Update on the Beaver Identity Crisis

In October, I wrote this article discussing the Beaver’s identity crisis.

Two months have passed and we’ve all gotten a grain grayer and a bit balder. What has Oregon Duck Tinker Hatfield been up to? Well, he’s spearheaded a campaign for an entire re-branding of Oregon State’s identity. You can read about it here.

Mike Riley is thrilled:

“I really appreciate Nike for their involvement,” Riley says. “From the day I arrived in 1997, they’ve been helpful to Oregon State and our program. And now that Tinker has put in all his time and thoughts into some great ideas for Oregon State, I’m even more excited. He has a great vision of what could be. It’s something we’ll continue to explore.”

Bob De Carolis is lukewarm:

“I don’t think we’re totally on the same page yet as far as where we want to go,” De Carolis says. “We’ve had some meetings with Tinker and the Nike people, and we have come to be on the same page with some things, but we haven’t gone very far. We have some meetings coming up with them to keep the dialogue open.”

Keep the dialogue open?

Bob, you’re sporting a mascot that looks like dust-ridden stuffed animal that’s been under your grandmother’s bed since 1950, a handful of logos (is it OS, OSU, or the Angrybeaver?!), fonts, and 3 different football uniforms in the past 4 seasons. And you’re what, doing Tinker a favor by keeping a dialogue open?

Hatfield’s ideas are spot on:

“We wanted to clean up the look, make it more classic, steal all the latest technology, take away some of the detail and make Oregon State look like what we think they actually are – more traditional, classy, but with a modern twist,” Hatfield says. “It’s different than U of O, which is kind of futuristic, not looking back, not too worried about tradition.”

You win games by how you play, but Michael Jordan has always said, ‘If I look good, I feel good. And if I feel good, I play better.’ That’s something we might not have talked about 30 years ago, but in the modern day and age, there’s something to it.”

Bob D is fighting again:

“We just got done doing a branding exercise with our fonts and the ‘OS’ logo, and I don’t want to go into changing that right now,” he says. “I don’t think we’re necessarily on the same page as far as full-blown rebranding goes, but we’re certainly keeping the dialogue open.”

Yes, Bob, you finished a branding exercise that butchered our font and the OSU logo. Marketing and branding are what Oregon, Nike, and Hatfield do best, and they have offered to do it free of charge. So why the hesitation? The resistance by OSU frustrates me because they clearly don’t have a vision of their own, yet they’re lukewarm when experts in the field approach them. This is a golden opportunity to appeal to people east of the Rockies. Is it Bob D’s ego in creating our current/horrendous identity, or is it fear of another bra foible? If it’s the latter I can understand, but Nike quickly made good on that and admitted the error.

Something has to give. The current look is hodgepodge, and besides the orange jersey (which we never seem to wear), it’s very forgettable. The general public, when looking at OSU gear, think it’s Oklahoma State. And the football “angry beaver” doesn’t match with men’s baseball or basketball logos. Re-branding, if nothing else, creates a cohesive identity. An identity helps recruiting, makes the team memorable (and thus relevant) east of the Rockies, and makes the players wearing the jersey feel good and thus play better. Huge Bob D fan, but on this one he has his head up his ass, and while he hasn’t created a cohesive OSU identity, he has succeeded in creating one angry beaver.