Nah Nah Nah…Nah Nah Nah…Hey Hey Hey…GOODBYE CLOWNSHOES

[Spearfeather]

9 minutes ago, Commander PK said:

Perhaps so, but it appears many of their long-term fans reacted the same way to Guardians as ours did to Commanders.

 

Not to mention, they also continued to play as the " Indians" for a full season, after announcing they would be changing their name.

[FootballZombie]

13 minutes ago, Commander PK said:

Again, it's a no-win situation when this has to be done.  When all the best names are locked down, the best you will get our names like Guardians and Commanders.

 

I don't believe that. I don't think anyone assigned to work on a rebrand would believe that.

 

For every poor branding initiative there has to be others that are successful, otherwise you would not be able to label them as poor. I work in branding and I don't know anybody in this business who sees these kind of situations as no-win.

 

I've helped several businesses rebrand, and they came out ahead as a result. There are pathways to successful rebrands, and the Commanders pathway is one my go-tos when explaining to clients what not to do.

[@DCGoldPants]

5 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Supposedly Snyder decided on the name 'Commanders' right after they dropped the old name, so why didn't they just use that name with the plain helmets? Instead they produced some sham competition for the new name when it had already been decided by Snyder while he was on his 3rd Crown Royal glass of the night.

 

A lot went into getting this wrong. 

 

#1. The name is bland

#2. The dumping of burgundy and gold (even if they refuse to admit it) for faded red and black. But making the helmets actually a good shade was a further abandonment of the past. 

#3. Even if Snyder managed to get 1 and 2 right. He does so much wrong, it was lose/lose. 

 

I do wonder if they kept the unis from last year just a shade deeper and put the W on the helmet to ease in to the changes a lot of folks didn't want, would have made a different. 

 

The Uni Chase is wearing with the W on the helmet. Might be less offensive. 

[bird_1972]

6 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

A lot went into getting this wrong. 

 

#1. The name is bland

#2. The dumping of burgundy and gold (even if they refuse to admit it) for faded red and black. But making the helmets actually a good shade was a further abandonment of the past. 

#3. Even if Snyder managed to get 1 and 2 right. He does so much wrong, it was lose/lose. 

 

I do wonder if they kept the unis from last year just a shade deeper and put the W on the helmet to ease in to the changes a lot of folks didn't want, would have made a different. 

 

The Uni Chase is wearing with the W on the helmet. Might be less offensive. 

 

Honestly, they should have kept this uni. The ones they have this year are horrible. 

 

Also, hate how we have an all black uni. Looks like the Steelers.

[dyst]

Having a letter on the helmet as a logo can work, but this one for whatever reason does not. It’s certainly not love at first sight. Maybe it will grow on us.

 

The numbers on the helmet from the past two years were better. I honestly would have preferred that on one side and the patch on the other side instead of the W.

 

The whole “take command” bit is so “brand focussed”. Probably so many focus groups and whatever to come up with that. I bet the W logo was something like “hey man, W equates to a win, people will say we got the W, so how about we have that as our logo, its so cool”

[mh86]

10 minutes ago, dyst said:

Having a letter on the helmet as a logo can work, but this one for whatever reason does not. It’s certainly not love at first sight. Maybe it will grow on us.

 

The numbers on the helmet from the past two years were better. I honestly would have preferred that on one side and the patch on the other side instead of the W.

 

The whole “take command” bit is so “brand focussed”. Probably so many focus groups and whatever to come up with that. I bet the W logo was something like “hey man, W equates to a win, people will say we got the W, so how about we have that as our logo, its so cool”

They took the take command thing from some USFL or whatever team that was named the commanders. The rest is probably accurate though.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, dyst said:

 

The whole “take command” bit is so “brand focussed”. Probably so many focus groups and whatever to come up with that. I bet the W logo was something like “hey man, W equates to a win, people will say we got the W, so how about we have that as our logo, its so cool”

 The focus group consisted of just two people: Dan and Tanya.

 

Their only session probably went like this:

 

DAN: Hey honey, what do you think of Commanders?

 

TANYA: Oh, I think that's just a WONDERFUL name Dan! (Goes back to designing the team's new uniforms)

 

DAN: (Finishing his 4th glass of Crown Royal) Of course it is! (Slaps Tanya on her behind). Now go get me another whiskey, sweet cheeks!

 

I also think Snyder chose the name so why would refer to himself as the "commander in chief."

Edited December 2, 2022 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

14 minutes ago, bird_1972 said:

Also, hate how we have an all black uni. Looks like the Steelers.

Yeah, I forgot what we were wearing last week around the second series and was like, “how did the Falcons get the ball back?”

[NewCliche21]

Just start it over. Trying to keep it tied to the Redskins only contaminates the glory years.  New name, new colors, new everything except the record book/Ring of Fame/retired jerseys.

This is a situation where having a half-assed something that used to be great is way worse than something new.

[Commander PK]

33 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I don't believe that. I don't think anyone assigned to work on a rebrand would believe that.

 

For every poor branding initiative there has to be others that are successful, otherwise you would not be able to label them as poor. I work in branding and I don't know anybody in this business who sees these kind of situations as no-win.

 

I've helped several businesses rebrand, and they came out ahead as a result. There are pathways to successful rebrands, and the Commanders pathway is one my go-tos when explaining to clients what not to do.

 

Ok, I believe you.  We have had plenty of conversations over the last few years about this, and you certainly appear to know what you are talking about. 

 

I'm not saying a rebrand can't work.  I'm sure in most instances it works great.  I'm saying THIS particular rebrand (and the Guardians) from my layman's perspective had to have been impressively more difficult than most.  To the extent that even making half the people happy would have been impossible.    

 

What would you have done or advised them to do that the team did not do?  Given all the baggage and national coverage that came with this rebrand.  The social issues at play.  To the extent that even some were calling for the colors to be changed.  Pacify a very devoted fan base who largely still don't agree with the change.  We discussed trademarks ad nauseum in the branding thread.  How do they get around the trademark issues to pick a name the majority of fans like?

 

I know you liked Redwolves.  Given all the same variables, how do they procure the rights to use Redwolves if they need a brand that is fully their own?

[Commander PK]

Also, if we are talking more about the look than the name itself...I can certainly understand that more, but for me once Warriors, Wolves, and Redwolves were eliminated...there was no name on that list that was/is better than Commanders.  Not one.  They were all at best bland, and at worst absurd.

[Commander PK]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Not to mention, they also continued to play as the " Indians" for a full season, after announcing they would be changing their name.

They could get away with this because their former name wasn’t and still isn’t considered a “dictionary defined racial slur.” They could simply see which way the wind was blowing and got ahead of the issue.

[lovemaskins]

13 minutes ago, Commander PK said:

Also, if we are talking more about the look than the name itself...I can certainly understand that more, but for me once Warriors, Wolves, and Redwolves were eliminated...there was no name on that list that was/is better than Commanders.  Not one.  They were all at best bland, and at worst absurd.

Warthog

War Hogs

Red Hogs

 

Those were my favorites.  80K of us yelling Sooie! Or oinking and grunting like idiots.  Best fan experience in the league. Plus plays to our past....

Edited December 2, 2022 by lovemaskins

[Die Hard]

I thought the Seattle Kraken brand launch knocked it out of the park. 

[Commander PK]

6 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

I thought the Seattle Kraken brand launch knocked it out of the park. 

It’s not the same though.  New brand.  Nothing to compare it to.  You aren’t rebranding a 90 year old team. 

[dyst]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, I forgot what we were wearing last week around the second series and was like, “how did the Falcons get the ball back?”

I’ve done that on so many Youtube clips, trying to find the team and natural skip over any image that has the black uniforms because I assume its the Steelers for a second.

[The Rook]

1 hour ago, NewCliche21 said:

Just start it over. Trying to keep it tied to the Redskins only contaminates the glory years.  New name, new colors, new everything except the record book/Ring of Fame/retired jerseys.

This is a situation where having a half-assed something that used to be great is way worse than something new.

 

Heck, I would go the other way - I would rather call it the Washington "Burgundy and Gold" - the B&G.  I have always liked the colors and it is a tie to the players I grew up following.  You are suggesting to treat this like an expansion team or a pilfered team (like Oilers to Tenn or Browns to Baltimore).  I get it, but I would like to a path to the past.

 

It is so bizarre to me - Does Indy or Baltimore revere Johnny Unitas? Or both?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[FootballZombie]

2 hours ago, Commander PK said:

What would you have done or advised them to do that the team did not do?  Given all the baggage and national coverage that came with this rebrand.  The social issues at play.

 

I won't focus much on the design or even the name aspect, (We'd be here all day) I'll just hone in on the choices made for presentation, exposure and connecting to the people. They made a ton of mis-steps that were easily avoidable and practically anyone should have advised. Regardless of what name was chosen or how the jerseys and logos looked, these following issues greatly effected the rebrand and should have been avoided.

 

-Try to somewhat control the narrative, create a stronger, more focused reveal. A ton of focus is placed on positive initial impressions, as people are irrationally conditioned to keep them, good or bad. For too many people, their first introduction was a JPEG on the today show followed by questioning of our previous negative conduct, or a curtain drop to no fanfare as only a small number of reporters were present or news that our logo had the incorrect dates on it. It is difficult to pull positivity when you are exposing people to negativity. They had a hype video. They didn't have an edited short version that could be played for the Today show? The basic goal with the initial reveal of any brand or product is to get the audience to equate it with good. It seems like we had our audience see Commanders and then added on "and here is something bad" to make sure it leaves a sour taste. Jon Allen didn't even look like he wanted to be there. You need a bunch of smiling faces attached to this, and a lot of the ones we had were the Snyders, who don't exactly work in a new brands favor. It was a mess and did not lend itself to a positive first reaction. All of this could have been avoided with some basic event planning and foresight.

 

-It shouldn't need to be said but obviously, the errors. If you gotta rebrand again, right after a rebrand, you seriously screwed up. On top of looking unprofessional, you have greatly undermined confidence in your new direction. Its silly and should never happen. It was very difficult to focus on anything else during the initial reveal and this rightfully dominated the narrative. Furthermore:

 

-Don't Catfish or provoke your fanbase. You do have some ability to control the narrative of a rebrand. If you choose to spend your clout arguing that an error is OK, you are only shining a white hot lighthouse powered beacon on a negative aspect of your rebrand. This was truly insane. Its like showing off your ugliest asset and demanding people to focus on it. It is a prime example of the team accelerating a negative response through their own actions to their own detriment. Why would anyone take such a course. Its adding gasoline to a fire.

 

-Don't let em see you sweat. We downright panicked and tried to save face on the dates error by trying to switch to roman numerals. Even had some roman numeral seals put up at events, only to be told "no" by the NFL as we are not allowed to do that. If you wanna build confidence in your new rebrand... don't let this happen. Understand the rules before making a rash change. This only put us in a worse light and again makes people question everything you do moving forward. They didn't just get this wrong once. They got it wrong twice while screaming their head off that you were in the right. That's like a whole bouquet of Oopsie-Daisies. The Legendary-ness of this Legendary F up is Legendary in proportion.

 

-Do not install a fear of the future. Don't pre-emptively tell us that someone was associated w/ a project that will only cause people to respond negatively before they even see the product. Your just setting people's impressions pre-maturely. If something is received well, then tell us "X" was involved. Don't shoot goodwill in the foot before it gets to your door. When they come out and say "Tanya designed the new marching band unis", your not building hype, your building dread. B/c the initial response was poor it compounded the incomplete package at launch. Instead of looking towards future developments such as the mascot, fight song and new traditions with anticipation, it was met with something else. Who was pumped to hear the new fight song? Nobody. Who is excited to see the mascot? Nobody. If the launch had gone better and lead to faster acceptance, these could have been events to build around, instead they have moreso become checkpoints to fear.

 

-Merch mishaps aplenty. There are a bunch of things that could be brought up here, but the biggest issue I saw here was entirely on the team. The black jersey sell date. We control the dates on when we wear them on the field and we are privy to the knowledge of when they were eligible to hit the market. How can you possibly not have these widely available before your first game in them. I don't even like them, but that is some basic marketing.

 

 

Regardless of what direction we chose to go with for the name or jerseys the above should not have happened. I would not expect any major brand launch to go perfectly but this is several steps too far in the wrong direction and much of it is downright amateur hour stuff. When you combine this with the controversies and the design related stuff, your only adding to a downward vortex of negativity instead of fighting it off. Of the things that were in our control, we did so much to harm ourselves when you just don't have to.

Edited December 2, 2022 by FootballZombie

[Commander PK]

@FootballZombie

 

Thanks for the response, and a great post.  From what I can tell though, you are mostly talking about the launch of the brand not the brand itself.  I agree 100%.  The launch was ****.  No question.  Did set a negative tone, and was very anticlimactic.  The wrong dates in the crest was unforgivable.  The Today show announcement was embarrassing.  
 

We are now 10 months into this thing though.  I think at this point it’s two things, the name itself, and the look.  The launch was what it was, and it set the tone, but I think most people aren’t thinking about that now.  You and I are probably better versed in everything that led us up to where we are today, along with a few others here, who kept the Branding thread at the top of the list for nearly 2 years.  
 

There are so many factors that made this particular rebranding very unique.  Only Cleveland comes close and that is a significantly less popular sport, with a far less polarizing former name, in a place that isn’t the Nation’s Capitol. I still don’t see how they could have done better with all that taken into consideration.  This was an impossible task with everybody screaming at you on all sides.  Pleasing this group pisses off another.  Leaving this or that in the past isn’t going far enough, or changing everything leaves no ties to what existed before.  Can’t get this name or that because this entity already owns it.  What a mess.     

[shemp nixon]

4 hours ago, Die Hard said:

I thought the Seattle Kraken brand launch knocked it out of the park. 

Choosing a cool name helps a lot.

[Est.1974]

Finding a new name and doing a rebrand should be difficult. Really difficult. It’s a major exercise. That’s why you need competent, specialist people on the job. Not the idiots we had.

[Wildbunny]

9 hours ago, lovemaskins said:

Warthog

War Hogs

Red Hogs

I still believe that anything Hog related would just have shut up the crowd. Because that's heavily tied to the team and its glorious days.

Finally choosing a new name is the kind of choice where the second option is the better.

 

That's kinda like asking lots of people who's the best Guitarist in the world. You'll have lots of answers for first place, but second place is more than likely to receive a consensus.

 

Going with anything that is Hog related is probably not many's first choice. But I doubt many would complain about it.

 

4 hours ago, shemp nixon said:

Choosing a cool name helps a lot.

Sure. You just need to define what "cool" is, because is highly dependent on anyone's point of view.

[Professor_Nutter_Butter]

11 hours ago, lovemaskins said:

Warthog

War Hogs

Red Hogs

 

Those were my favorites.  80K of us yelling Sooie! Or oinking and grunting like idiots.  Best fan experience in the league. Plus plays to our past....

Have you seen an Arkansas football game? Just about the most annoying thing you can put someone through.

[Darrell Green Fan]

16 hours ago, Commander PK said:

 

In fairness, it was absolutely a no-win situation for them.  Any signs that they were making efforts to line up future alternative names would have just increased the pressure on them to make the change.  Doing nothing until sponsors dropped led us to 2 years of "Football Team"  

 

I'm no Dan Snyder defender, but I'm glad it wasn't me in his position on this issue.  

I sort of agree with this, they were in a tough situation.  My comment was more about the support for the name and how some want it back. I think my analogy was pretty accurate.  It's like having a baby and calling it "Boy" for 2 long years until they settled on a real name. Then they hear an aunt saying they don't like the chosen name and suggest they go back to Boy.  

[Spearfeather]

9 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I sort of agree with this, they were in a tough situation.  My comment was more about the support for the name and how some want it back. I think my analogy was pretty accurate.  It's like having a baby and calling it "Boy" for 2 long years until they settled on a real name. Then they hear an aunt saying they don't like the chosen name and suggest they go back to Boy.  

 

Edit: I see. I think you were talking about WFT. Not Redskins.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Spearfeather