We received this contribution from Roar reader Roger Levey:
The three most difficult marketing challenges in Australia are, 1. Trying to convince consumers the letter F in KFC doesn’t stand for Fried. 2. The AFL ‘s ongoing attempts to relocate a team once called North Melbourne but now called the Kangaroos into rugby league heartland. and 3. Promoting Super 14 Rugby, the toughest rugby union competition in the world, by naming teams, not after the well known international city in which each team plays, but rather, after what might well be described as characters from either comic strips or children’s story books.
Listed below are twenty-five names, fourteen from Super 14, and the remainder a clutch of well-known rugby league, basketball, and AFL teams. The challenge is this; show this list of names to your sporting mates at the pub and ask them two questions: 1. Select those teams that play in the Super 14 competition, (that shouldn’t be to difficult) and 2. name each teams home city.
Bulldogs, Bulls, Reds, Kangaroos, Roosters, Highlanders, Lions, Blues, Sharks, Waratahs, Razorbacks, Wallabies, Cheetahs, Stormers, Western Force, Western Bulldogs, Chiefs, Singapore Slingers, Brumbies, Hurricanes, Broncos, Warriors, South Dragons, Crusaders, West Coast Eagles.
How many Rugby supporters this far into the season are still unable to nominate where all 14 teams come from. And what about the fringe supporters, those who enjoy watching different codes, and perhaps a bit of rugby occasionally, they would not have the foggiest. It’s all well and good that local supporters are familiar with their own clubs and names, however once the promotional reach of S14 is extended to other countries and cultures, cute names don’t cut it. If rugby followers are unable to readily connect with the names and cities of all Super 14 teams, how does S 14 hope to attract a more permanent interest from the casual sports viewers in order to expand the market?
Super 14 is a massive multi million dollar industry. It spends millions on advertising and promotion. I seriously question the value and effectiveness of any promotion where the sporting public continually struggle to identify where a team comes from. ‘Somewhere in South Africa ‘or ‘They’re a New Zealand outfit I think’ isn’t good enough. Who lives in Cheetahs? Has any body been to Bulls for a holiday? Does Highlanders have an airport? Does Blues v Lions suggest a call to arms, or compulsive, compelling viewing for other than the converted?
Call me old fashioned, but what’s wrong with say, Johannesburg v Auckland. Canberra vs Capetown, Christchurch v Perth, Durban vs. Sydney. and so on. At the very least the dominant possessive team name should be the name of the city in which each team plays.
Who knows, Super 14 Rugby might even start a new trend.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (4) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
sheek said | April 19th 2007 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Roger Levey,
I’m with you. If you read my first reply to another contribution on this site – “Switching Off” – you will find a brief historical account of how the S14 franchises lost their identity.
The S14 is a follow-on from the S12, which is a follow-on from the S10, which was a follow-on from the S6, or South Pacific Championship (SPC).
BTW, if you already know all this, then I apologise. Anyway, up to S10, the NZ & SA Provinces earned their place by finishing in the top 4 of the NPC (NZ) & top 3 of the Currie Cup (SA).
When S12 was conceived, it was initially thought the top 5 NZ Provinces would come from the NPC & top 4 SA Provinces would come from the Currie Cup. Australia wasn’t affected by domestic comp qualification, because it only had 3 Provinces anyway.
Look at the early history of S12 (1996-98), & you’ll see that 6 SA Provinces had at least one season in those first 3 years – Northern Transvaal, Transvaal, Free State, Natal, Western Province & Eastern Province.
The Kiwis saw the fault lines immediately (in 1996), & changed to regional teams. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, any key All Black playing for a weak Province would miss out on valuable match time in the S12. Secondly, the minor/smaller NZ Provinces wanted some involvement in the S12.
The Kiwis only maintained the Provincial names of the parent Province – Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury & Otago – to appease the SANZAR organisers. Today, they have virtually ignored the use of those names.
By the end of 1998, the Saffies saw the same problems. Namely, that leading Boks playing for weaker provinces, would miss out on valuable match time. So they went down the same path as the Kiwis.
That is why today, all the NZ & SA are regional franchises, lumping anything from 3-6 Provinces within their umbrella, & are known by nicknames rather than Provinces, or cities.
You will also note that the Brumbies have dropped ACT, once they acquired the Southern Inland NSW Country areas. This occurred in late 2005, I think.
The solution? I can see three options.
Firstly, the Blues stop pretending they also represent North Harbour, North Auckland, Counties-Manatau, & revert to calling themselves the Auckland Blues; the Stormers stop pretending they also represent Boland & S-W Districts, & revert to calling themselves Western Province Stormers; the Brumbies stop pretending they also represent the Southern NSW Country, & revert to calling themselves ACT Brumbies. Etc!
Secondly, revert the entire comp to its original intention. That is, qualification via national domestic comps. of course, Australia would be the big loser here, as it doesn’t yet have a viable national comp. For further explanation, you would have to read my articles in “Switching Off”.
Thirdly, simply adopt capital city names as you suggest – NZ: Auckland Blues, Hamilton Chiefs, Wellington Hurricanes, Christchurch Crusaders; Dunedin Highlanders; SA: Capetown Stormers, Durban Sharks, Bloemfontein Cheetahs, Johannesburg Lions, Pretoria Bulls; AUS: Sydney Waratahs, Brisbane Reds, Canberra Brumbies, Perth Force.
If you read my other articles in “Switching Off”, option two is my preferred option.
BTW Roger, if the F in KFC doesn’t stand for Fried, then what does it stand for? Or have I missed something here??
Roger said | April 19th 2007 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Sheek,thanks for that info,I am certain others will also appreciate it.
These days the word Fried is an absolute no no where food is concerned..But the company is stuck with it. The recent generation simply refer to the product as KFC.
The product is heavily marketed under the name KFC ,but the word Fried doesn’t get a mention. They want it to go away. However us more mature age junk foodies remember when it was both advertised and called Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken.
You wont find any reference to that today on the premises, any more than you will see people buy KFC who in any way resemble the vibrant healthy youngsters in the TV ads.
I still stand up to change the chanel on my TV set
and now back to rugby……………………………
matta said | April 19th 2007 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
What? you can change the chanel on your TV set by getting up? What do you do when you stand up?
booboo said | April 23rd 2007 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
Sheek
I’m not 100% certain that New Zealand ever intended playing their teams by qualification through NPC – but I stand to be corrected.
Digressing for a second or two the original South Pacific Championship was mooted to include three NZ teams based on NPC finishing position and the PI team based on winninhg the Pacific 3N. It happened the 1st year and for whatever reason Auckland, Wellington & Canterbury just stayed in the comp year in year out.
Anyway the NZ teams dropped the location from their franchise names as in nearly all the teams were formed through partnerships of several unions with two or three strong first division unions making up the one team.
The concept was for the team to be (nearly) representative of it’s given region, and after the franchises have worked hard to create an atmosphere of inclusivity most have now achieved that. There were obviously teething problems:
- the Chiefs area was redefined (that’s a long story in itself)
- the franchsie host unions used their position to recruit players to their union
- players from the other strong unions within a given franchise were perceived to be unjustly missing selection (sometimes there was more than a grain of truth in this)
Anyway, across the board in NZ one of the ways to bring the unions together under one banner was to remove the host unions location from the franshise name – it’s not a big thing but it creates a mind set. Southlanders did not necessarily want to cheer for Otago.
Canterbury was special case as it was the only First division team in their region – but they were quick to realise the potential for inclusion of the minor unions (Tasman is now a first division team in it’s franchsie area).
I liken it to a hypothetical Southern Hemisphere cricket competition between NZ, Australian and South African teams – to be set up in a similar manner to the Super 14.
Just for example sake Australia gets 3 teams. Western and Soth Australia combine, Queensland and NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.
Aftre much wailing and gnahsing of teeth the teams are set up in Perth, Sydney and Melbourne. And are called Western Australia, New South Wales & Victoria (with appropriate team nicknames). The teams are expected to live and train in the host cities. Players from those host states start getting preferential treatment etc etc.
How exactly do you think that would sit with your average South Australian, Queenslander or Taswegian?
I do however see your point that the nicknames alone can be unhelpful.
But I will mention that the Kangaroos, Western Bulldogs and Port Power (note: not Port Adelaide) do not have locations associated with their names.
(More annoying as a New Zealander is the insistence on calling club teams playing in Australian domestic competitions “New Zealand”.)