Under Armour - No. Just no.

Ooh-Rah

Ooh-Rah

Semper-Fi
Moderator
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
13,426
I do not approve - Some things should be considered sacred. Of course being a Marine, I may be somewhat biased, and quite honestly most of their target demo won't get the reference anyway. Still, no.

ETA - now I hate it even more. They called it "Band of Ballers"

Facebook page is getting hammered, removed from their website already -

- Link -

upload_2015-5-16_10-43-13.png
 
Last edited:
On one hand I agree. On another, it speaks volumes the image is so iconic and so well known for this to happen.
 
I am glad to see them "owning" their mistake and correcting it post haste.
 
Another thing to consider is the company's evolution. When it started the brand was all about sports and initially I saw it marketed towards football and basketball. It has since branched out to not just every sport, but also the military. You can't swing a dead E-3 at a base gym without hitting 2 or 3 guys wearing UA gear. I can see all sorts of scenarios were this isn't malicious but maybe poor taste or a fundamental misunderstanding of the market. They seem to be dealing with this and have a good (to my knowledge) rapport with veterans (despite it's support of WWP).

My money's on one division doing this without speaking to another division about the fallout. "This is like a military thing and everyone loves them right now..."
 
I don't think the kids at UA understand the emotional attachment that image has for many; they saw a cool iconic image that they could use to promote their product.

Ad agency fail.
 
I have a feeling it was designed by a younger generation that didn't grow up hearing the first hand stories from parents or grandparents. To them it is a well known symbol, it's not the memories of men and women who died. I think it was an honest "durp" moment but nothing malicious was meant by it (the term baller is just stupid though).
 
Agoge said:
I am glad to see them "owning" their mistake and correcting it post haste.
Click to expand...

To all US politicans: post #4 is what an apology looks like. Not that smarmy "I misspoke", or "I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand that I meant something different" horseshit you seem to think is acceptable.

Regardless of how it wound up being produced, good on UA for dealing with the consequences of their actions swiftly and appropriately. It doesn't make the original error cool, but acknowledging and addressing it in that manner was the most appropriate solution.
 
However the product made it to market, joke, chasing a market segment, error, etc., etc., the company response is the bottom line. As @Totentanz observed, a proper apology is how UA responded; and it is refreshing to see.
 
medicchipost: 385622 said:
I have a feeling it was designed by a younger generation that didn't grow up hearing the first hand stories from parents or grandparents. To them it is a well known symbol, it's not the memories of men and women who died. I think it was an honest "durp" moment but nothing malicious was meant by it (the term baller is just stupid though).
Click to expand...
Pretty much, but it's also completely inappropriate, imo, and more than a little is because of my personal view of overpaid athletes with shitty behavior. They aren't worthy of the association.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

goon175
Syracuse University Entrepreneur Bootcamp for Veterans 2013
Replies
10
Views
2K
goon175
goon175
Marauder06
Full Spectrum Ops in the Homeland- a "Vision for the Future?"
Replies
2
Views
2K
Red-Dot
Red-Dot
D
SFC Jerry "Mad Dog" Shirver
Replies
4
Views
4K
BloodStripe
BloodStripe
Ravage
Faster combat power, less exposure in the assault zone
Replies
1
Views
3K
AWP
A
Polar Bear
How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet
Replies
3
Views
3K
104TN
104TN
Back
Top