For the last few years we have been trying to change our colors but it gets turned down by our non-profit’s board each time. It was a headache to just change our logo and our name from LuNaTeCs to LUNATECS last fall. They currently require every FRC team under the non-profit to have bright yellow sleeves, which is currently just us and 5420. Their main reason for this is so we stick out in a crowd and that it will increase our chances of getting picked since our sleeves will be memorable.
Does a team’s colors, or how much they stand out in a crowd, have any effect on their rank on your team’s pick list?
We know that teams don’t pick based on sleeve color, but we would like to have some data to bring to the next board meeting along with our proposal.
If you are compelled to vote ‘yes’ please explain why.
Philosophy (as a subject) is based on the merit of the theory, not the philosopher as a person. There is some beautiful philosophical theory out there that has been developed by some unsavory individuals.
If that was too cryptic: Branding is important, but the merit you want to stand out on is based on robot performance, or chairman’s performance, etc., not the color of your sleeves. That is focusing the energy of being standout in the wrong place. If you think looking less florescent helps non-sleeve merit (other aspects of your team) - make that change.
Just my $0.02
(Your team uniform also makes me think of Despicable Me, take that how you want :))
I’d love to investigate if someone got me a really big ranking list of how “well branded” teams are*. My guess is that there would be a very small but positive measurable effect. I don’t think hardly anyone is going to say “yes” to this poll. I’d bet the effects are primarily subconscious if they exist at all.
Both 1257 and 1228 go by the numbers as much as possible last I checked. I don’t believe we’ve ever considered sleeve color as a listed criteria whatsoever, unless of course your sleeve color impacts your robot performance (like MOE shirts messing with computer vision.)
That being said: How your team looks impacts whether you get funding (presentation and look), indirectly what robot you can build, and indirectly how well you do on the field.
Your shirt color in the vaccuum of a single competition should never impact your picking position on other’s lists (if they know what they’re doing.) What robot you build, and how well it accomplishes the game tasks according to the picker’s criteria, that’s what should.
I’ve been involved with MAR in some capacity for seven years, most of it as a scouting mentor or lead scout. Before reading this post, I would not have been able to tell you a thing about 316’s colors or any component of their branding.
Agreed, the poll should have had a “marginal at absolute best” option. There are a few really small things that make me have biases for/against certain teams such as costumes or mascots, but this is super minimal (i.e. 2169’s theatrics back quite a few years ago were mentioned in scouting meetings as a criteria specific to them, but this is an old edge-case)
I should also mention that (with the exception of a few teams) I could not draw a linkage between the robot they field and the team’s position in the stands, it’s simply not important until an alliance decides to sit together for elims (which is after the point of sleeve color mattering).
Teams we have been picked by tell us that their decision was based on robot performance seen by their scouts, ease of working with our drive team, and a few times because they know we have good scouting data and want to check that before making a second or third pick. We have never been picked for our branding, which is kind of average.
When we are picking, we look for partners whose robot capabilities complement ours; i.e., who are strong in areas where we are not as strong. We also look for consistency, and a drive team that is easy to work with. Both of those are indicators of a team that puts in a lot of practice time.
We pick based on the robot, and a few other factors that aren’t branding. However, having your team stick out can make teams a little bit more likely to remember who you are and subconsciously think of you a bit more.
That being said, no one’s looking at your sleeves.
Yeah, a crazy mascot or unique emcee introduction ritual is more in the vein of the “team culture” thing that can get your team differentiated on non-robot merit for picking purposes.
Does your non-profit really worry about your sleeve color?
I’m the secretary for our non-profit board. If we spent timenduring our board meeting talking about sleeve colors, I’d walk away. There’s about one bajillion more important things for a board to discuss.
I don’t think there’s any question that, to the teams who don’t scout thoroughly, branding has a big impact, because there are only so many teams that one can recall straight from memory. You’re also less likely to encounter those teams on CD, so be aware that the poll will be heavily biased.
Funnily enough, I’ve seen a lot of situations where good branding hurts teams. Because failures are sometimes easier to remember than successes, I’ve seen some great competitors with powder-coating (for example) get completely overlooked because all people could remember were their failures; robots powering down + missing shots + dropping game pieces happens all the time and nobody remembers the specific team, but if it happens to the yellow/orange/blue robot, everybody remembers who it was.
Not knowing 316 in the slightest, I would not have been able to tell you a thing about 316’s colors or any component of their branding.
Really though, if a team is picking solely off a shirt sleeve they have bigger scouting issues to look into, and arent exactly the teams you want to be with anyways. The branding i usually notice are cool designs on the shirts, and much less the shirt sleeves. Something like 1983’sskunkdesigns are going to stand out more than just some yellow on the sides.
This thread should be re-named to “Do you think branding effects who you pick?”
I’ve been at events where the depth comes down to picking teams that simply won’t lose the event by breaking down in bad spots of the field, getting in partner’s way or drawing penalties. There usually aren’t much difference in these teams’ scoring statistics so relying on things like pit organization, bumper quality, and team branding may be a good indicator of which teams have read the rules and more likely to ‘get it’. That being said, this usually is a negative for those teams that don’t have team shirts and a positive for those teams that go well above and beyond. Things like having bright yellow shirts instead of blue doesn’t really matter.
The basic argument:
Good branding will be remembered. Thus, you will be remembered, and people during their scouting meetings are going to remember you. They will most likely take a look to see how your doing.
Now, whether that’s positive or negative, that’s all based on whether they remember the good or the bad.
My team goes based on scouting data only - how well the robot performs. But not every team has great scouting data. Teams that have solid branding, a good looking robot (with good bumpers!) and seem to know what they are doing is going to be memorable.
There’s one local team that wears black shirts to competition. They’re fairly recognizable. But when they go to Champs, the seniors get to pick a color for their Champs shirt. And while at Champs, I walk right past their pit without recognizing them every time, despite knowing many of them well.
You may not like the yellow, but changing it will have an impact, in the short term, on your teams recognizability. Others won’t recognize you, won’t realize it’s the same team they saw last year. In my opinion, it’s better for teams to embrace their branding, instead of trying to drastically change it.
