Jump to content

Logo. Switching to old bird make sense?


tikibar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why does EVERYONE try to relate Vick and the new logo/team look? That is rediculous.

The Falcons did the same as most the other teams in the league - updated their look to accomodate the times.

I work in marketing and I see exactly why they updated the logo - the old one looks like it is from the 60s...

The new logo and uniforms look great to me. I would like to maybe see them wear red-helmets as an alternate though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell (1/15/2008)
Why does EVERYONE try to relate Vick and the new logo/team look? That is rediculous.

The Falcons did the same as most the other teams in the league - updated their look to accomodate the times.

I work in marketing and I see exactly why they updated the logo - the old one looks like it is from the 60s...

The new logo and uniforms look great to me. I would like to maybe see them wear red-helmets as an alternate though.

It probably has something to do with him being the face of the Falcons and we switched to the new UNI's the year after he started and we went to the playoffs.

How many highlights do we have of OTHER players making plays and winning games in these UNI's and logos?

How many highlights do we have of Vick making plays and winning game?

It's called repetition. Personally, most of the highlights I've seen with these UNI's have had Vick in them. Therefore I associate these uni's and logo to the Vick era, (because that was part of management's plan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that isn't the case. Look around the league - around the year 2000 a lot of teams updated their logo around the same time. Just as the NFL, ESPN, SI and everyone else updated their looks.

Most larger companies even update their logos slighly throughout the years to make the logo look up to date.

Go to this site - http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?id=173

You will see the progress of all the logos for every team.

The Falcons original logo is from 1966 - and was updated a little in 1990 - then the major change in 2003.

A few teams "new" updated logos came out in these years:

Arizona - 2005

Atlanta - 2003

Baltimore - 1999

Cincinnatti - 2004

Denver - 1997

New England - 1993

NY Jets - 1998

Philadelphia - 1996

Rams - 2000

Tampa - 1997

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing about the other teams.

I'm talking about the Atlanta Falcons, this logo, and the association of that with Vick.

Most fans, including myself, associate THIS logo with Vick. He was the one making the memorable plays.

I associate the old logo with Tuggle, Jamal, and the history of the birds.

Part of the "spin" of updating the logo was to start a new tradition since the old one was a losing tradition. Of course it was actually all about marketing, brands, and merchandise sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr John Zoidberg (1/15/2008)
Of course it was actually all about marketing, brands, and merchandise sales.

Exactly... Vick or no Vick - they would've updated it either way.

I see your point though - I guess since I am marketing I am more OK with the change - and was actually happy to see their new uniforms and logo.

If we didn't accept the changes - everyone would still be wearing grungy white pants and plain jerseys like the "old days". 30 years from now no telling what these teams will be wearing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams often time change uniforms when they are under new ownership, which we were. They will change too, i find, if they have been bad for forever and have a reason to believe thats going to change and want to usher in a new era all together. Vick was supposed to revolutionize the entire game of football. So I think that Blank being a new owner, wanted to forget all the years of failure this team has been associated with so he changed the uniforms.

That being said, I like these uniforms a lot more then the old ones, I know im just about the only one who feels this way but I wouldnt wanna go back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell (1/15/2008)
Dr John Zoidberg (1/15/2008)
Of course it was actually all about marketing, brands, and merchandise sales.

Exactly... Vick or no Vick - they would've updated it either way.

I see your point though - I guess since I am marketing I am more OK with the change - and was actually happy to see their new uniforms and logo.

If we didn't accept the changes - everyone would still be wearing grungy white pants and plain jerseys like the "old days". 30 years from now no telling what these teams will be wearing!

I have an idea of what they'll be wearing. It'll be glow in the dark chuckie cheese type of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warningx13 (1/15/2008)
Teams often time change uniforms when they are under new ownership, which we were. They will change too, i find, if they have been bad for forever and have a reason to believe thats going to change and want to usher in a new era all together. Vick was supposed to revolutionize the entire game of football. So I think that Blank being a new owner, wanted to forget all the years of failure this team has been associated with so he changed the uniforms.

That being said, I like these uniforms a lot more then the old ones, I know im just about the only one who feels this way but I wouldnt wanna go back.

You're not alone. I like the new unis better.

Going back to the old ones, to me, is like taking a step back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you all serious?!

Why would you care about the old logo being associated with Vick? The guy was a gifted player. Yeah he screwed up and he will pay for it, I'm glad he's gone but some of the things he was able to do while he was here were absolutly awe inspiring. I'm glad he did most of the things he did in a Falcons jersey. Despite all the negative things he did alot for this organization like it or not.

Either way its the Falcons logo, it looks good, it should stay the Falcons log. It was not designed "for" Vick it was designed for the team. This is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell (1/15/2008)
Why does EVERYONE try to relate Vick and the new logo/team look? That is rediculous.

It's not ridiculous, in fact it's true. You said you work in marketing so you should know this.

If it were not for Vick, the Falcons would have their 90's look.

Don't you think the people in the Falcons marketing dept. said in 2002 "We just got Vick who will be the most exciting and marketable player in football. This is now "the new Falcons" and to help propel that image we need a visual image change".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell (1/15/2008)

A few teams "new" updated logos came out in these years:

Arizona - 2005

Atlanta - 2003. Sucks.

Baltimore - 1999. a) not new per se since it's a new franchise; B) the "new" Raven's logo is the "old" Porsche logo! :P

Cincinnatti - 2004

Denver - 1997. Sucks.

New England - 1993. Sucks

NY Jets - 1998. Sucks. And you want to talk about one that looks like it's from the 60's, this is it!

Philadelphia - 1996. Sucks.

Rams - 2000

Tampa - 1997. Nothing could be worse than the peachy-cute gay guy from before!

Simple philosophy here...Change is BAD!! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, it shouldn't be called the old logo. It should be called the Classic Logo.

Secondly, no we don't need to change it. The new logo is fine.

I would like to see more stuff with the classic logo on it. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. We can have the new logo and still enjoy having some stuff with the classic logo on it (and a game each year where we wear the classic logo uniforms.)

Now, if you're talking about the uniforms, I'm all with you. Not because of MV, but because I've never been particularly fond of them. Too modern, not hardnosed enough. I'd love to at least restore the silver pants and numbers from the old red jersey days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LARP (1/15/2008)
Are you all serious?!

Why would you care about the old logo being associated with Vick? The guy was a gifted player. Yeah he screwed up and he will pay for it, I'm glad he's gone but some of the things he was able to do while he was here were absolutly awe inspiring. I'm glad he did most of the things he did in a Falcons jersey. Despite all the negative things he did alot for this organization like it or not.

Either way its the Falcons logo, it looks good, it should stay the Falcons log. It was not designed "for" Vick it was designed for the team. This is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard...

Do you use overstatements much?

It's not unheard of or even uncommon for certain symbols to become compromised after being associated with a negative event or a particurlarly unseedy person. While I don't agree that the logo has been compromised due to the Vick effect, I can see how people feel that way. I just don't like the new uni's at all and I wish we would go back to some of the more classic type unis. I love the old red unis with red helmets and black face masks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...