When Under Armour started, in 1996, it had a great name.
It sold moisture-wicking undershirts to athletes. The name was descriptive and evocative. The clothing went under your armor (uniforms or pads) and was also in itself a form of armor (against the elements or chafing) that went under other things. Since then, the company has expanded to sell many other products, including helmets, cleats, jackets, and jerseys. That’s great for Under Armour, but these items are not under-armor. In fact, they are over-armor. And, as you may know, over is the opposite of under. Therefore the company name (
UA in logo form) clashes with nearly every product it sits upon. In effect, Under Armour sells brashly mislabeled gear. Apparently this disconnect does not offend the sensibilities of its millions of customers, but it does mine. Given the option, I would never wear a piece of outer-gear labeled as underwear. And I can’t help but cringe internally when I see those who do.
To give you a sense of how this logo appears to me: Many people buy Joe Boxer boxer shorts—would you buy a Joe Boxer football helmet? How would you feel if Men’s Wearhouse sold mostly women’s clothing? Is CarMax a good name for a real estate company?
So, a better name for the company would be Over Armour. They could still sell their under-clothing, as those items are sensible accessories to over-clothing. I’d rather buy underwear from a sports equipment company than sports equipment from an underwear company.
Or, here’s an idea that would let them keep their symmetrical logo: They could change their name to Ultra Armour or Uber Armour. Rebranding might cost millions of dollars, but my delicate sensibilities would feel a lot better about it.
Comments