In the upcoming round of the NFL playoffs, four teams will face off for a chance to play in the Super Bowl. But if it were a contest of brand strategy, which two teams would most deserve to compete on February 6th?

Names:
In the renaming of the New England Patriots in 1971 (originally the Boston Patriots), the Pats went from representing exclusively Massachusetts to encompassing New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut – a move that helped expand the brand’s fan base. The name ‘Patriots’ reflects back on the foundation of our country, when we valiantly defended our rights in a struggle for independence. By tying themselves to a national sentiment, the Patriots have a name that evokes emotion – fierce pride and loyalty – which can be felt from the entire nation. The name provides an avenue for traditions like The End Zone Militia (firing guns after a New England touchdown). The kind of traditions that develop loyalty and passion.

The Baltimore Ravens are named after the famous poem “The Raven” by Edgar Allen Poe, who spent his last few years in Baltimore. Personally, the poem doesn’t exactly bring to mind the ruggedness that a football game should carry. And ironically, Poe’s biography mentions the fact that he considered himself a “Bostonian”, not a Baltimore native. Nevertheless, a raven is not an animal to be messed with.

Logos:
The Patriot’s Logo is strong, simple and patriotic. It is recognizable and speaks to the dominance of their team by using bold colors and sharp lines. Using the colors of the American flag reinforces the national prominence of the team and reflects their strength and determination.

The Raven’s logo represents winning characteristics – bold and strong. While the logo may clearly be a raven, it lacks any personal or human connection. Alex Barrett, a writer for The Bleacher Report ranked the logo 26th in the NFL – “Despite the great purple / gold color scheme, we have a casual looking bird with a beak way too big and cheeks that look like they’re storing nuts for the winter.”

Winner:
With a stronger logo and a name that evokes pride and loyalty, the New England Patriots get my vote for the AFC Champions of branding.

Names:
The New York Giants, named after the baseball team formerly located in the Big Apple before their move to San Francisco in 1957, have one of the more abstract names in the NFL. While the name may have meant something to the baseball team, for the football team it is simply a hand-me-down. It may be seen as intimidating, but the name ‘Giants’ does not evoke any meaningful emotions on its own.

The 49ers, in a similar way to the Patriots, have history on their side. Their name brings to mind the glory days of the California gold rush, when there was nothing but hope of riches and a pioneer spirit. Again, this is something fans can reflect upon, which helps create a stronger connection to the team. However, the historical reference is not an obvious one, and without an understanding of the background you might wonder about the strange name.

Logos:
It’s difficult to illustrate an actual ‘giant’ in a logo, so New York leverages its initials in the design. But the lowercase letters and simplified design seem to contradict the message in the name. While “Giants” implies strength, intimidation and stature, the logo makes the team feel small and unassuming. Barrett argues that the team should have stuck with their old logo, “I didn’t much care for the logo from 1999 that looked exactly the same, but just spelled out ‘GIANTS,’ but looking back I think it was just a bit better.”

As with The Giants, making a logo for a name like 49ers is a challenge. To me, this logo doesn’t say “intimidating football team” – it could be a logo for anything. Barrett, however, finds merit in its simplicity, “I have always been a fan of the burgundy and gold color scheme. It is plain, yes; but it is also classy and one of the only good ‘oval’ logos left.”

Winner:
It was a close one, but the 49ers win by a margin for the historical significance of their name and for the bold simplicity of their logo.

Patriots vs. 49ers?
As far as the 2012 Super Bowl of branding goes, I have to go with the Patriots. I think the history behind their name and the boldness of their logo are unstoppable.

Did I mention that I’m a Pats fan?

Contributed by Christy O’Keefe

Remember the adage everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten? Well let’s think about this in terms of branding; that sentence could easily translate to everything I need to know about branding I learned from college football.

As I’ve written about in a number of past posts creating a memorable brand experience and creating a strong brand loyalty are the hallmarks of a successful brand, and nowhere will you find a company or product that creates the undying passion and loyalty the way college football teams do.

Point-in-case: When I originally started to write a post tying branding and college football together I was going to list the top ten college football brands (admittedly determined by my own biased ranking system) but quickly decided this was a bad idea based on a number of things.

Problem #1: The thought of ranking my favorite team (Go Gators!) at anything other than #1 made my skin crawl.

Problem #2: SEC schools would undoubtedly take over the top five (heck the entire top ten would probably be SEC schools in my mind) because in addition to being a Florida fan I’m an SEC fan.

Problem #3: Last but certainly not least, I knew that if I started ranking college teams a debate so heated would break out in the office that I feared our walls would come crashing down like goal posts of yesteryear.

So how do college football teams garner such strong brand experiences and loyalty? It’s because when it comes to branding, college football gets it. There is a painstaking attention to detail associated with a college football brand from making sure the correct Pantone color is used for every piece of equipment, apparel and brochure to guarantee consistency to nostalgic activities that create positive brand associations. These nostalgic activities can include a school’s unique tailgating traditions and pre-game ceremonies. Every detail is considered, and everything is branded.

But why would a school spend so much time, energy, and money to create these branded experiences? It’s simple. A school with a strong brand will continue to attract masses of new students each year (subsequently growing its brand’s reach every year), students then graduate, become alumni and alumni become donors to the school. Finally there is the revenue and brand impressions generated from trademark licensing. Schools like the University of Texas, University of Florida, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina, etc. generate millions of dollars each year from licensing revenue alone. The number of impressions brands like these get each year from the sale of licensed apparel and equipment only furthers the awareness and loyalty for brands.

Having a strong brand in college football is more than winning games because even in recent slumps of some the greatest brands in college football their fans have remained true and passionate. It’s all about the experience and the passion the fans feel for their brand…I mean team.

So repeat after me: everything I need to know about branding I learned from college football.

That iconic “swoosh” is easily recognized by millions of people around the world as the logo for Nike. Its influence reaches far and its endorsements are many, so it’s understandable that devout sports fans (and anyone that watches the news) remembers when Michael Vick lost his Nike endorsement after pleading guilty to dog fighting charges in 2007.

Just one month ago, Nike decided to renew its contract with Vick. The quarterback has had a moderately successful comeback since signing with the Philadelphia Eagles in 2009.

“Michael acknowledges his past mistakes,” Nike spokesman Derek Kent told CNBC. “We do not condone those actions, but we support the positive changes he has made to better himself off the field.”

Many are upset that Nike may appear to support criminal activity with Vick’s contract renewal. This has prompted me to wonder: does disassociating one’s brand from a scandal (like Nike did initially) help or hurt a brand?

I believe a brand that disassociates itself from a scandal will flourish or flounder based on how it has already branded itself in the past. If a company has established itself as a smart, successful enterprise, then the public will most likely reference that image and see the disassociation as a tactical move. However, if the company has defined itself as a continuously error-prone brand that dabbles in illicit activities, then the public will see the company as irresponsible for cutting its ties.

Take Disney World, for example. Several people have died on the park’s attractions, but is that what you think of when you ride “It’s a Small World?” Probably not. Disney is highly adept at branding itself as a provider of wholesome happiness, so it can quickly disregard an issue and move on without a hitch. The public knows that what the Disney brand can offer them outweighs any scandalous slights.

I think Nike ultimately made a wise decision to terminate Vick’s contract in 2007. There was a lot of bad blood associated with the controversy, and Nike probably would have received some flak for it. But, if Nike had ridden it out, I think it would not have suffered a devastating blow either. Nike’s brand — a profitable, dominant, and powerful sportswear provider — can afford to take a hit. And although many don’t agree with Nike’s decision to reinstate Vick, I think we can safely assume that the brand won’t be hurting for business anytime soon.

Contributed by Allison Meeks

I’m a Roger Federer fan. I set my alarm to wake up on Sunday (at 9 am) and watch with the hopes of him beating Nadal in the final match of the French Open. Well it wasn’t in the cards this year. But while watching the French Open this past weekend I couldn’t help but notice both Roger and Rafa are Nike men. I’m sure I’ve noticed it before but for some reason this year I was distracted by it and the other brand placements.

Addison Whitney is headquartered in Charlotte, also known as NASCAR headquarters. I think the reason the French Open brand placements were so vivid to me was because I had watched the start of the Coca-Cola 600 the weekend before and was amazed at all of the places a logo could go – behind the steering wheel, all over the cars and on the driver. All I could think of was how is this placement a worthwhile investment? How is the ROI measured and justified? In my head the potential conversation might go like this: Me: “Hi Boss, I’d like to spend $20,000 to put our logo behind Dale Jr’s steering wheel.” Boss: “Beth Anne, no. Get out.”

And then I remembered Michael Jordan and Nike. Who didn’t want to be just like Mike? (Do you remember the Gatorade song? “I wanna be, I wanna be like Mike.”) I won’t lie. Young Beth Anne was decked out in Nike and Chicago Bulls gear despite living in Atlanta.

Are today’s athletes really so influential that they can influence brand preference? NASCAR fans are loyal. But do Denny Hamlin fans only use FedEx as opposed to UPS because he endorses it? Again, I love Roger Federer, but I’m not going to seek out Nike or Gillette over other brands because of his endorsement (in all fairness, I am a woman, not a man so I don’t know if that makes a difference).

What do you think about athlete endorsements and the value? Do these endorsements really make a strong impact on a brand or are they just a means to increase awareness?

 

And don’t worry your pretty little head Roger, you’ll get him next year at Roland Garros (and hopefully next month at Wimbledon).