Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the past 12-18 months, Super League has undergone a bit of a facelift.

Clubs have been told to change their badges to make them more digital friendly. That has seen Wigan and Salford rebadge with more potentially to come with there being a clear emphasis on the moniker in the branding. The League itself had (another) rebadge.

In Super League's own productions, the focus has been increasingly on the moniker of each team rather than the placename, which has filtered down to the clubs themselves. Just this week St Helens have announced their new shirt with "Saints" across the announcement and Ryan Hall was announced as signing for "Rovers" by the Super League accounts. 

Is this all just superficial? Shuffling the deckchairs on the titanic? Or is there a new aim to make "Tigers vs Warriors" a bit broader in appeal than Castleford vs Wigan? Does Elstone see this as a way to make Super League more sellable to a wider audience? A way to break the shackles of RLs geographic limitations without actually broadening the horizons too much?

Perhaps more importantly, is that possible? And what does it mean for the future of the sport?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm no marketing expert but this just strikes me as almost old fashioned, old hat. Perhaps the sort of thing Elstone learned at the RFL in the '90s. As a sport our supposed great weaknesses are o

A lot of these sorts of people have got massively into NFL in the last few years. I see so many NFL team branded hats and scarves on my commute, and as you said not to generalise but these people do t

I think there is a lot of unnecessary negativity on this topic, clearly clouded by a recent major issue.  If we think back to the start of the season the rebrand was received extremely well, acro

Its all superficial and doesn't materially change anything. The sport needs to change far more radically than badges and monikers, all which was done to some extent at the dawn of Super League and didn't do much, if anything, then.

The monikers are also a bit meaningless as they are almost all used by other teams. A lot of people would think as Tigers v Warriors as Leicester v Worcester at RU for example. Rovers? Sounds like a Football team to me. Saints? Northampton RU. There is little recognition with a lot of these in isolation.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Damien said:

Its all superficial and doesn't materially change anything. The sport needs to change far more radically than badges and monikers, all which was done to some extent at the dawn of Super League and didn't do much, if anything, then.

The monikers are also a bit meaningless as they are almost all used by other teams. A lot of people would think as Tigers v Warriors as Leicester v Worcester at RU for example. Rovers? Sounds like a Football team to me. Saints? Northampton RU. There is little recognition with a lot of these in isolation.

I agree to an extent, with Saints and Warriors for example, St Helens and Wigan are arguably more recognisable. I think they are an element of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The lack of uniqueness to some is a bit of a problem to I guess - though at least Castleford Tigers can say they look like their moniker!

That said, maybe done well it could work? It seems that Elstone is getting clubs on board with it at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

There’s definitely been more emphasis on the clubs monikers and nicknames. I suppose it’s all to make the games more marketable and appeal to a younger audience 

I don't even think its younger per-se, but definitely broader. You don't have to know Wigan to follow the Warriors or Castleford to follow the Tigers.

That said, the delocalisation of teams only works to broaden appeal when the sport itself has a large appeal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree to an extent, with Saints and Warriors for example, St Helens and Wigan are arguably more recognisable. I think they are an element of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The lack of uniqueness to some is a bit of a problem to I guess - though at least Castleford Tigers can say they look like their moniker!

That said, maybe done well it could work? It seems that Elstone is getting clubs on board with it at least.

The nickname - be it Warriors or Tigers or Saints etc - do give clubs the opportunity to look to support outside their community. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to be a bit dismissive of changes like logo. Some because they don't like change, others cos it seems out of line with the Sport's cynical support base.

The Warriors v The Red Devils etc is waht we should have always seen on our fixture list, it's hard to imagine it's taken this long.

and .....

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The nickname - be it Warriors or Tigers or Saints etc - do give clubs the opportunity to look to support outside their community. 

Like them or not!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

People tend to be a bit dismissive of changes like logo. Some because they don't like change, others cos it seems out of line with the Sport's cynical support base.

The Warriors v The Red Devils etc is waht we should have always seen on our fixture list, it's hard to imagine it's taken this long.

and .....

Like them or not!

That’s exactly how it was portrayed this year. 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The nickname - be it Warriors or Tigers or Saints etc - do give clubs the opportunity to look to support outside their community. 

I can see how it helps with less "negative connotation baggage". But beyond that, what is it we're selling and what does it say about that?

Could we be seeing the Warriors playing some of their big games in Manchester in the near future?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't even think its younger per-se, but definitely broader. You don't have to know Wigan to follow the Warriors or Castleford to follow the Tigers.

That said, the delocalisation of teams only works to broaden appeal when the sport itself has a large appeal.

And this is why it is superficial.

If people don't know about the sport and dont follow it anyway then these names are meaningless. They will not make people follow the sport. If we are talking about appealing to people from outside areas people generally follow a sport, maybe see it on TV, and choose a team for whatever reason. People already follow Wigan from Bolton, Preston etc I don't see a big influx by just calling Wigan the Warriors and not Wigan. In the 80's I never liked Chicago Bears because of some fascination with bears, it was because they were the team at the time and because of the Fridge. Big teams, big personalities and all of the hype around it. Without that monikers are pretty meaningless and only mean anything to the converted.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Damien said:

And this is why it is superficial.

If people don't know about the sport and dont follow it anyway then these names are meaningless. They will not make people follow the sport. If we are talking about appealing to people from outside areas people generally follow a sport, maybe see it on TV, and choose a team for whatever reason. People already follow Wigan from Bolton, Preston etc I don't see a big influx by just calling Wigan the Warriors and not Wigan. In the 80's I never liked Chicago Bears because of some fascination with bears, it was because they were the team at the time and because of the Fridge. Big teams, big personalities and all of the hype around it. Without that monikers are pretty meaningless and only mean anything to the converted.

I agree it could all turn out half arsed, but hopefully it is done better. 

A long term consequence could be less localised teams, not sure how people will feel about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Could we be seeing the Warriors playing some of their big games in Manchester in the near future?

I doubt it.  Where? Wigan, sorry... The Warriors, pay good money to pay at the 'DW'.  Wigan, sorry... The Warriors, are I believe (?) working with juniors outside the Wigan area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rupert Prince said:

I doubt it.  Where? Wigan, sorry... The Warriors, pay good money to pay at the 'DW'.  Wigan, sorry... The Warriors, are I believe (?) working with juniors outside the Wigan area.

Delocalising to appeal to a broader area I suppose. Could work, could be a blunt instrument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree it could all turn out half arsed, but hopefully it is done better. 

A long term consequence could be less localised teams, not sure how people will feel about that.

I'm not even saying its bad but in isolation it is pretty meaningless. As I said we've been here before to a large extent at the dawn of Super League in a typically half assed RL way. It wasn't a magic wand then and wont be now unless a lot of others things happen too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not even saying its bad but in isolation it is pretty meaningless. As I said we've been here before to a large extent at the dawn of Super League in a typically half assed RL way. It wasn't a magic wand then and wont be now unless a lot of others things happen too.

Maybe its why the Bulls will be coming back 👀👀👀

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s exactly how it was portrayed this year. 

spacer.png

How very NRL.

Elstone just plagiarises the NRL for on -field and off -field ideas.

Original,he ain't. 

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

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

In the past 12-18 months, Super League has undergone a bit of a facelift.

Clubs have been told to change their badges to make them more digital friendly. That has seen Wigan and Salford rebadge with more potentially to come with there being a clear emphasis on the moniker in the branding. The League itself had (another) rebadge.

In Super League's own productions, the focus has been increasingly on the moniker of each team rather than the placename, which has filtered down to the clubs themselves. Just this week St Helens have announced their new shirt with "Saints" across the announcement and Ryan Hall was announced as signing for "Rovers" by the Super League accounts. 

Is this all just superficial? Shuffling the deckchairs on the titanic? Or is there a new aim to make "Tigers vs Warriors" a bit broader in appeal than Castleford vs Wigan? Does Elstone see this as a way to make Super League more sellable to a wider audience? A way to break the shackles of RLs geographic limitations without actually broadening the horizons too much?

Perhaps more importantly, is that possible? And what does it mean for the future of the sport?

Changing badges wont bring in more money into the game

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

And this is why it is superficial.

If people don't know about the sport and dont follow it anyway then these names are meaningless. They will not make people follow the sport. If we are talking about appealing to people from outside areas people generally follow a sport, maybe see it on TV, and choose a team for whatever reason. People already follow Wigan from Bolton, Preston etc I don't see a big influx by just calling Wigan the Warriors and not Wigan. In the 80's I never liked Chicago Bears because of some fascination with bears, it was because they were the team at the time and because of the Fridge. Big teams, big personalities and all of the hype around it. Without that monikers are pretty meaningless and only mean anything to the converted.

This though, is why non-geographic  monikers matter - they help people not from the area but who are showing some interest in the sport have a better connection.  Sure, you're absolutely right that the nickname isn't the cause of peoples' support -  it's the competition, the stories, the characters and the big plays etc. But its easier for non locals to deepen that bond when they support the Bears or niners, or the Bulls or Lakers, than naming US cities than most fans will never set foot in. Same goes for the Roosters or the Rabbitohs etc. 

Now, I'm not sure SL should be setting its sights that far around the world at the moment - but even for the UK audience, the aim surely is to attract fans from outside the towns on the premise that SL is a top quality sporting competition as a whole, and these are the teams that play it. And people over time will develop their favourites. And monikers are a small part of that overall branding process that has many moving parts.       

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

How very NRL.

Elstone just plagiarises the NRL for on -field and off -field ideas.

Original,he ain't. 

Frankly copying what successful sports leagues do seems a much better strategy that the usual effort by British rugby league, which is to try and reinvent the wheel - and doing it badly and on the cheap.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree it could all turn out half arsed, but hopefully it is done better. 

A long term consequence could be less localised teams, not sure how people will feel about that.

Wigan, for instance, will still play in Wigan and if you live there that's what you'll call them.

But if the league pushes the nicknames like the NRL/NFL do (although they don't remove the geographic name entirely) then it's all good. Local fans and non-local fans are different, but you need both and he nickname helps with the latter. British rugby league's problem is that it has far too few of the latter, even if the former are a really loyal and passionate bunch.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

How very NRL.

Elstone just plagiarises the NRL for on -field and off -field ideas.

Original,he ain't. 

As the NRL are often touted as the way to go, isn't that a good thing?

59 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Changing badges wont bring in more money into the game

I don't think you'll find anyone involved in the game that thinks that's their purpose.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...