So, the Portland Timbers have apparently designed a new logo to be unveiled this Saturday as a step to help them move toward Major League Soccer. I’m interested to see what they’ve come up with. An article in today’s Oregonian about the logo mentions, “What if they unveil the new logo…and nobody cheers?” Well, if that happens, perhaps it’s because a logo doesn’t make the brand.
Below is a visual timeline that showcases the the various logos used by the Timbers, as it appeared in The Oregonian article.
What’s interesting, from a brand perspective is all the hoopla around the unveiling of a logo. If the identity used during the 2001-2004 timeframe didn’t “catch on with fans” perhaps it was less about the design and more to do with the Timbers‘ brand itself. Are the Timbers positioned well? What’s their distinction in the Portland sports market that sets them a part from other sporting options? It helps they are the only soccer team, but other than that, what’s the promise? And what does the brand stand for? I’m not sure I know and I’m a soccer fan. I do know that the Timbers along with owner and business phenom Merritt Paulson are hanging their hats on this as their step to the majors. And the development process took more than a year including research. All well and good, but that’s a lot riding on a mark. And, the questions I have for Paulson and the team? Tell me what the Timbers stand for. Tell me the experience I’ll have attending matches. Tell me what you are promising and how you’ll deliver. Then with the answers hold the new logo up in the mirror and tell me what you see.
[Added 6/12 post logo unveiling]
So the new Portland Timbers’ logo has been unveiled. See it for yourself here. Was there cheering? Don’t know. But the outcome is…just okay. Slightly uninspiring. At least the Oregon Ducks will surely enjoy the color combo.
Right on, Kim! The best logo design will fall flat if it doesn’t carry the right message.
As I always say…
A logo is not a brand. A brand is a promise you make to your Clients. A logo merely represents that promise.
The questions Timbers needs to ask (themselves, of course) is “What is my commitment/promise to my audience?” Only after defining this message, find a brand designer that can translate that message into imagery. It doesn’t work the other way around. A logo will NOT create the message!
Thanks for posting this. This is SO important and it’s sad to see how many companies fail because they lack this critical step in this critical order.
Wow. Must have been a slow news day at the Oregonian. Agreed, this is hardly newsworthy and true Timber fans won’t care one way or the other. What fans care about, however, is how they play during the season. If they play well then fans will be happy. Isn’t that the case for any brand? If the customer experience is positive then the logo (whatever it looks like) will be associated with that experience.
Kim, I still like the original Timbers logo, but for me when I think of the Timbers I think of my teacher growing up at Catlin Gabel. He was a professional player and ended his career with the Timbers in 1982. He was a great guy and an incredible role model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Gant
So that brings me to the point that what the timbers should really focus on are the faces that represent the team. What is sad is how often players from many sports are traded so fast that the brand hardly ever has time to associate themselves with a lasting personality.
My friend Matt had some great discussion on his blog a week ago regarding Faces vs. Logos for brands http://www.madcollective.com/2010/social-media-friendly-logo/
Cheers-John
“A logo will not create the message” – totally agree Kristine. Well put. Thanks.
Hey Andrew. While I agree that fans do care a lot about how their team plays, it’s more than that for full fledge fans. It’s the experience watching. The feeling you have when you are at the matches. What you carry with you between the times the team plays. Thanks for the comment.
John, you bring up a great point. Linking the brand to not only the promise of future experiences but to past experiences. That’s really important for sports teams for sure. I have great memories of my Dad taking my siblings and me to Fenway for Red Sox games and those experiences tied me closer to the brand. Same holds true for the Timbers. Thanks.
Wow… it would seem that your readers “get” sports branding better than you do, Kim. A face, and even more so, a name is a real sports brand. Just think “Pore” these days. He’s your brand.
The logo is simply something that should represent the city or region (as it always has for the Timbers). It is the trademark for players and fans that says “I’m with this team”. That’s all.
It does not have to represent a promise, nor a history (although consistency and longevity help with brand recognition, obviously). Major league sports is big business, and the soccer biz is exploding in North America. However, the nature of team branding is NOT the same as corporate branding. The logo does not need to speak to the strengths of the team.
It’s a good logo.
Wanna see a bad one? Check out the new Vancouver Whitecaps logo. Yeah, it’s mountains and their initials … but it’s deadly dull.
Great Post. I couldn’t agree more – the brand is what primes the audience to cheer, the logo simply gives them something to cheer about (assuming the designer has evocatively communicated the rich essence of the brand).
Nice post Kim,
I agree with all the points above. I think there are a few considerations here.
1. There was always going to be a new logo: People can say what they want about the new crest, but the fact that the key elements remain intact is a tip of the hat to the history of the club, yet it also signals the significant step up to be joining the country’s premier soccer league. Personally, I think it errs on the side of being slightly too busy, but I can live with it. The best logos of any sports are 2-D and simple – (Red Sox, dare I say it Kim, the Yankees
, the Steelers, the Packers, the Oregon Ducks, Montreal Canadiens, Minnesota Twins et al).
2. Haters would have hated it no matter what: Doesn’t matter if it was the world’s greatest ever logo, some people would still resist change like the plague. The Blazers’ logo has only undergone subtle tweaks throughout its history, perhaps the tweaks to the Timbers logo were not subtle enough.
3. Portlanders are a unique breed: In a corner of the country that embraces alternative lifestyles, being a Timbers fan has a peculiar cache about it. In many ways soccer is the anti-NFL — it’s indicative of a broader, more worldly sensibility than what American football represents and I think that strikes a chord with many Oregonians. Furthermore, the Timbers name and colors synch up well with its geography. Lastly PGE Park’s location downtown makes it truly a team from the city of Portland. I have seen Timbers players walking around the Pearl and eating at Cha Cha Cha several times. This visibility gives Portlanders a sense of ownership of the team more so than if the Timbers played in some pre-fab stadium that was slapped up quickly and cheaply out in the suburbs.
4. The Timbers brand is a solid one: How many expansion franchises about to compete in a new league enjoy the same sort of deeply entrenched support that the Timbers do? How about the historical rivalries with the Sounders and the Whitecaps? Sure, the Timbers positioning could be a little tighter – but this is not uncommon with sports franchises. Most teams only exist by virtue of their local monopoly — having largely unoriginal brands whose recognition/equity with their market is simply synonymous with sport they play. This is certainly not the case with the Timbers.
It’s often hard to define what a team brand represents as it will be many things to many people. I think what the Timbers brand does lack currently is that unmistakable punch of say, the Yankees (“the brazen, big city bullies”) or the Steelers (The hard nosed grit of the Steel City”). But let’s hope this develops in time. I think it will.
As the “Soccer City USA” nickname suggests, the Timbers brand resonates very strongly with the people of Portland. In a city starved of major league sports, I am guessing the Timbers brand will stir stronger passion and loyalty than MLS teams like FC Dallas, New England Revolution or the Columbus Crew. This is a good thing. Something to be grateful for and a solid foundation on which to build.
NO PITY IN THE ROSE CITY!!!!!!!
It’s been stated here, and rightly so, that a logo is not a brand, it’s only a symbol of the brand. Living in Phoenix, I’ve never heard of the Timbers until Kim tweeted about this post on Twitter, so I know nothing of their history, or their brand. Judging this symbol solely on it’s formal merits, I would say…
It looks like a uniform patch for the forestry department, or some sort of Portland parks and rec service.
It has no energy or dynamism indicative of soccer, it simply stands still.
I’ll give them credit for attempting to so strongly tie the team to the city, but the word “Timbers” is simply lost. Too much Portland, too little Timbers.
The chevron stripes immediately convey volley ball to me, rather than soccer.
Mostly, I’m struck by the fact that an axe is a symbol of something that destroys/kills/chops down timber. Why would they choose such a symbol as their logo? What message does that send? The axe mimicking a T isn’t a strong enough visual to undo that misstep.
Trees are strong and resilient. They have staying power. Those are all powerful connotations that could have been utilized in the logo, but were not.
Mostly, what this logo communicates to me is, “no chopping fire wood in this camp ground”.
I think when it comes to sport team logos, what determines a good logo is winning. A strong winning team changes the perception of how the team (brand) is perceived. The context is different.
Same goes for a brand. Look at Trader Joe’s, their branding is a complete eye-sore. Yet the brand is widely successful. I mean they combine a Hawaiian theme with British 19th century graphics on their packaging and bags. It doesn’t matter. They are fulfilling a need, uncontested.
The power in a brand is in the product. Does it fill an authentic organic need? If it does that, the branding comes easily and is easily perceived as good.
“The brand is what primes the audience to cheer, the logo simply gives them something to cheer about” — Dave, well put. I think part of the dialogue in marketing land around brand and identity gets all tied up with logos. And, that’s unfortunate.
Thanks Charlie. You’re right, there was always going to be a new logo. But it seems a missed opportunity honestly. Will the Timber build a strong brand in MLS with this logo (or with a different one)? Perhaps. The road to season tickets and an city embracing the team might have been made easier if the brand was developed and then expressed through the new identity. And, I’m not so sure it really was thought through in that order.
Really great comments Charlie. And, your post as well.
“No chopping firewood in this campground” – Ken that’s hilarious. This probably wasn’t the emotion or meaning that the design firm, RARE Design, or the Timbers were going for. Although Portland has been called worse than a “campground.”
Always great comments from you Ken. Thanks.
Thanks Jeremy. Great thoughts. Not sure I agree however with “The power in a brand is in the product.” It isn’t simply the product…it’s in the brand’s distinction in the market. How it’s unique from everything else in its category. The product (or service) has to deliver on the promise with every interaction a customer (or dare I say an employee) has with the brand.
Team colors and logos are symbols or pride and badges of honor for fans. Fans will purchase more apparel even if the team is losing, if they feel strongly about the colors and logo.
Case in point: When Major League Baseball expanded to Arizona in the 90′s with the Diamondbacks, the team launched with kitchy southwest colors of copper, turquoise and purple. There was a lot of rancor here in Phoenix over those colors. Most fans didn’t like them, but the team still moved a lot of shirts, caps and jerseys. Fans were just glad to have a team in town.
Fast forward to 2001, when the Diamondbacks beat the Yankees in what was arguably the most significant World Series in history, because it occurred in the shadow of 9/11. Diamondback apparel sold in higher volume than ever. Makes sense.
Fast forward again, a few years later. The team was struggling, and attendance had been down for some time. New ownership wanted to revitalize the brand by changing the colors, logos and uniforms. Logos were given a sharper, more menacing look, and the color palette changed to black and red with sand accents. The affect was dramatic, and so were the increased sales of apparel, which outpaced the previous highs during the World Series winning season.
Even though the team had been losing and was clearly in a rebuilding period that would take multiple seasons, fans were reinvigorated by the powerful new look, and the team and the league made millions.
The moral of the story is that fans take pride in their teams, and they want to have pride in the colors and logos, too. So, yes, ultimately, the brand will benefit from winning, but if the Diamondbacks are an indication, a cooler logo and better colors can sometimes rally the fans and generate more revenue than winning.
First, congratulations on creating content that people want to talk about. The folks who comment here add depth to the topic.
Amazing that so many companies look for a set of new clothes when they don’t get what the want from their marketplace. Why is it they’re bent on “hey, let’s change our outward appearance to see if folks will like us” as a brand development strategy.
Sometime I need to get me one of them fancy logo things. Folks tell me I have a well-established brand, but I just don’t have a logo. Oh no…
Thanks Trey. And yes, the comments here are fantastic. From some really smart folks too. Love it.
And, “amazing that so many companies look for a set of new clothes when they don’t get what they want from their marketplace” – nicely woven thought. I like it.
Thanks for your viewpoint Conolli. But brand and brand-ING are not one in the same. A brand is the business, the promise it makes and how that promise is delivered through every customer interaction. Branding is how the brand is represented (e.g. logos, advertising, marketing, etc.) While sports fans may evangelize to a higher level than most consumers, the process of developing the brand should be no different. A team that brands around one particular “face” or player isn’t going to last. And, it’s not a team in my book either
Great points all round folks.
Jeremy, I have to respectfully disagree about winning making a logo look good. There is no question that it helps, but winning alone does not a great brand make. The Florida Marlins struggled both as a brand and financially in the years following world series wins. The Tampa Bay Lightning have an outrageously bad logo and I thought as much when they were winning the Stanley Cup.
Ken, that’s a superb point about the Diamondbacks. I remember the first time I noticed they had changed to the red unis, I immediately thought it was a bonehead move. I mean, how could a team turn its back on its short but wonderful legacy of winning a world series in purple and turquoise? Then I realized that no matter how unique and appropriate the colors are, they still have to be embraced by the fans and be appeal to a broad audience. So the red seems a lot more palatable to the good folks of AZ. The same rings true for unis of any sport. It’s why one still sees a lot of people wearing sleek black and silver Oakland Raiders jerseys despite the organization being an absolute basket case on and off the field.
I often argue that great franchise brands are performance agnostic – or “Loss-Proof,” in the sense that fans will rally behind what they represent regardless of onfield performance or stars on their playing roster. Glenn Rifkin’s 1999 article in Strategy + Business Magazine is a gem. It talks about the enduring appeal of the Boston Red Sox, who at the time were eighty one years into a World Series Championship drought.
Rifkin cites a great quote from famed novelist John Updike who neatly framed a key part of the Red Sox brand proposition: “All men are mortal, and therefore all men are losers; our profoundest loyalty goes out to the fallible.”
http://www.strategy-business.com/article/13714?gko=7e910
I wrote this piece last year that is aimed at team brands having to think what they represent in relation to others in the market. I mean Target and Walmart both play the same “sport” but are world’s apart in what they represent.
http://www.charliequirk.net/2009/09/charting-your-teams-position.html
Great feedback again all!
CQ
The Timber’s brand has been defined by the Timber’s Army the past few years. Paulson recognized this and “partnered” with them to help promote his agenda of getting an MLS team in Portland.
The problem with Paulson’s design of the new logo is that it disrespects that alliance and fanbase. All the teaser videos implied that the logo would be classic in styling; an upgrade of the existing Timbers logo. Design inspirations were “pure heritage, pure history, pure strength, the familiar axe, the chevrons, and the colors of our forests.”
The resulting logo is cartoonish and looks like a minor league team logo designed by League Central in NYC. If you’re a Timber’s Army member, an ardent fan who feels proud and somewhat responsible for growth of the Timber’s brand and success, you have to be disappointed.
Kim,
Thank you for starting this conversation. It is important that people start to see how the meaning of “brand” is changing as a reaction to the shift in power between businesses and their customers…and yes sports teams are businesses.
A brand is the gut feeling that your customers or audience have about your product, service, company or organization. A logo is simply a symbol that represents a brand.
Many new brands are opting for Avatars rather than logos eg, remember cingular. An avatar is dynamic, it can change to represent the brands emotions, values, and more. An avatar is active. This is particularly appropriate for a sports team, no?
Regardless, as Kim so aptly pointed out, lots of hype was made over the new logo. Was anything said to reveal the values of the team, their promise to their fans, and how they plan to deliver on this promise? The brand launch was mostly an opportunity to reposition the brand, and positioning is not about symbols, but what resides in the mind of the brands publics.
I agree with Jeremy. “The power of the brand is in the product.” The product must come first. The product is the core of the brand. The brand simply identifies the strengths and unique attributes of the product and creates positioning/messaging strategies around it. The best brand strategy will not improve a crappy, overpriced product, and sooner or later the marketplace will eliminate it.
Brands and logos don’t create excitement out of thin air — nor should they. That’s the job of advertising. When it comes to excitement, more important than an exciting brand & logo is an excited public, which leads to this question: how excited is Portland about having a major league soccer team in the first place? Maybe I run in the wrong crowds, but my observation is that local citizens range from mildly enthusiastic to apathetic to utterly opposed. The best brand platform in the world can’t really change that. That’s a job for PR, and I don’t envy the firm that must tackle that challenge.
That’s why, oddly enough, the best brands start with a product that consumers overwhelmingly desire. Nike didn’t succeed because of its Swoosh — it succeeded because it both fueled and was fueled by the zeitgeist of the 1970s fitness craze. So maybe the Timbers need to start all over and reconsider their product itself. Wouldn’t it be funny if, after doing a little research, they discovered that they should switch from offering major league sports to, oh, I don’t know, PUBLIC EDUCATION?
Oh, one other thing. I share the sentiment that winning is not a sure-fire formula for a successful brand. Just ask the Chicago Cubs.
Kim,
A great example of how brand identity does not create brand relationships. I think I heard just as many people cheering as not at the unveiling. That says a lot.
What gets me is the “sell” they used to convince people that this new logo was *the colors!* *the history!* etc., etc. The average bear doesn’t understand what goes into brand identity…so why sell them on it? I get the sense that video was more to prove agency worth than to relate to sports fans. A public dog & pony show…what a shame.
Today, I really don’t think identity matters half as much as marketers think it does. I agree with Jeremy and Joel, but I’d say not “The power of the brand is in the product” but “The power of the brand is in the consumer.” Customer/prospects/clients buy what they want/need to fill a need or feel satisfied and we need to start there (outside-in focused). If they aren’t buying it doesn’t matter what product or identity exists.
If The Timbers have such strong brand relationship built up (i.e. brand equity), why bother with a new logo? Their fans would have supported them either way (I would assume). Or, how about asking your fans to help develop the logo…or at least vote on it in some manner.
There is a lesson to be learned here. Thanks Kim!
Beth Harte
Serengeti Communications
@bethharte
Creating excitement is advertising’s job? Hmmm. Joel, so are you saying that brands shouldn’t elicit emotion and generating excitement shouldn’t be part of developing and building a strong brand? Sure, the product or service is important. And it has to deliver on whatever the brand promise is but, advertising, like identity (e.g. logo) is all brand-ING, not the brand itself.
Thanks Joel for the thoughtful commentary.
Hi Beth. Agree on the “sell” part. It’s one thing to introduce a new logo – in a way that a company would introduce a new marketing campaign or advertising. But to hang your hat on the logo (or any other tool) as the vehicle for expressing your brand promise and distinction seems foolish.
The point about asking fans to help develop or vote on the logo – the crowdsourcing concept. From a design perspective, while it may generate buzz and some type of involvement, it doesn’t necessarily yield the best design. And it devalues the practice of good design, in my opinion. But, voting at least engages those who have the biggest interest and brings your brand ambassadors into the fold and allows them to help evangelize the brand (regardless of the logo that’s selected). There’s commentary taking place on Facebook currently. A page was set up by those most vocal about the new logo. They are ALREADY putting out alternatives and talking about going back to the old logo. But the underlying messaging are even more interesting and all center around the fact they feel that they weren’t part of the Portland Timbers’ change. They feel left out and are now voicing that frustration.
Thanks Beth for the great comments.
I agree with you Kim on the onus being on he company/corporation/team itself to elicit emotion and create excitement. I think Geek Squad founder Robert Stephens’ adage rings true, “advertising is the price you pay for being unremarkable.”
I thought the opposition would fizzle out quite quickly but it seems like it’s being bolstered by many on the discussion threads who are not Timbers fans but empathize with their situation. These diehard Timbers fans, agree or disagree with their behavior at the unveiling, are a big part of why the club exists in Portland. I think that is why the sense of betrayal at not being included in the process has really fanned this outrage.
Brand tweaks are not without precedent in MLS. Ownership was steering the Houston Dynamo and Seattle Sounders down different naming directions before the fans stepped in and demanded a change. A subtle tweak of the logo seems a lot less of a tweak than a wholesale name change.
The latest news is that members of the Timbers Army are going to be meeting with the Front Office to have their interests conveyed. While this may be a token gesture, it is significant in the sense that Merritt realizes he needs to give the disgruntled fans a sense their voice is being heard so they can finally get closure. However, I think if opposition continues, which I think it will, don’t be surprised to see a logo with new tweaks following the Timbers’ first MLS season.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=101065469943747&ref=ts
Kim, I think you draw an excellent and important distinction between brand and branding. (Have you elaborated on this elsewhere? I’d love to see it.)
Here’s my distinction between brand and advertising, and I’m sure this is how you see it too, actually: the brand reflects the company/product’s excitement, whereas advertising is (or ought to) generate excitement among the brand’s consumers.
The brand development process is the opportunity for companies to reflect and do their “navel gazing.” It’s all about them and coming to conclusions about who they are. Without sounding too woo-woo about it, the brand is based on existential thinking, and its assets (e.g. logo) are the outcome of that self-knowledge. Obviously, consideration must be given to its consumers and competition too, but all that is secondary.
Once all of that has been done, the company (hopefully) will become excited about who it is and can enter the market with confidence and panache. At that point it can begin advertising, generating excitement among consumers.
My analogy is the single guy. While alone (or on his therapist’s couch), he gives attention to himself, getting to know himself alone. But once he’s at the the singles bar, he doesn’t have to think about himself (or, god forbid, his competition) and can focus his attention on The Ladies. The guys who get that process backwards end up wearing beer goggles as a brand asset.
Brand-ING, of course, bridges those two spheres, but, it is still weighted towards the product, while advertising is all about the consumer. Branding > Branding > >Marketing/Advertising > Sales work on a continuum pretty much in that order, with the branding process being about the company and product.
I always get my best ideas after clicking “post comment.” So sorry. But here’s the equation as I see it: Good advertising CREATES excitement, whereas good brands ARE exciting.
Charlie, that quote is so dead on.
“Advertising is the price you pay for being unremarkable…”
I acutally think that it was Jeff Bezos of Amazon who said this. His quote was, “Advertising is the price you pay for having an unremarkable product or service.” He made this statement as he was talking about the Kindle and any potential competative threats.
If you brand is remarkable then advertising isn’t one of the marketing necessities, it’s simply an extra.
Thanks again Joel for more comments. And for the future blog post idea(s)!