Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave T

Branding and Image of Super League

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, MZH said:

That's not a new thing is it? Pretty sure Carney in particular has called them competition points for years.

If they have I have only just noticed it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NotToday said:

League is more unique than Rugby League to you? Do you not understand how confusing that is for non-English speakers? How generic that is? 

Try searching something about League or League Rules, you don't think you're going to get a bunch of random "league" stuff on search engines that has nothing to do with ours?

This is the dumbest idea I have heard in my life. This would be like someone suggesting that their sport, whichever it may be, be renamed to "Ball" or "Ball Rules". It is that non-descriptive. There are millions of leagues in this world, having a sport called just LEAGUE is absurd. 

"League Rules" not "LEAGUE".  And some 20 years ago the great and the good decided "league" WAS a good idea, they thought it was super, indeed "Super League".

What is dumb is not engaging in the idea,  "rugby league " is different to "rugby union".  We broke away, we are not part of the union game now, we have evolved from it.  We are quite different.  They have collared the game and name "rugby"... They use the name rugby, rugby, rugby all the time.  We have to qualify ourselves... all the time.

This thread us about marketing.  Well... everybody needs to look at the fundamental issue, namely what is it that we are marketing, what is this game called?  What does it stand for?

By all means let everyone think and think deep and create the appropriate strategy... a better name. But we need some serious revision if we are going to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Padge said:

What I posted is the official title of the competition since day 1

Are you 100% sure about that. For a long time the logo did not feature the word rugby in it, and as far as I am aware the word Rugby hasn't formed an official part of the name for most of SL's existence. 

Stones Bitter Super League was year 1, and now it is BetFred Super League. I can't see any official mention from SLE or the RFL of it being Rugby Super League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

"League Rules" not "LEAGUE".  And some 20 years ago the great and the good decided "league" WAS a good idea, they thought it was super, indeed "Super League".

What is dumb is not engaging in the idea,  "rugby league " is different to "rugby union".  We broke away, we are not part of the union game now, we have evolved from it.  We are quite different.  They have collared the game and name "rugby"... They use the name rugby, rugby, rugby all the time.  We have to qualify ourselves... all the time.

This thread us about marketing.  Well... everybody needs to look at the fundamental issue, namely what is it that we are marketing, what is this game called?  What does it stand for?

By all means let everyone think and think deep and create the appropriate strategy... a better name. But we need some serious revision if we are going to improve.

 

Type in LEAGUE RULES and you'll get random some stuff about random LEAGUES.

If the idea is to break away from "rugby" then adopting "league rules" ain't it, chief.

There's multiple sports with 'football' in their name. American, Canadian, Gaelic and Australian. The last two are smaller sports than RL are, yet they work. There's ice hockey and field hockey too. 

If you want to be more unique I'd say go with returning to "rugby football", since rugby union is happy to just call itself "Rugby" and nothing more. RL has similarities to rugby and similarities to Gridiron football, in terms of its tackle limit, so "rugby football" is a great name. This should have been done a decade ago.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sport is called Rugby League, its not complicated, get rid of the Super rubbish, it sounds like a schoolkid came up with it.

  • Like 1

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the sport just "league" or "league rules football" is pretty daft. The name should be changed to something related to its birth place so...

Huddersfield Football

Hudders

Hudds

Huddy.

The last one sounds like a sport name to me. If I had never heard of rugby, hockey, huddy, cricket and bandy and you asked me which ones of these I think are real names of a sport and which aren't I couldn't tell the difference.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

Calling the sport just "league" or "league rules football" is pretty daft. The name should be changed to something related to its birth place so...

Huddersfield Football

Hudders

Hudds

Huddy.

The last one sounds like a sport name to me. If I had never heard of rugby, hockey, huddy, cricket and bandy and you asked me which ones of these I think are real names of a sport and which aren't I couldn't tell the difference.

 

You make good point but its such a drastic change that it's unrealistic. What do you think of returning to rugby football though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

I don't see any difference between rugby league and rugby football. You either make a big change or keep it the same because making a small change won't make any difference.

You're right it's a minor change, but when most people hear "rugby" and "rugby league" they think it's the same sport as well, but rugby football can be marketed better. Some Australian commentators already use 'football' and their test matches are branded as "International test football". I think 'rugby football' can be marketed in the US and Canada better. RU isn't using it, but they are using the league terminology more and more with their competitions.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original name of "Super League" came from Australia, where using the word "Rugby" would have had the association with union. So assume that was one of the main reasons for the lack of the word "Rugby". Its had the word "Rugby" inserted to a couple of the logo variations over the years but as Dave T said i don't think it's ever officially been used in the name of the competition. The RFL have always been keen to avoid referring to the game as simply Rugby, and have always pushed Rugby League  over its use, which makes sense in some degree, but in a world where everything is shortened being unrecognisable as "Rugby" has damaged the visibility of the sport. Same might also argue that being known simply as "Super League" has done similar damage.

Me personally i would re-brand as the "Rugby Super League". Incorporate into any any new branding and forever refer to it as the "Rugby Super League", and never just "Super League". but thats just me.

One of the great things about the Super League branding is that over the years it became a brand that was instantly recognisable, with the dark navy background and the large gold/yellow "S". This happened quite organically, which for a brand is a rare and wonderful thing. We then destroyed it by insisting on adapting it to the colours and tastes of whoever the new title sponsor was. This continues with the Challenge cup branding, which changes constantly depending on who the title sponsor is. For me this is something we should never be doing. Adapt any new title sponsor into the current SL branding, but never adapt your own to theirs.

The current Super League branding, though nice enough,  still doesn't ring true to me. I would have something much more in line with that classic dark navy and gold/yellow colour combination.

At the end of the day, It's all a very subjective thing.

  • Like 1

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

The original name of "Super League" came from Australia, where using the word "Rugby" would have had the association with union. So assume that was one of the main reasons for the lack of the word "Rugby". Its had the word "Rugby" inserted to a couple of the logo variations over the years but as Dave T said i don't think it's ever officially been used in the name of the competition. The RFL have always been keen to avoid referring to the game as simply Rugby, and have always pushed Rugby League  over its use, which makes sense in some degree, but in a world where everything is shortened being unrecognisable as "Rugby" has damaged the visibility of the sport. Same might also argue that being known simply as "Super League" has done similar damage.

Me personally i would re-brand as the "Rugby Super League". Incorporate into any any new branding and forever refer to it as the "Rugby Super League", and never just "Super League". but thats just me.

One of the great things about the Super League branding is that over the years it became a brand that was instantly recognisable, with the dark navy background and the large gold/yellow "S". This happened quite organically, which for a brand is a rare and wonderful thing. We then destroyed it by insisting on adapting it to the colours and tastes of whoever the new title sponsor was. This continues with the Challenge cup branding, which changes constantly depending on who the title sponsor is. For me this is something we should never be doing. Adapt any new title sponsor into the current SL branding, but never adapt your own to theirs.

The current Super League branding, though nice enough,  still doesn't ring true to me. I would have something much more in line with that classic dark navy and gold/yellow colour combination.

At the end of the day, It's all a very subjective thing.

It came from a rebel outfit that tried to take over the game during a media pay for view situation.

That name "Super League" is mud in most Australians eyes, they tried to steal the sport from the traditional fan base, the concept was full of ###### and never came close to what they promised.

 

  • Like 1

Talent is secondary to whether players are confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

The original name of "Super League" came from Australia, where using the word "Rugby" would have had the association with union. So assume that was one of the main reasons for the lack of the word "Rugby". Its had the word "Rugby" inserted to a couple of the logo variations over the years but as Dave T said i don't think it's ever officially been used in the name of the competition. The RFL have always been keen to avoid referring to the game as simply Rugby, and have always pushed Rugby League  over its use, which makes sense in some degree, but in a world where everything is shortened being unrecognisable as "Rugby" has damaged the visibility of the sport. Same might also argue that being known simply as "Super League" has done similar damage.

Me personally i would re-brand as the "Rugby Super League". Incorporate into any any new branding and forever refer to it as the "Rugby Super League", and never just "Super League". but thats just me.

One of the great things about the Super League branding is that over the years it became a brand that was instantly recognisable, with the dark navy background and the large gold/yellow "S". This happened quite organically, which for a brand is a rare and wonderful thing. We then destroyed it by insisting on adapting it to the colours and tastes of whoever the new title sponsor was. This continues with the Challenge cup branding, which changes constantly depending on who the title sponsor is. For me this is something we should never be doing. Adapt any new title sponsor into the current SL branding, but never adapt your own to theirs.

The current Super League branding, though nice enough,  still doesn't ring true to me. I would have something much more in line with that classic dark navy and gold/yellow colour combination.

At the end of the day, It's all a very subjective thing.

I agree with a lot of that.

I think if we could get Toronto, Toulouse, NYC in there quite a bold move we could make is to do a complete about turn from our usual shying away from challenging union re the name Rugby and lean right in to it. 

And go for "Rugby's Super League" and do that for all our competitions where possible. Rugby's world club challenge between the winners of the National Rugby League and Rugby's Super League. Rugby's challenge cup final live from Wembley, Rugby's British championship as the the name for the championship, Rugby's 4 nations. Rugby's Ashes Series. Rugby's Baskerville Shield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear East London Mike...

I take your points, and are fair, however I would completely drop the word Rugby.  But clearly there will not be enough determination and coherence from enough "stakeholders".  This is a shame and as such we will remain the poor relation to the name Rugby.  We will be second best, but leaders in chips on the shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree with a lot of that.

I think if we could get Toronto, Toulouse, NYC in there quite a bold move we could make is to do a complete about turn from our usual shying away from challenging union re the name Rugby and lean right in to it. 

And go for "Rugby's Super League" and do that for all our competitions where possible. Rugby's world club challenge between the winners of the National Rugby League and Rugby's Super League. Rugby's challenge cup final live from Wembley, Rugby's British championship as the the name for the championship, Rugby's 4 nations. Rugby's Ashes Series. Rugby's Baskerville Shield.

If we ever get a proper 3 match series against the aussies again (i am not holding my breath) then that is a must... either union or league it is the only one that is the Ashes.. so no one can have a "you are stealing the name" style rant from either side.. then market the living *&^& out of it.. all over the BBC and national press etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an insert sidelines for you  ...............

In my experience, one of the biggest mistakes that almost the whole of the Rugby League community makes (from the RFL to Joe Soap and Fred Fish on the stands) is thinking that the game of Rugby league needs to change.

Change this, change that .......... every time a new CEO takes over, a new Chairman takes office, and above all, every time a new season starts - FLASH, BANG!

Someone, somewhere starts the whisper that grows to a mutter that grows to a press conference at which "ALL NEW marvellous ideas for an ALL NEW game are announced.  FANFARE!  Ta-ran-ta-ra!  Fizzzzle ................  Because?

Because a tweak here and tweak there is not what this brilliant game needs.  What about a shove here then, and a shove there? No, not even.  Well what then?

 

What this game needs is leaving alone for a year or two so it can get can get back a bit of simple, self- belief.

"The greatest game!" its executives say, and then regularly make a joke of that by announcing necessary, ALL NEW CHANGES - every year!

It's "The greatest game!", says the RFL executive proudly, then tells us how they plan to change it again this year.  Why?

It's "The greatest game!" supporters say, and then spend the season complaining about the incompetence of its managers, the meanness of club owners, the useless referees, hopeless coaches (if they don't win every match) and even, at times the expensive, lazy players.

It's "The greatest game!" they say, then complain about the inconvenience that Sky TV has caused because every match at every club can't now be on a Sunday afternoon .... so they can get home in time for tea.

It's "The greatest game!" they say, but it doesn't match up to what they saw when they stood with dad in the freezing rain, sleet and snow, watching players long gone play a game which (today) few if any would recognise as League rather than Union .............. if it weren't for the shirts on the players' backs.

 

Times change, things evolve, nothing we did (ate or saw) last week can ever be as good as our memory of what it was `THEN' ....... be that sixty years ago, last season or last week. 

If we are honest, we all know that.

So for me - strange as it may seem to many of you even to contemplate the idea - the only thing this game really needs is managers, owners, executives and supporters who constantly talk up the good.  Yes, occasionally mention but don't `go on about' a result, a player, a game (but never The Game) being `not as good as it was'.  One game, yes - not as good as the one last week.

 But The Game - of course it's not the same as the first time you watched it.  Nothing ever is.  Nothing ever never will be - mercifully, because if it were the same life would be exceedingly dull.  How could any of us say something was good if we had never experienced bad? 

We just remember the good, while fortunately, the bad fades slowly into the background until, if we think of it at all, we find that it doesn't really matter any more.

So let's be positive .......... if we really believeit is the greatest game.

Edited by Honor James
  • Like 1

“The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.”  Eleanor Roosevelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Honor James said:

Here's an insert sidelines for you  ...............

In my experience, one of the biggest mistakes that almost the whole of the Rugby League community makes (from the RFL to Joe Soap and Fred Fish on the stands) is thinking that the game of Rugby league needs to change.

Change this, change that .......... every time a new CEO takes over, a new Chairman takes office, and above all, every time a new season starts - FLASH, BANG!

Someone, somewhere starts the whisper that grows to a mutter that grows to a press conference at which "ALL NEW marvellous ideas for an ALL NEW game are announced.  FANFARE!  Ta-ran-ta-ra!  Fizzzzle ................

Because?  Because a tweak here and tweak there is not what this brilliant game needs.  Well - a shove here then, and a shove there?

No?  What then?

What this game needs is leaving alone for a good long time so it can get back a bit of simple, self - belief.

 

"The greatest game!" its executives say, then regularly make a joke of that by announcing the need for ALL NEW CHANGES - every year!

It's "The greatest game!", says the RFL executive proudly, and then tells us how they plan to change it.  Why?

It's "The greatest game!" supporters say, then spend the season complaining about the incompetence of its managers, the meanness of club owners, the useless referees, hopeless coaches (if they don't win every match) and even, at times the expensive, lazy players.

It's "The greatest game!" they say, then complain about the inconvenience that having it on Sky TV causes, because every match at every club can't now be on a Sunday afternoon - so they can get home in time for tea.

It's "The greatest game!" they say, but it doesn't match up these days to what they saw when dad took them to stand and freeze in the rain, sleet and snow, watching players long gone play a game that - today - few if any would recognise as League rather than Union if it weren't for the shirts on the players' backs.

 

Times change, things evolve, nothing we did (ate or saw) last week can ever be as good as our memory of what it was like `THEN' ....... be that sixty years ago, last season or last week.  If we are honest, we all know that.

So for me - strange as it may seem for many even to contemplate the idea - the only thing this game really needs is managers, owners, executives and supporters who constantly talk up the good.  Who may occasionally mention, but don't `go on about' a result, a player, a game (but never The Game) being `not as good as it was'.

One game, yes - not as good as the one last week.  But of course it's not the same as the first time you watched it.  Nothing ever is.  Nothing ever never will be.  Mercifully - because if it were the same life would be exceedingly dull.  How could any of us say something was good if we had never experienced bad? 

We just remember the good, while fortunately, the bad fades slowly into the background until, if we think of it at all, we find that it doesn't really matter any more.

So let's all be positive about the game .......... if we really believe that it's the greatest.

That all sounds rather nice, but not a single sport, or form of entertainment for that matter stays still. They are all changing all the time. 

The mistake many RL fans make is believing that only RL is constantly changing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Allora said:

It came from a rebel outfit that tried to take over the game during a media pay for view situation.

That name "Super League" is mud in most Australians eyes, they tried to steal the sport from the traditional fan base, the concept was full of ###### and never came close to what they promised.

 

Good post Allora, you are correct, the name came after the breakaway in Australia from the NRL, and because of the Murdoch cash Maurice Lindsay aligned our game to the breakaway group. Don't you remember him and Mal Maninga being photographed jointly holding a board with the Super League logo on it. Then we even had a tour from an unofficial Australian team that had that logo on their shirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying this proves anything .

image.png.c185d34cf2fedbdfa92da6fed43f711e.png

 

and over in Australia

 

image.png.d49cade72f16501c7a9accc56da77f31.png

  • Like 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Me personally i would re-brand as the "Rugby Super League". Incorporate into any any new branding and forever refer to it as the "Rugby Super League", and never just "Super League". but thats just me.

One of the great things about the Super League branding is that over the years it became a brand that was instantly recognisable, with the dark navy background and the large gold/yellow "S". This happened quite organically, which for a brand is a rare and wonderful thing. We then destroyed it by insisting on adapting it to the colours and tastes of whoever the new title sponsor was. This continues with the Challenge cup branding, which changes constantly depending on who the title sponsor is. For me this is something we should never be doing. Adapt any new title sponsor into the current SL branding, but never adapt your own to theirs.

The current Super League branding, though nice enough,  still doesn't ring true to me. I would have something much more in line with that classic dark navy and gold/yellow colour combination.

 

14 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree with a lot of that.

I think if we could get Toronto, Toulouse, NYC in there quite a bold move we could make is to do a complete about turn from our usual shying away from challenging union re the name Rugby and lean right in to it. 

And go for "Rugby's Super League" and do that for all our competitions where possible. Rugby's world club challenge between the winners of the National Rugby League and Rugby's Super League. Rugby's challenge cup final live from Wembley, Rugby's British championship as the the name for the championship, Rugby's 4 nations. Rugby's Ashes Series. Rugby's Baskerville Shield.

 

I am totally on board with you lot. RL needs to protect its name and claim. Although I believe that Super League Rugby is the better name.

Unfortunately we are dealing with an enterprise that loves to be stepped on. They sat by and let IRB trademark the term "World Rugby", they let them register the domain .rugby and now they even let them sanction a competition called "Major League Rugby" (which they hope to make the jewel on their crown). We're next going to see them claim "[Country] Rugby League" as well, if it hasn't happened already.

RU is systematically working to strip RL of everything it claims. Their goal is to render RL null and void.

Why would they allow them to do this? RLIF had full ability to stop the first two in any EU or UK court of law. Why didn't RLIF adopt that (World Rugby) name first? RLIF is an alphabet salad (I can never tell between RFLI, RILF). How can you raise awareness for your sport and existence if your branding and planning is this bad?

 

9 hours ago, Padge said:

Not saying this proves anything .

image.png.c185d34cf2fedbdfa92da6fed43f711e.png

and over in Australia

image.png.d49cade72f16501c7a9accc56da77f31.png

 

There it is. I do think it's the best name to go by. Not 'Super Rugby League' or even 'Rugby Super League', but Super League Rugby

It prioritizes RL's ownership of "Super League" while also emphasizing the Rugby. There are already many other sports leagues going by 'XYZ Super League'. SL needs to remind people who came first so its SL needs to be front.

Edited by NotToday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Allora said:

It came from a rebel outfit that tried to take over the game during a media pay for view situation.

That name "Super League" is mud in most Australians eyes, they tried to steal the sport from the traditional fan base, the concept was full of ###### and never came close to what they promised.

 

 

It is in response to that RL media boom/war  in Australia that RU legalized professionalism.

The game changed after that. Post-1996 is when RU took off outside its core nations. By 1998, RU was in the Asian Games and Commonwealth Games. Now they're in the Olympics, and they're dragging every other country into their sport.

Meanwhile RL twiddled its thumbs.

If the NRL/ARLC would lay the grounds for an international Rugby Nines structure, emulating what RU did with Rugby Sevens, I think it can easily make a case to be included in the Commonwealth Games. RL's fortunes changes overnight after that; now you have countries with tens or hundreds of millions in population participating in it. NRL is the one who seeks to gain from it having positioned itself as the premiere league. We're talking large sums of TV revenue coming in from mainland Asia and continental Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MEXICO WILL PAY said:

7s is losing money big time, why would 9s be the cash cow you're imagining it would be?

the problem with that argument, though true, is that they fund it because it aids development. The likes of Russia and the USA are now taking it more seriously because of the Olympics.. 

RL has a history of not funding loss making things even if their is long term gain to be had.. in 125 years we have had no real gain... go figure! :crying:

That said... now that RU is in the Olympics and Commonwealths I cannot see RL getting a look in unless they have something radically different, which i dont see 9s being. The Olympics at the moment seems to be turning its head more to the xgames for its inspiration for new sports. As for the Commonwealths I think it is more worried about making itself relevant again than it is having what would be seen as many (dont bite my head off i'm talkin general perception of people from none Rugby playing nations) as 2 versions of the same game. 

Edited by RP London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 2:15 PM, Rupert Prince said:

Dear East London Mike...

I take your points, and are fair, however I would completely drop the word Rugby.  But clearly there will not be enough determination and coherence from enough "stakeholders".  This is a shame and as such we will remain the poor relation to the name Rugby.  We will be second best, but leaders in chips on the shoulders.

The thing is, that isn't the case. We imagine that people hearing 'rugby' think of RU and this is somehow bad for us.Most people simply aren't familiar enough with the game to care which one it is

And the differential is actually in our favour at the moment. More people are likely to confuse us with them than them with us. 

We don't really need to avoid people making that mistake. Because of they do it's far more likely someone looking for RU is exposed to our game than the other way around. If we are confident in our sport, lean in to it. Plaster rugby everywhere on our branding. If people get it wrong, they get a pleasant surprise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...