the knowledge that you will face large amounts of fallout is enough. It makes the names utilization beyond inception and reveal far from guaranteed. If you are not 99.99% positive a name will not get mowed down, there is virtually no chance it can be utilized in our case. Too much money on the line and no one will risk billions of dollars like that. Not when names that are virtually assured to pass the smell test are out there for the taking.

 

Smart logos would help change the focus a lot, but even that is likely not enough in this case. It will never be a sure enough bet to be a viable name for a billion dollar franchise that just had to drop its previous name w/ native American imagery.

 

If a new team goes with the Warriors w/ non-descript imagery, it will pass w/ no problem. We would have to walk through a mine field to use it, and there is no guarantee you make it to the other side. Nobody with influence is signing up for that.

 

I literally did just want you said.  Looking up "Golden State Warriors name change"  "Golden State Warriors pressured to change their name"  I know what Carmelo Anthony thinks about Warriors.  I also looked up Washington Warriors.  I know what Chris Russell thinks.  I know what some writers thought from papers like the U.S.A. Today when they expected we would simply exchange the name Redskins for Warriors and make no other changes to include the logo.  I found a few opinion pieces, but that is all they are.  Their opinions are no more important than yours or mine.  There is also a difference between volunteering to change your name to something else, and being voluntold to change it by sponsors.    

 

I think people protesting or upset over Washington Warriors with a Pentagon/Washington Monument logo would be far fewer than if we chose a name with Red.  There is no way that Washington Warriors with that logo or something similar draws anything close to the kind of protesting we saw against Redskins for the last 10 years.  When I say protesting, I mean rallies at the games.  Do you really think that Washington Warriors with that logo above draws a massive rally in Minnesota, because that gosh darn Dan Snyder just still doesn't get it does he?

 

No way

 

I think the likelihood is that you will see some grumbling from people no matter what we pick, but that will not be anything close in any form to what we saw against Redskins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, one thing the new name will have going for it that the old name did not, is that it will not have the "dictionary defined racial slur" slogan attached. 

 

An ounce of subtlety and shred of proactive thought could definitely defeat any rational arguments before they even announce the brand...IF they were to choose Washington Warriors.  After a few years, I think any of those that may emerge would simply go away anyhow.  Warriors is not a "dictionary defined racial slur," and will not provoke that kind of an emotional response in people.  Warriors with a pentagon/monument logo is much easier to defend.     

Also, if we can't be Warriors because of historical connotations, than nobody else can either.  I mean how do we know that expansion team owner isn't just masking his culturally insensitive opinions about Native Americans behind that big W.  Doesn't he know that 50 years ago the Golden State Warriors had a grinning Native American for it's logo?

 

In my opinion, things get crazy when the debate leads to that kind of thinking.  We have officially "jumped the shark" at that point.

 

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

Do you really think that Washington Warriors with that logo above draws a massive rally in Minnesota, because that gosh darn Dan Snyder just still doesn't get it does he?

 

 

I think being volen-told to change your Native American associated name, that was deemed to be hurtful and unacceptable, into another name that multiple organizations have already vacated or are being pressured to vacate due to negative Native Americans connections would be a direct slap in the face towards the people who got you to change your name in the first place, regardless of associated imagery.

 

 

I think its clear we can not be the Indians. It is also clear we can not be the Braves. They are too closely tied to NAs, even if our specific logo would be devoid of it.

 

You can not change from a name that has been established to be hurtful towards NAs to another name with a history of multiple examples of being hurtful towards NAs. It would be downright insulting to anyone who felt negatively towards Redskins. It would be signalling they don't even matter. Yes, there would be backlash. Yes, it would be severe. Yes, it would be warranted.

 

And all of this would be directed at the same people who already proved they have the power to make you change your name. Dangerous Game

 

"Hey, you find our name hurtful? Okay, we will use this other name with a known history of being hurtful towards the exact same people instead" No way on Earth or any other planet this flies. You would be directly challenging the very people your working to appease.

 

I don't think you can expect anything close to clear sailing if you choose a name with obvious NA ties. It would be like your intentionally trying to invoke a deity's wrath. With so much money on the line, sailing waters that rocky is not an option.

 

Warriors Braves Indians Tribe Redmen Cheifs... its all off limits. We would get crushed for trying

Edited by FootballZombie
Link to post
Share on other sites

@FootballZombie

 

I just don't agree that Warriors no matter what would be off limits for this team.  If the name Warriors does all that than Golden State would have already changed it since their original logo was a Native American.  If it's wrong it's wrong no matter who uses the name.  I would expect more people than Carmelo Anthony to be speaking out about this injustice. 

 

I simply cannot subscribe to your way of thinking.  I truly pity all of us if you are correct about how the organization would view this issue, because there are severely larger issues at play here than what this team calls itself.  Warriors with the Pentagon for a logo is off limits...but a "Red" name would be perfectly ok?

 

You know something else that makes this argument for me.  Not one opinion piece or post I have read states anything like this..."I really love the name Warriors, and i think it would be a great name for this team.  However, we just can't use it because it might continue to offend Native Americans."  I believe that those who speak against it, just don't like it and are trying to sell people on why it still won't work with a W.  Sorry, don't buy it.  Can't buy it.        

12 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

We would get crushed for trying

 

Who would crush us?  Chris Russell?  Carmelo Anthony?  Native American activists?  

 

I have to believe that somebody raging against our use of Washington Warriors with a pentagon logo would be laughed out of the room...rightfully so.  

 

Redskins "dictionary defined racial slur" with Native American Chief Logo = Warriors with big W?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

I believe that those who speak against it, just don't like it and are trying to sell people on why it still won't work with a W.  Sorry, don't buy it.  Can't buy it.    

 

You don't need to not like a name to see that there is a history of multiple examples of Warriors and negative connotations with NAs and that it would probably be a very bad idea to turn around and try to rename your team with a name that has a history of being disparaging towards Native Americans when you yourself are being forced to no longer do the same thing.

 

It is like absolutely begging for repercussions.

 

I personally kinda like Wash Warpath, but I understand there is no way it lasts longer than a buffet of brains at a Zombie convention. Just the nature of the situation.

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

I personally kinda like Wash Warpath, but I understand there is no way it lasts longer than a buffet of brains at a Zombie convention. Just the nature of the situation.

 

Not the worst we could do, and I agree about how long it lasts.  I see a difference though with Warpath and Warriors.

One does have direct connotations.  One used to have direct connotations, but there are existing examples of how that name is still acceptable to almost everyone. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to find a compromise between Wolves and Redwolves, does Washington Wolfpack work? And do people think that Werewolves would be silly as they are (hopefully) fictitious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is there a particular reason why so many of the recent options discussed have involved the W? Warriors, Warpath, Wolves and all of its derivatives 

Is it to tie in Washington or WFT? I can't wait until the WFT label is removed. I find the faux name an embarrassment.

I have always been in favor of the Warriors and see little reason why the name isn't acceptable.

Whatever name they come up with I hope there is no "red"involved in the final name.

Back to names beginning with W, would moving to a different type of name like Wrath work? Or would that be considered to rough, too corny, or offend some group

With the teams  defense and speed added on offense, there are a lot of teams that will be feeling our wrath

Edited by DWinzit
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, UK Skins said:

Just trying to find a compromise between Wolves and Redwolves, does Washington Wolfpack work? And do people think that Werewolves would be silly as they are (hopefully) fictitious?

North Carolina Stare owns a lot of Wolfpack TMs. So it can’t be that. 
 

And Werewolves is more silly than Redwolves. 
 

@Painkiller And all Warriors ideas are based on the hopes Snyder is willing to pay for the TM to Golden State and ALSO that GS will share their name and accept the money.

 

Why have our next 100 years be centered on a name we don’t own, but lease? Even if you say GS will love to get paid, when do two Pro sports teams make a name deal like this? No name is that big of a deal. If anything, it weakens our image trademark-wise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DCdangerous said:

 

 And all Warriors ideas are based on the hopes Snyder is willing to pay for the TM to Golden State and ALSO that GS will share their name and accept the money.

 

Why have our next 100 years be centered on a name we don’t own, but lease? Even if you say GS will love to get paid, when do two Pro sports teams make a name deal like this? No name is that big of a deal. If anything, it weakens our image trademark-wise. 

 

Golden State does not own the trademark to Washington Warriors.  As was shown several pages back, that trademark is currently suspended.  

Honestly, we could ensure that every bit of gear we produce has Washington Warriors on it, not Warriors by itself and probably be fine if they can re-secure that trademark.  We don't need to have gear that only states Warriors....but if we do have some.  Golden State gets a piece of that pie.       

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

White guy "what is racism?"

 

PoC ×gives example×

 

White guy "that's not racism"

 

What is the relevance of that post to the topic at hand?  I'd like you to explain it please so I can understand.   

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

Marcellus Wallace to Dan Snyder: "You lost all your Warriors privileges"  LMAO

Can you use an image of Ving Rhames if you're white? Isn't that cultural appropriation?

 

I do like that pentagon symbol with the monument in the middle--that's a cool design. And you and I are on the same page as far as the helmet in your avatar. I want a GOLD gold helmet, --with the throwback dark burgundy uni's and gold/gold pants, like our current throwbacks. Overall, I am okay with "Warriors" it's a safe, if a tad generic (but then again, so many nicknames are). It kind of reminds me of that asinine, wannabe Medieval Times, Golden Knights intro. I love Redwolves is fairly unique and original, unless you're a big fan of DIII college athletics, keeps red in the name and can lead to some cool assed in-game productions, if done right.

 

Unless it's something incredibly godawful (WFT, WFC, Rubies, Monuments, yadda, yadda, yadda), I think most of us will be ok with Warriors, Redwolves, or the like.

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

White guy "what is racism?"

 

PoC ×gives example×

 

White guy "that's not racism"

Chrissy Teigen and her Virtue-Signalling celebrity mates more intolerantly  fascist than Trump ever is | 22MOON.COM

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

White guy "what is racism?"

 

PoC ×gives example×

 

White guy "that's not racism"

Actually it’s backwards. White guy gets offended on behalf of PoC who are not offended.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Painkiller said:

I think the likelihood is that you will see some grumbling from people no matter what we pick, but that will not be anything close in any form to what we saw against Redskins.

When you try to please all of the people all of the time, you end up pleasing no one. There will be people ****ing about the name--we've already seen people complain about the colors, and how "WFT" makes people just think of "Redskins." There will be people who complain about the name--some people just love to whine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

1. Never get less than 12 hours sleep.

2. Never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

3. Never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body.

Teen Wolf!  That coach was awesome.  "Everything else is cream cheese!"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An opinion piece, but he agrees with me so I will post it, lol.  

 

Top Ten Tuesday: Washington Football Team Name Options | Wolf Sports

 

1. Washington Warriors

Finally, the Washington Warriors is the best option among the new team name possibilities offered by the franchise. The NBA’s Warriors are across the country, and Daniel Snyder probably isn’t worried about some basketball team when he knows the National Football League is king. Warriors can easily keep the same color scheme and much of the same sentiment the team wanted to convey with the Redskins name, and the alliteration is a bonus. Washington Warriors would be difficult for anyone to complain about or question if it’s the choice.

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
×
×
  • Create New...