Then they should ask the question: If we get a stadium sponsor who wants us to change the logo, would you be in favor? If it's the league, just tell them to forget it.
Let me re-phrase the question: Should we accept the check if the condition is changing part of our identity? It sounds like "should we sell out?" I'd say we'd be silly not to, but it depends on if we have any other takers and how legitimate those takers may be.
That analysis is spot on. I bet the questions in that survey reflect the concerns and sincere doubts that local sponsors and potential investors have been asking the FO regarding the "Crew Brand". There is a reason why the whole league has gone Euro-poseur. It's just good business. Fine with me. If that's what it takes for a stadium sponsor, I'm 110% for it. Getting a stadium sponsor would be a huge step toward proving the club is a viable business and achieving local ownership.
This is certainly true in this country and could possibly be true in other parts of the world that I don't pay attention too. If a change is deemed to be made, the timing is not right at this point. I personally feel that it should be coupled with a change in direction of the club, whether that be the manager or, as someone else pointed out, ownership. I certainly wouldn't want a new crest associated with RW and the tired ol' work hard in practice cause we give f 'all about the rest. The counter to that though is that a new direction can further establish that when done correctly. And even then, what the Crew have right now, doesn't seem to be a whole helluva lot. Failure wouldn't be the right word. It wasn't the worst crest, but other re-brandings and new clubs entering the league can make ours look stale. But even if failure would be the right word, it is always better to get it out of the way in order to move forward. But like I said, its not a failure, but probably more so just dated in comparison to the rest. HAHA! Nice. It would be a matter of identification of love of the club, not necessarily the crest.
Sell out? A team that has a corporate logo as the main presentation on our kit. As a team that used to have a Snicker's bar on it way back in the day? We now have HD Video ad boards. I don't mean this as a strong criticism of the comment, Krypt. More just a comment to the point of if we've sold out this far, what is the real difference... especially if it involves getting this team to a point where it is marketed better to prospective investors and/or ownership. If it does, change it. I'm tired of absentee-HSG.
That's a good question, I would have to say Yes. I may not like it but I don't want to go the way of Wonder Bread. I would even say if a new owner came in and changed it I would feel the same way, I just want to keep this team in Columbus and if means changing the logo so be it. I just hope they don't change the Logo because they talked to a consultant and replace it with Inter Columbus or Racing Columbus or other such Euro crap that is my fear and why I don't want them messing with it. If they want to change the models that posed for the Logo to former players, I would have no problems with that, but what Players would you want to see. I would go with McBride because he was the First player the Crew Drafted in 96 and won the Open Cup, GBS because he is our first MLS MVP and won us our first MLS CUP. The last one I don't know but I would go with Frankie, he came back to Columbus does a good job of promoting the Crew and he does a good job at the Viewing party's. I think the Logo would then make much more sense than construction workers, it's the Columbus Crew Soccer Team.
When I hit the Powerball Wednesday night, none of this is going to matter because I'm buying the club. And we won't have to worry about Warzycha anymore.
I'm sure that there's a team I'm forgetting, but I can't think of an MLS team that "re-branded" (God but I hate that term; it's corporate bullshit-speak) that didn't have a new stadium go along with it. The Burn and The Wizards of course, and also the Metrostars. They were, in a very real sense (and to use more corpo-robot talk) "relaunching" their product. New name, new logo, new stadium and re-introduction to the market. Makes sense. Simply changing the name with nothing else going on - hell, they're not even firing the goddam coach - smacks of complete desperation. And it underestimates the residents of Central Ohio, who are more than sophisticated enough to fully recognize that changing the graphics doesn't mean a thing. If anything, I would think you'd actually LOSE credibility by trying something which is so transparently and obviously meaningless. I would add the caveat, however, that the one exception I would make to the new stadium thing would be a new (LOCAL) ownership setup. THAT would make it entirely reasonable and explicable and help get people's attention. But I'd be shocked into a coma if that were the case.
Simply changing the name and logo would be ridiculous. Do we really think that people will see the re-branded team and think "wow, is this team new? where'd they come from?" While there is a bit of an issue of brand awareness, changing a name wouldn't address that in the slightest.
I'm a half season tix holder and I got one. They also either tweeted or had a facebook post with a link for anyone who didn't get an email and wanted to fill out a survey.
I agree with you when it comes to names/colors, but logo changes happen all the time for teams in the US (I realize soccer "crests" in Europe are probably more long-lasting). But I definately agree on the name, and, to a lesser extent, the colors. How many original teams names are left? Crew, DC United, LA Galaxy, and NE Revs? Any others?
hence my "MLS excepted" comment. I was just saying that logo changes are not uncommon here in the states for companies and sports teams. And it seems color changes are not entirely uncommon in europe (less common for sports teams here in the states other than MLS).
I wonder if there is any tie into the Adidas contract. Remember after next year we are do for a new jersey. Maybe there is something that will be incorporated into that release?
This is the one reason I'd be against changing the crest, unless there is something else there; new ownership, stadium naming rights, etc.
The thing I took away from the survey was that the crest seems very much in play. I also think that this has to have something to do with the stadium sponsorship or local ownership because of all of the emphasis on how closely related (or not) the brand is to the city of Columbus. The whole hard-hat wearing, hardest working team in America meme doesn't really play into what Columbus is trying to become. I could also see a name change in the works to a more Euro style naming convention though that seems less likely than a crest change. I do not think they would screw with the colors (at least I hope not).