andyreds22 wrote:
The new Salford Red Devils brand needs to be modern and forward thinking, with a nod to the heritage and tradition of the club. As far as the "matchstick" idea, I think that would be best left to a great line of vintage merchandise.
I tend to agree with that, but...
Wayward Fan wrote:
Much as we'll all be attached to old designs (the big S, the stick men etc) the world has moved on and we have to as well. Many older fans HATED the Rhinos name and logo at Leeds but now it's widely accepted as one of the most successful rebrands in the history of pro rugby. The club has embraced tradition by bringing back the Red Devils moniker but in all other aspects of the branding process we need to look forward and do whatever's needed to reach out to a new, younger audience.
Not necessarily. If you look at some of the big sports clubs and organisations, and how they have rebranded in recent years, there’s a definite move away from heraldry, complexity and in-your-face logos with bombastic typefaces:
The new Liverpool crest looks very much what the ‘matchstick’ logo would present. I’m not saying Salford should go this way and I’m not saying the above changes haven’t come without consternation but, paradoxically, the more money you spent on this kind of work, the less influence and input the club and it supporters would have. (Imagine what the London 2012 logo would have looked like if Wolff Olins listened to anyone.) The bigger the agency, the higher the likelihood you would get something like this rather than say the Leeds logo, as per the brief, which would inevitably include a heritage element what with the name change and all.
Michigan red wrote:
As long as were talking about marketing does anyone know how long we have left on the current shirt manufacturers deal and main shirt sponsors?
I'd think that with the Docs business connections when it is time to look for new deal he would be able to source better deals, on the manufacturers surely a more main stream supplier would offer a greater range of products, think the only stumbling block here (and I know it's a valid one) would be that the sheer volume of units we shift isn't that large, but then again if the club looking upwards the possibility of greater sales must surely be there.
This is a tough one to balance. On one hand, you want a deal that suits Salford; one that gives the club a fair amount of leeway. On the other, you don’t want to be saddled with a brand name that no-one has heard of. The former is something I’m more interested in as a fan today. But as a kid, I wanted Salford to be wearing the likes of Adidas, Nike, Puma, Reebok etc. — the (then) cool brands. And, as shallow as it sounds, I think this has an influence on some people.
I don’t quite get the advantage of the Kooga deal. I’m not aware of the specifics but from the bits and pieces I’ve heard there doesn’t seem to be many preferential factors over going down to the Adidas warehouse and setting up some kind of trade deal. As far as I’m concerned, a kit manufacturer is a shirt sponsor; supporters are walking billboards for them. So there needs to be some kind of benefit for the club: whether that’s a big payment of some money upfront or a significant advantage in terms of buying and manufacture, which may include a very low minimum order level or a wide profit margin in relation to RRP — so the club could either make a decent sum on each sale or squeeze the margins to bring the retail price down.
