Amnesia in the Sunday Times

[fighting irish]

24 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Seen the headline over on the `Total Rugby League News` page:

  ` Leigh Centurions appoint Garreth Carvell as new Head of Rugby ".

Quite annoying that on the very same page that`s called `Total Rugby League News` they have a headline like that.

 I think at the end of the day though we can`t worry too much about this, the products are really are quite different and the general public aren`t stupid, they will differentiate.  And as people in new places take up our game and have access to NRL or SLE on Facebook or You Tube or whatever the differences will become apparent very quickly. 

I think that League is in no different a situation than many other products or services that have a close competitor with a similar name, frustrating yes, but as I said before the public aren`t stupid they will sort it out.

And in some ways ironically, I think it can work to our advantage riding on the coat tails of the much larger and more visible `rugby union` by maybe at first  being able to grab peoples attention. The differences can be sorted out later on. 

 

 

 

I, like you, have great confidence in the ability of our great game to hook newcomers. 

I suppose dwelling on what seems like a 'minor' point could be construed as pendantry. 

I'm with U.P. though Rocket.

As a general rule, if there's a better way to do something, I'll take it.

It's only my gut feeling but I think the numbers (of people we lose) could be significant.

I can just see a lot of people turning off, when our all-too-meagre promotional stuff breaks thro' to their consciousness simply because they are not interested in RaRa.

So our opportunity is lost, shot to pieces, before they even realise that what's being shown is different, better, by a country mile.

Starting with a play-the-ball and making sure the words Rugby League are always used instead of just Rugby (RaRa) should improve our ''break through''.

Keeping newcomers interested until the promo is finished, rather than losing them before we have a chance to make an impression. 

Small gains compound.

I'll take that 

[The Rocket]

5 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I can just see a lot of people turning off, when our all-too-meagre promotional stuff breaks thro' to their consciousness simply because they are not interested in RaRa.

So our opportunity is lost, shot to pieces, before they even realise that what's being shown is different, better, by a country mile.

Starting with a play-the-ball and making sure the words Rugby League are always used instead of just Rugby (RaRa) should improve our ''break through''.

Agree that certainly is the danger in spreading League where people have been exposed to the drudgery of union, they will slam the door in our face so to speak before they even get a chance to sample the new improved version.

Completely greenfield sites, well I suppose there is no excuse for not marking our product clearly from the outset, that damn word `rugby` is always going to lead to some confusion though I suppose.

Little things like Barry O`Farrell hashtagging `spiritofrugby` are no brainers though, when it should have been `AsiaPacificRugbyLeague` instead. They are the little ones that those at the top have to get right.

I honestly do believe in the 6 months now that I have been on this forum I have seen it become more of an issue and certainly people on these sites are more conscious of making themselves clear, even the RFL and IRL seem to be emphasising that word `League` more, that`s great news. I can remember very clearly when I first came on this forum being criticised for referring to Rugby League just as League. No one seems to bat an eye now or maybe they just tolerate the dopey Aussie.

I know recently the Pedant told me that it is wearing continually picking people up on the importance of getting the terminology right, but as I said I think the discussion has begun and there is more of an effort being made. Ideas like those RLWC face masks are brilliant though, you got to laugh though with the thread announcing them being called `RWC Face Masks`, ah well.. we`ll get there.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

And in some ways ironically, I think it can work to our advantage riding on the coat tails of the much larger and more visible `rugby union` by maybe at first  being able to grab peoples attention. The differences can be sorted out later on. 

I used to think this "foot in the door" approach had merit. Maybe it does in very particular initial circumstances. But generally it seems to create an image at the outset of RL as a minor derivative, which is then hard to escape from. Promotion is at least as likely to alert new audiences to the existence of the larger rival.

Describing RL as "Rugby" can also enable Union authorities to depict League developers as fraudsters, trying to pass their product off as another`s. Consequently sports administrators and politicians are more sympathetic to the type of RU lobbying and sabotage that would be hard to morally and legally justify otherwise. Most egregious example is the post-war French "Jeu a Treize" palaver. In wasting their energy trying to contest part ownership of the word "Rugby" our French friends ended up with nothing more distinctive than a number.

Toronto was shaping as the first significant example where the League/Union conflation might be working to our advantage. But ultimately it provided further evidence of its imprudence. Whatever remains of their efforts after the collapse can only benefit RU. The Wolfpack`s owners appear to have done nothing for RL at grass roots level. This must be due in part to their view that the game on the field is "Rugby". And that "League" simply refers to the governing body whose competition they were a part of.

[Oxford]

But which way up should the boiled Egg be?

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

But which way up should the boiled Egg be?

"O pointy bird  O pointy pointy,

annoint thy head, annointy-nointy"

Pointy end up ! Of course.

[Oxford]

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

"O pointy bird  O pointy pointy,

annoint thy head, annointy-nointy"

Pointy end up ! Of course.

Well I'm glad we've cleared that one up, at least.

[fighting irish]

6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

"O pointy bird  O pointy pointy,

annoint thy head, annointy-nointy"

Pointy end up ! Of course.

 

3 hours ago, Oxford said:

Well I'm glad we've cleared that one up, at least.

But surely, evolution would dictate, (I hope) that at the moment of birth, the pointy end comes out (downward) first?

[fighting irish]

11 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

 

But surely, evolution would dictate, (I hope) that at the moment of birth, the pointy end comes out (downward) first?

Well bug ger me.

The egg is formed in the uterus pointy end down (the same shape as the uterus) but turns in order to be born (laid) round end first!!!!!

Poor chicken.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Well bug ger me.

The egg is formed in the uterus pointy end down (the same shape as the uterus) but turns in order to be born (laid) round end first!!!!!

Poor chicken.

Youch !! Talk about making things difficult for yourself. Must be where the expression ` pushing one out backwards ` comes from.

I`m sure there must be a ` Why did the chicken cross the road  " joke in there somewhere, or maybe UP will have a limerick to suit the occasion.

 

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Youch !! Talk about making things difficult for yourself. Must be where the expression ` pushing one out backwards ` comes from.

I`m sure there must be a ` Why did the chicken cross the road  " joke in there somewhere, or maybe UP will have a limerick to suit the occasion.

 

I've got one. Why did the pervert cross the road? 

Because he was stuck up the chicken! 

[Oxford]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Well bug ger me.

The egg is formed in the uterus pointy end down (the same shape as the uterus) but turns in order to be born (laid) round end first!!!!!

Poor chicken.

Given the level of amnesia required to go through the process of laying more than one egg perhaps this explains who is employed to write for The Times?

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Given the level of amnesia required to go through the process of laying more than one egg perhaps this explains who is employed to write for The Times?

I knew there was a link there somewhere.

Great minds think 4 dimensionally, I'd heard.

You confounded us, once again.

[unapologetic pedant]

10 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Youch !! Talk about making things difficult for yourself. Must be where the expression ` pushing one out backwards ` comes from.

I`m sure there must be a ` Why did the chicken cross the road  " joke in there somewhere, or maybe UP will have a limerick to suit the occasion.

 

Only thing I can think of is the Christmas cracker joke from The Good Life. -

"The Ooh-Aah bird is so-called because it lays square eggs."

[unapologetic pedant]

On 15/01/2021 at 21:40, The Rocket said:

 Ideas like those RLWC face masks are brilliant though, you got to laugh though with the thread announcing them being called `RWC Face Masks`, ah well.. we`ll get there.

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

[fighting irish]

10 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

Don't give up mate, sooner or later, we'll convince the bug gers it really matters.

[The Rocket]

On 17/01/2021 at 12:13, unapologetic pedant said:

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

Have a look at the bottom of the post on NSWRL- TV,  perhaps that`s how we should be marketing the game. I wonder what would be of the effect of dropping the `Rugby` altogether would be. Starting from the top. I suppose if it was going to take hold that`s where it would have to start.

 I don`t think the sky would fall in, it would be very interesting to speculate what the implications for the perception of our game would be. 

 

[Oxford]

19 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 I don`t think the sky would fall in, it would be very interesting to speculate what the implications for the perception of our game would be. 

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

[fighting irish]

6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

That is a great argument. 

[The Rocket]

19 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

I was going to give you a `like` but your response is worth more than that. There is so much in there that makes sense. I particularly like the part about being " confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport ". Well argued all round.

Nice work keeping the Gallus Gallus Domesticus references going as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

14 hours ago, Oxford said:

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 17/01/2021 at 12:12, fighting irish said:

Don't give up mate, sooner or later, we'll convince the bug gers it really matters.

I like your rebranding of "bug ger". I`m hearing it pronounced in a French accent with the stress on the second syllable. - "boo gerre".

[The Rocket]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

I don`t think it would be seen as an empty rebranding exercise at all, if done on a coordinated level world wide it could be seen as a long overdue message to fans, the corporate world and the general public saying we are entirely our own game, we want nothing to do with rugby union, we are a completely different game, compare them if you want to and see the difference.

I just wish it had been done 50 or 100 years ago so that we could have been reaping the benefits now.

An interesting comparison is how far American Football or Gridiron has come from its rugby union roots to the point that I am sure that most of its followers would laugh at the suggestion of a common ancestor. About time we did the same thing. Let the dead bury the dead.

 

 

[fighting irish]

9 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I like your rebranding of "bug ger". I`m hearing it pronounced in a French accent with the stress on the second syllable. - "boo gerre".

Ha ha, that's exactly how I pronounce it at home, in front of the kids! Come 'ere you little boo gerre. 

[Oxford]

9 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

I think you missed the point of why I wrote what I did.

Your points about the superficial similarity and player movement have been covered in depth on the forum and it is fascinating that we still talk about it given the evidence of the unsuccessful nature of  most Sport hopping.

Getting rid of the term Rugby would be part of a process that conservative fans would always have a problem with, because it's as much a part of our history as it is theirs.

The holding on to things from the past rather than rejoicing in them but moving on is essentially what has held RL back for the whole of its existence so the arguments for continuing along that same road seem light at best and illogical otherwise.

In the post you quoted I dealt with why this would be a good move and how it would be, in effect, RL taking charge rather than having to react all the time to poor coverage, no coverage and bad media coverage.

If rebranding is empty why is it undertaken so often and by so many and why on the whole, percentage wise, does it have a far greater success rate than players moving between sports?

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

I think you missed the point of why I wrote what I did.

Your points about the superficial similarity and player movement have been covered in depth on the forum and it is fascinating that we still talk about it given the evidence of the unsuccessful nature of  most Sport hopping.

Getting rid of the term Rugby would be part of a process that conservative fans would always have a problem with, because it's as much a part of our history as it is theirs.

It was the regular back and forth movement of players between the codes at junior level to which I was referring, rather than high profile signings at pro level unsuccessful or otherwise. Calling RL something else won`t stop that happening, nor stop people noticing it happening. In terms of its frequency, there is no equivalent interchange between any other two sports.

One point I definitely have missed is your suggestion of the new name for RL. Making the word "Rugby" disappear from the official title is the easy part of the trick. If we`re just left with "League", that carries even more risk of causing confusion than "Rugby" has.