If you're not offending someone on this board, you're doing something wrong.
Changing a team name seems like a no brainer. Because the fan base regardless of beliefs...........
- Thread starter Mr. Potter
- Start date
If you're not offending someone on this board, you're doing something wrong.
You don’t understand the term “brand equity” ... Dan Snyder paid premium $$$$ for the trademarks, which have tremendous value... the cost of an expansion team would be much less than an existing NFL franchise precisely because of the brands
I'll try to leave it at this: If you were in the shoes of the offended what would you want?
They should be called the shell casings.Did they shoot better as the Bullets? As the Wizards, they bring some magic, but it isn’t enough.
Likely not empty gestures designed to make others feel good.
I think they should their name to the Deadskins. That way the name would match the “quality” of their play lately.
Eh, the estimated value of the trademarks is a fraction of the estimated worth of the club ... and that value is reduced even further when you consider only the premium value (above the typical trademark value of an NFL club). And I think you'd see a huge spike in revenue, at least short term, upon changing the branding ... and that could "easily" be transferred into longstanding legally-protected brand value.
Not unlike consumer packaged goods - there is mind-boggling VALUE associated with the branding of a professional sports franchise - the Cowboys are worth more than any other NFL franchise even though they’re in the 9th largest market.... yeah - some of that is derived with AT&T stadium operations, alas - the halo of Cowboys branding / trademarks is the difference-maker...... if you’re a consumer packaged goods outfit or a major sports franchise, there is tremendous risk and expense with rebranding.... educating consumers of a new brand and trademark (beyond the drooling NFL debiles) would take tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars ... Art Modell was kicked in the balls by having his team name stripped/retained by Cleveland, a move that cost him boatloads
Great point. Locally they were talking about taking back the name spiders fire the Cleveland Indians. A guy called in and said that spiders was already a brand name for a college team, Richmond, and would likely end up fighting it in court (although they’d probably win)
someone also asked if the former college player named sonny Sixkiller would have had to change his name.
Last edited:
The primary value, outside of shared value amongst clubs, or natural advantages such as primary market size, is generating interest in the club. Branding aids in this, but once it’s there, it tends to stick. This wouldn’t be a situation where someone creates, essentially, an expansion franchise and has to cultivate interest in the particular club ... it would simply be a name change. The current interest in that club would remain ... it wouldn’t need to be built or re-established. In fact, it would likely be reinvigorated, as it’s pretty stale as is. The “Redtails” (or whatever name) wouldn’t suddenly be this new kid on the block, trying to find a space within the sporting world. Trademark value would, in all likelihood, quickly grow.
The Redskins’ worth is approx. $3.4B, with only about $230M of that attributable to the “brand.” And the lowliest franchises still have approx. $100M in brand worth. So while $130M is nothing to scoff at, he could lose “all” his brand premium and still be riding high, his franchise’s value having increased $1.8B in 9 years, while not being particularly exciting franchise to follow.
But, again, I think this would actually reinvigorate interest in the club and the “brand.”
Yeah re-brand an NFL franchise. Its so easy Dinger can do it. He trades in pro sports franchises and he'll collateralized his house for Dan Snyder to hedge off.some of that downside risk
What a dink.
Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
Well-Known Member
Mr. Potter said:
You are 100% correct that it was a poor analogy. You are comparing the health and well being of someone, to someone's opinion on a topic.
Also, why would you let people smoke in your house?
Fans identify with a team name because of the positive attributes that name suggests. It's stupid to argue that people walking around in a Chief's jersey, for example, are denigrating Native Americans. In fact, they are honoring their courage, their strength their honor and their culture.
Apparently we should just wipe out Native Americans from all names as if they never existed....get rid of the Redskins, Indians, Braves, Chiefs, and any other name that came from Native Americans. Also change all the city and town names that came from Indian culture. That’s a much better way to honor them.
No. People don't give much, if any, thought to their team's mascot. What's a positive attribute of a Piston? Honor a Pelican?
And what is a Laker anyway?
The name Pistons honors the automotive industry and the internal combustion engine. A logical, regional identity. "Rockets" honors space travel, which Houston residents can identify. Names like Pelicans, Gophers, Badgers, Nittany Lions and even Buckeyes honor their geographical heritage.
The whole point is the name of a team is something with which its fans can identify. It's illogical to argue they would be derogatory.
Seriously? Again, do you think that people give any thought to the local fauna when they don their team's jerseys? Identify with a badger, a nasty, smelly animal.
Team names were chosen for a whole variety of reasons and I doubt any were negative. That doesn't mean the group represented can't find their portrayal or use objectionable. And why does it seem that Native Americans get singled out as mascots along with animals and plants? Yes, I know we have the Fighting Irish, but if you don't think the name and image of a pugilistic leprechaun doesn't reinforce a negative stereotype then you're brain isn't working. But I'm not going to tell the Irish American community what should upset them and if they should do anything about it. So just leave this to the communities involved, the team owners, and the leagues.
agree - names have brand value. Baltimore should have been Baltimore Browns not Ravens, as the owners have the brand. The fact that there was a dispute over this shows the concept of brand value. losing a name is a loss of value, UNLESS the brand had diminished to a level where a change adds value. this is the property owners' decision alone. If the customer base (current and future) find that a name is offensive, they will not support the team and/or buy merchandise.....which will lead to advertisers to abandon the brand also. the market provides the answer.
footnote: there are some factors in trademark law that impact names and look in terms of being offensive. I do not think there are any cases that have ever held to force a sports team name change due to offended.
The business of victimhood.
The Cleveland Indians negotiated with several tribes and they agreed Chief Wahoo had to go but the tribes had no problem with the name Indians so that is what they settled on. the Indians shit-canned chief wahoo last year. So the goalposts have now been moved.
I've also posted this before: There is a small group of native Americans that protest the Tribe's home opener every year. It is usually a pretty good back and forth so I spoke to one about 15 years ago. I started by saying that the nickname is not a pejorative but a compliment. No team wants to use the nickname of "idiots" of "knumbskulls". They use nicknames of Tigers, Lions, Bears, Indians, etc. His response was something like "yeah, I know. I hope they never change the name. This is a great platform to add awareness to the plight of native Americans. The name just gives us an excuse."
