Sorry, I know we can all pine for nostalgia for a lot of different things but I think the nitpicking really can be getting over the top. If only the yellow were one shade darker. If the Rams head were tilted 1.3mm lower or looked 'angrier'. If the horn was...
What they showed yesterday were
the basic concepts and "mood boards" of the visual system and rebrand- logos, color schemes and font treatments. It was a glimpse. Listening on TV you would think the LA logo was the new helmet for Christ's sake. It's not.
A visual system, by definition, includes the elements used to convey the brand positioning visually and tie all their communications and promotion together. It's actually the typography and colors that are the foundation, not the logo(s). There's also photography, illustration, iconography,
the helmets and uniforms, etc. that all creates their greater distinction.
Was the 1984 logo with the L and A jammed into the word Rams good?.. The 1950s-60s Rams head with the mouth hanging open looks like a skull to me. There is literally no way to please everyone when it comes to look and feel. I don't love the Rams head logo personally but I
really like the colors and the fonts. The new “three stack” wordmark is well done.
But again, I think people should wait and see
how it's all executed collectively in practice. The uniforms and helmets which, I would think, matter a whole lot more than a logo on a polo shirt. I don't love the 'LA' logo standalone but the LA logo with 'Rams' shown in the stadium endzones looks great to me.
The logo IS NOT their brand. Is the Patriots' brand the flying Elvis guy? No. And people in New England STILL dislike that by the way. Their brand has been winning. It's how they show up and perform. When the Rams went to the gold and dark blue in 2000 that wasn't their brand. Their 'brand' was the GSOT, period. Let's relax a bit when it comes to how much heavy lifting we expect a couple logos to do for a franchise...
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2020 04:11AM by LMU93.
