Just saw this on Facebook, posted by the QPR page... http://www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-club-crest-rebrand-201617-2484959.aspx Anyone have any idea what it will be? Not a massive fan of the current crest, but can't help but think there is money to be made from changing the club crest every few years. Would love it to revert back to the old one, or something similar.
The design DT did, which was adopted by us for the Not606 QPR badge and sent out by Sku would be fine by me!
This should be the last business on the agenda due to how unimportant it is. Also, I quite like our current crest.
I'm with the others on this thread who think this is a big waste of time. The new one's fine. Could it be better? Probably in some way. Was the old one good as it was? Yes. But good grief, what a way to lose our focus when everyone's either indifferent to the logo or happy with it at this stage. I get the need to brand -- that's a good idea, but brand around what they have and around a competitive squad. This just seems like another way to keep everyone focused on anything but the product on the field.
I just read that it'll be unveiled ahead of the 2016/17 season so I can't imagine it's that much of a diversion. Might be a way of drawing a line under the last few years and signify a new start though.
What we got is fine and it''s a waste of time changing. Stop f*kking around and concentrate on getting us back in the PL Mr F.
These things take a while and I can see it using up a lot of energy in the next season if they are at all consultative as they claim they'll be. Frankly I'd rather we not spend the first season back down in the Championship focusing on how we'll change our crest. It sounds small, but people get up in arms over design. As a property manager of a large condominium once aptly said: No one comments on details of the budget that keep the place running, but change the light fixtures or paint in the halls and everyone has an opinion. The crest is an important symbol, but nothing so much as a winning team and a culture of excellence and we need to take care of those first.
This year, if we get a proper kit back, the masses will be overjoyed. By next year, everybody will have forgotten about a new crest.
Redesigning a badge? Even if done in consultation with supporters, that's barely enough work to occupy one marketing person for a few hours here and there in the year ahead. Whose energy will it "use up"? You can't mean the players, manager or coaches, right?
It sounds simple, but that is the trap. Virtually every organization that seeks to rebrand itself finds that the logo (or in this case, the badge) is something that draws enormous resources, mostly because everyone has an opinion because it is the representative symbol of the organization. Everything from the shade of colour, the features, the size, how it will look on stationary, kit, TV and so on falls from this. Then there is the consultation. Who should be involved? Players? Current or past or both? Supporters (and how many)? Team staff? And so on. Then there is the fit with the overall brand design. Yes, technically one person with some graphic design experience could do this. But this isn't how these things work in practice. I've see even the most trivial brand idea projects draw emormous conflict and time when very little is a stake. A badge for a club is something that many people feel is something worth having a stake in. Everyone has an opinion and because of the passion for the club people want to ensure their voices are heard. That's what draws energy and takes time.
Isn't it? Is this contention based on a study of numerous occasions on which a football club has changed its badge? I wonder... Either way, I've been involved in logo redesigns for brands on, I think, 5 occasions. One brand, in particular, had a very large, loyal and diverse customer base. What tends to happen is that one marketing person is given the job of putting the design out to tender to designers. Between writing emails, making phone calls and then reviewing designs in order to build a short-list, I'd say our marketing manager might have done about 20 hours work in total across a period of a few months. At that stage she then called a few more senior people into a meeting. We looked at the designs, whittled the list down further and then had her convene a focus group for our customers. Discussing the logo was just one thing that focus group did, by the way. We had other questions to ask our customers. By the time we'd chosen and refined the new logo, I'd say one person had worked maybe 50 hours on it in total with a handful of others having done an hour's work here and there. Attempting to come up with an analogy for a football club paying players and coaches to get results on the pitch, we did NOT take highly productive salespeople off the phone to get involved... They wouldn't have cared anyway. Which, I imagine, would be the case with QPR's players. I agree that a new badge isn't really a top priority for a club as badly run as QPR. But the idea that this would create so much work as to get in the way of other things just doesn't make sense to me. Not least because the marketing people involved in something like this are hardly part of QPR's morass of terrible problems. In the football context, QPR seems to do OK marketing-wise, I'd say. The problems are more in the area of building a winning football team and not wasting money on useless players.
A logo can take 2 hours or 2 years The people behind QPR who work on this brand have their work to do The brand is essential for growth to take the club forward ... So bad has the livery got ... It's all over the place and needs to be stabilised The football has no bearing on the brand so don't agree with fans who just want a football team We are currently the butt of jokes of how not to run a football club that has to be addressed ... Building the brand back is vital for the future and I hope they get it right Everything comes from the identity and the general public won't get this I am back to work on John Lewis Insurance ... If you have time switch from the John Lewis site to the JLI site there is a perfect example how they have got it wrong and I am tasked with getting it right ... Which I will .
@thisismyengland and @TWGWTDT : Both good and valid points on different issues related to the brand and logo. @thisismyengland: You're right that I am making some assumptions about how to do this and, like you, have worked on branding exercises and seen things done quickly and not so. I am making assumptions that they would want to have a lot of input from supporters largely because a club's relationship with its supporters is something akin to joint ownership (at best, at least) and shared history as opposed to "just being a customer". But then, they could huddle over a plan and put out something quickly and even do a good job in that time so it's a fair point. I also don't have a lot of other things to go on in terms of what the standard approach to football clubs branding is. But I'd say that tinkering with anything about an identity for a club that's 130 years old is something that ought not be rushed. @TWGWTDT: I'm with you on the importance of the branding. We are a joke to many and for a well-earned reason. That said, other supporters I know from other clubs respect the QPR brand (fair or not) but not the club (fair or not). QPR, Loftus Road and the culture of the club throughout time is one that has resonance and respect even if it hasn't played many superstar roles in that time. As for the club in the past years, it's been - appropriately so -- mocked for it's horrible management. QPR can afford to tick off it long-time fans, but the real risk to the brand is with potential new supporters. Are kids and newcomers to the sport going to want to support a club that's not running itself well. That's where the branding can do wonders for everyone...if backed up with a real plan for improving the club WITH the brand.
A few questions from branding exercises I have had the misfortune to be involved in: If QPR were an animal what would it be? (my answer now: worm, future: Cockerpoo) Use three adjectives to describe the nature of QPR (now: knackered, flacid, confused; future: bouncy, cocky, confident) What colour best represents what QPR stands for? (now: brown; future: sky blue pink) The branding of my company and its products is an all consuming obsession with some senior managers, and it is very important (and not necessarily time consuming top line). What is critical is that the staff behave consistently with the branding, and that decisions are also in line with it. If you want to be seen as trustworthy, innovative and caring it's no good if your actions and products/services contradict the promise. That's where the time should go in branding, ensuring that the organisation lives up to it. Almost impossible with challenged loose cannons like Barton and Redknapp representing the club. Good branding buys you equity with customers, which you can burn by disappointing them occassionally. And putting your prices up. Our branding has been a disaster for years. You can fail on the pitch and still have a positive brand - like Burnley. Changing the crest (crest? it's a ****ing badge) is a part of the rebranding and I'm all for it, part of the rebirth. Though I can't imagine we will end up with a better one that DT's modern/mod classic. On the other hand, if Tony is simply changing the badge and nothing else it's a complete waste of time.
A badge is just the core The livery kit etc and the tone of voice would quickly re establish the club ... On the pitch then I would couple the whole lot like Swansea I am a great fan of what they have done but of course I am QPR and believe it or not we have a heritage to build on ... It's very straight forward what the club needs to do Keep out of the papers Build a football team with principles Couple that with a good ID and don't change it ... A refresh once in a while The rest will then follow
