Look I'm with you in keeping the integrity of our logo and school colors sacred. Nike is notorious for pushing the outside of the envelope and imposing their design interpretation into anyone's product. It's become the accepted norm. Look no further than Oregon to witness those interpretations. In a way it's kind of a right of passage to have the mighty Nike put their own design twist on our school. Let's see what happens.

My take is, if you're trying to hit a particular color and miss a little it looks like a mistake. It looks wrong. If you're choosing another color that is in the same family of color like Calipari Blue which is not our official color, then it's obvious to me it's only a design interpretation that is meant to be fresh and new. It's hip. I like it.

I skimmed over most of the posts. In a nutshell; GA is wrong to be complaining about Nike using non blue and non gray to sell our brand. People like different colours, and using black is never a bad idea, because everyone loves black, has black clothing, and will buy black. GA is correct to be complaining about our shade of blue not being used. I agree that when you use different fabrics, you can't get it exactly right, but you can get it a lot closer than they do a lot of the time. Over the years, going to Memphis games, it is amazing (not in a good way) how many different shades of blue people wear. It is not a life and death thing but it is kind of embarassing.

Last but not least; Bowen is dealing with so much leftover crap from RC, that I doubt that he has time to deal with ensuring that brand standard is met with all merchandise. Once he gets things under control (which might take a long time), I am confident that he will get this fixed as well.

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I had sausage and biscuits for breakfast. Good stuff.

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

:drops mic:

(06-09-2013 09:14 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Didn't "Calipari Blue" originate because it looked better on TV? It actually does. I'm all for tradition, but I'm also for taking one for the team. That's a lot of money, and the "brand standard" hasn't been the standard in a very long time.

The notion of "Calipari blue" is a falsehood perpetuated by GA. For some reason he wants to use Cal as the scapegoat for our color issue, despite the fact that we've used a kakeidoscope of different shades of blue on uniforms for decades. Also, the color on our uniforms and our BB floor were lighter during the Kirk era than the Calipari era.

(06-10-2013 09:09 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:14 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Didn't "Calipari Blue" originate because it looked better on TV? It actually does. I'm all for tradition, but I'm also for taking one for the team. That's a lot of money, and the "brand standard" hasn't been the standard in a very long time.

The notion of "Calipari blue" is a falsehood perpetuated by GA. For some reason he wants to use Cal as the scapegoat for our color issue, despite the fact that we've used a kakeidoscope of different shades of blue on uniforms for decades. Also, the color on our uniforms and our BB floor were lighter during the Kirk era than the Calipari era.

It's called butthurt

(06-10-2013 09:09 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:14 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Didn't "Calipari Blue" originate because it looked better on TV? It actually does. I'm all for tradition, but I'm also for taking one for the team. That's a lot of money, and the "brand standard" hasn't been the standard in a very long time.

The notion of "Calipari blue" is a falsehood perpetuated by GA. For some reason he wants to use Cal as the scapegoat for our color issue, despite the fact that we've used a kakeidoscope of different shades of blue on uniforms for decades. Also, the color on our uniforms and our BB floor were lighter during the Kirk era than the Calipari era.

This is true and yet, like so many others have pointed out, he refuses to even listen or comprehend. It's really frustrating.

Some folks just can't be happy.

is the original post a copy/paste?
i SWEAR i've seen it somewhere before... but where? and by whom?

gotta so some research on this one.

(06-10-2013 08:40 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  Somebody please figure this out before I buy my next car.

I need to know which blue to buy.

See the color links below my signature. It is readily apparent (with all discrepancies and variations considered), that Nike's blue is nowhere close. If you have pride in our tradition, buy the color in the link or darker.

GA also wants everyone to chant "We fight like Tigers" during football player walk throughs yet he doesn't want to be the one to lead the chant.

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I looked into this a few years ago, when I first became aware of GA's concerns.

I agree with your interpretation, 100%. The brand standard applies only to printed materials, such as official university logos on letterhead, websites, etc.

Universities (and pro teams) routinely promote and sell products in a myriad of colors, b/c that is what you do to sell more products. Including the uniforms, but more commonly on cups, hats, sporting equipment, etc. But the official LOGO always has to have the correct color, just not the entire garment or product.

(06-10-2013 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I looked into this a few years ago, when I first became aware of GA's concerns.

I agree with your interpretation, 100%. The brand standard applies only to printed materials, such as official university logos on letterhead, websites, etc.

Universities (and pro teams) routinely promote and sell products in a myriad of colors, b/c that is what you do to sell more products. Including the uniforms, but more commonly on cups, hats, sporting equipment, etc. But the official LOGO always has to have the correct color, just not the entire garment or product.

Well, $h!t.

I like these a lot...

(06-10-2013 01:26 PM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  I like these a lot...

and all this time I thought you were a dude...

I can remember being at the Liberty Bowl sometime during the Rip era, and they were testing some uniforms under the lights to see what different shades looked like on TV. May have been using or testing the Jumbotron, that is all hazy now.

Why was I there? We were doing some work on the phone system and the connections for all of the media in the press box. Back in the analog days.

But I remember a conversation with a certain LB employee and a certain University employee.

Is that how they came up with the current color? I have no idea.

(06-10-2013 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I looked into this a few years ago, when I first became aware of GA's concerns.

I agree with your interpretation, 100%. The brand standard applies only to printed materials, such as official university logos on letterhead, websites, etc.

Universities (and pro teams) routinely promote and sell products in a myriad of colors, b/c that is what you do to sell more products. Including the uniforms, but more commonly on cups, hats, sporting equipment, etc. But the official LOGO always has to have the correct color, just not the entire garment or product.

Plain COMMON SENSE says that consistency strengthens a brand. I never studied marketing, but was quite sure that such things are taught. A 15 second Google search confirmed that hunch:

http://blog.ringcentral.com/2011/08/3-im...and-image/

"having a consistent look and sound across every facet of your marketing efforts can make it easier for customers and prospective customers to recognize your business and identify with it. So what are the key elements that you need to focus on to create a strong, consistent brand image?"

I could easily come up with a dozen references saying the same thing. There is obviously an advantage in at least TRYING to be consistent with the Brand colors. I am not asking for perfection and don't have a problem with pink, camouflage, etc. for novelty items, but for uniforms and merchandise which are supposedly representative of the school colors, it is sheer bush-league ignorance to do take the attitude of any "old blue will do" and "I like black better than gray". We are our own worst enemy.

(06-10-2013 02:07 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I looked into this a few years ago, when I first became aware of GA's concerns.

I agree with your interpretation, 100%. The brand standard applies only to printed materials, such as official university logos on letterhead, websites, etc.

Universities (and pro teams) routinely promote and sell products in a myriad of colors, b/c that is what you do to sell more products. Including the uniforms, but more commonly on cups, hats, sporting equipment, etc. But the official LOGO always has to have the correct color, just not the entire garment or product.

Plain COMMON SENSE says that consistency strengthens a brand. I never studied marketing, but was quite sure that such things are taught. A 15 second Google search confirmed that hunch:

http://blog.ringcentral.com/2011/08/3-im...and-image/

"having a consistent look and sound across every facet of your marketing efforts can make it easier for customers and prospective customers to recognize your business and identify with it. So what are the key elements that you need to focus on to create a strong, consistent brand image?"

I could easily come up with a dozen references saying the same thing. There is obviously an advantage in at least TRYING to be consistent with the Brand colors. I am not asking for perfection and don't have a problem with pink, camouflage, etc. for novelty items, but for uniforms and merchandise which are supposedly representative of the school colors, it is sheer bush-league ignorance to do take the attitude of any "old blue will do" and "I like black better than gray". We are our own worst enemy.

Like I said before, I have no problem using other colors to sell merchandise, BUT if we are actually TRYING to produce the school colors on unis or merchandise, then I agree with you. Why do a royal blue and call it the school color, when it isn't? But it's still an uphill battle.

I recall very well walking the Riverwalk before the NC game in San Antonio. From the back, there was almost no way to tell Kansas fans from Memphis fans, even though our official shades of blue are somewhat distinct from each other.

(06-10-2013 02:07 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 09:15 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  you should be ashamed of your constant criticism of our University

The university should be ashamed for failing to honor and capitalize upon our oldest tradition and potentially very valuable asset. It is long past time for the athletic department to get on the same page with the university. This leads me back to the original question of this thread: WHY in hell won't someone tell Nike??? All I am asking for is a darker shade of blue and gray instead of black. Don't tell me that is impossible.

I know I am at fault for enabling you, but for the last time (from me at least)...

The school is in 100% compliance with our documented brand standards. The brand standard that you constantly keep spouting off about has absolutely NOTHING to do with merchandising. It is, and always has been, strictly regarding our physical brands (university logo, secondary logo, university seal, athletic logo, alumni association logo), and is ONLY in regard to printed or web-based materials.

You are fighting a battle that doesn't even exist.

I looked into this a few years ago, when I first became aware of GA's concerns.

I agree with your interpretation, 100%. The brand standard applies only to printed materials, such as official university logos on letterhead, websites, etc.

Universities (and pro teams) routinely promote and sell products in a myriad of colors, b/c that is what you do to sell more products. Including the uniforms, but more commonly on cups, hats, sporting equipment, etc. But the official LOGO always has to have the correct color, just not the entire garment or product.

Plain COMMON SENSE says that consistency strengthens a brand. I never studied marketing, but was quite sure that such things are taught. A 15 second Google search confirmed that hunch:

http://blog.ringcentral.com/2011/08/3-im...and-image/

"having a consistent look and sound across every facet of your marketing efforts can make it easier for customers and prospective customers to recognize your business and identify with it. So what are the key elements that you need to focus on to create a strong, consistent brand image?"

I could easily come up with a dozen references saying the same thing. There is obviously an advantage in at least TRYING to be consistent with the Brand colors. I am not asking for perfection and don't have a problem with pink, camouflage, etc. for novelty items, but for uniforms and merchandise which are supposedly representative of the school colors, it is sheer bush-league ignorance to do take the attitude of any "old blue will do" and "I like black better than gray". We are our own worst enemy.

Ironically, Google changes their logo and primary colors on the top of their search page all of the time to celebrate holidays, anniversaries, and the lives of famous people.

http://www.google.com/doodles/about

This is what they have today...