Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

Mind you, there to my knowledge has never been a school whose mascot was the n words. As to the R word, there are twenty schools on reservations (ie native controlled land) that do call themselves and chose to call themselves the Redskins.

That must speak to the weight of the word comparatively. No segregated black school chose that name to identify themselves, no historically black college, no fraternity, organization, etc.

That means something.

Good point Burgold, and a sound answer to that. I think it is more like Larry said, similar, but not the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this posted already?

 

 

@BurgundyBlog: .@ESPNMag published an illustration of a #Redskins helmet with the decal oozing blood. pic.twitter.com/LHA8Yj92k4

 

Bs7sZtjCQAAvdNR.jpg

 

 

My guess was that it's meant to reflect the myth that "redskin" = bloody Indian scalp.

 

If so, then this ridiculous "origin" story is being mass-fed as truth not just by the media quoting the words of activists, but by basically issuing a statement that the story has passed the mainstream media's litmus tests and should be considered as fact by its audience.

Edited by Califan007
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Notice the headline,,,then the actual survey results.....

 

Should Redskins change their name? New Mexico says ‘meh’

http://watchdog.org/159596/redskins-newmexico/

“Some people are concerned about (the nickname) and they say, ‘Hey, that belongs to Native Americans,’” said Jeff. “And then you have those who are Redskins fans, who say, ‘Hey, it’s good that we have the Redskins and their logo.’”

“There are a lot of Native folks who are Redskins fans, which is surprising,” Shendo said.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The original article from which this goofball writes his article is much better:

 

"New Mexicans say Washington should stick with Redskins

 

New Mexico has one of the nation’s most diverse populations, but voters here track with mainstream national views when it comes to the Washington Redskins.

 

More than two-thirds – or 71 percent – of registered voters surveyed last week in a Journal flash poll said the National Football League franchise should keep its historic, but controversial, team name.

 

Just 18 percent of the respondents statewide said the Redskins should change their name, while 11 percent said they were not sure.

 

There was no statistically significant difference in opinions among Hispanic, Anglo or Native American voters surveyed in the poll. New Mexico voters, for the most part, simply said keep the name.

 

“Some people may have speculated that New Mexico would be different from the national results, given that we are a majority minority state, but that did not happen,” said Brian Sanderoff, the president of Research & Polling Inc., which conducted the poll.

 

“There are some who are clearly attached to the traditions and heritage that link the Redskins name to the team,” Sanderoff said. “But there are other people that see it in a vacuum and just see a racial slur.”

 

[...]The question asked in the Journal flash poll was: “Should the Washington Redskins, a National Football League team, keep their name or change their name?”

 

http://www.abqjournal.com/428862/news/new-mexicans-say-washington-should-stick-with-redskins.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this posted already?

@BurgundyBlog: .@ESPNMag published an illustration of a #Redskins helmet with the decal oozing blood.

My guess was that it's meant to reflect the myth that "redskin" = bloody Indian scalp.

If so, then this ridiculous "origin" story is being mass-fed as truth not just by the media quoting the words of activists, but by basically issuing a statement that the story has passed the mainstream media's litmus tests and should be considered as fact by its audience.

Are they freaking kidding? Not only are they morons but that pic is just disgusting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Redskins logo is bleeding at the neck and Daniel Snyder is washing the blood off. Then again, I never did get political cartoons.

 

this insanity is rising to ridiculous heights.  Stand by for the next poll these people conduct that continues to show the overwhelming majority of everybody don't want to change the name.

 

Maybe they will even try the old "blackskins" and "yellowskins" arguments again.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing desperation from a lot of them now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

this insanity is rising to ridiculous heights.  Stand by for the next poll these people conduct that continues to show the overwhelming majority of everybody don't want to change the name.

 

Maybe they will even try the old "blackskins" and "yellowskins" arguments again.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing desperation from a lot of them now.

As soon as training camp starts it's curtains for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskins are the third most valuable NFL franchise at 1.8 billion. The organization has one of the most recognizable and profitable trademarks in all of sports. In 2012 the Redskins(RG3's) had the highest selling jersey. No one in business willingly takes as profitable a trademark as the Redskins have and just changes it. Why? Because it will cost millions and hurt profits for years. No one should need a itemized breakdown of costs to know that changing the team's name will cost Snyder on the order of millions of dollars and reduce the team's overall net worth. Why else would Harjo et al go after the trademark? The PTO can't force a name change but it could hurt Snyder's pockets.

 

I don't follow your logic.  Rebranding a product does not necessarily mean the product loses value.  How would that happen with the Redskins, in the NFL?  The value of the team isn't in the trademark.  Television revenues would not be affected.  I seriously doubt attendance would be affected by any significant amount.  You might have a handful of people quit on the team on principal, barely a ripple.  Product sales would likely jump once the fan base gets accustomed to whatever the new name might be.

 

What are the costs?  Here's one stab at an answer, from sports statistician Neil Greenberg:

 

“The biggest cost is not developing a new name and mark,” said Allen Adamson, managing director of Landor Associates, whose past clients include the NFL. “The biggest cost by far is applying it to all the points of touch that a brand like the Redskins exists on: merchandise, signage, training facilities and the stadium. That would be several million dollars, probably under $5 million. They can do it aggressively in six months, sometimes even less. Sometimes it can take a couple years to do the transition.”

Even double that amount would be a drop in the bucket for a team Forbes considers the eighth most valuable franchise in all of sport and third most valuable football franchise.

Court costs, on the other hand, could dwarf the re-branding costs.

“A good patent and trademark attorney costs $300 per hour on the low end and four figures an hour on the high end,” explains Jessop. “It is expected Redskins will appeal this. Depending on how that appeals turns I could see this battle going all the way to the Supreme Court. Whether the Court chooses to hear the case is another issue but it could cost millions to fight legally.”

But how would a name change and the ensuing court battle affect their valuation?

“It wouldn’t,” said Michael Ozanian, Forbes Executive Editor. “Revenues will be the same and profitability will be the same because of the salary cap. It is an opportunity to move forward with a brand that has a positive connotation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/06/18/how-much-it-would-cost-to-change-the-redskins-name/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow your logic.  Rebranding a product does not necessarily mean the product loses value.  How would that happen with the Redskins, in the NFL?  The value of the team isn't in the trademark.  Television revenues would not be affected.  I seriously doubt attendance would be affected by any significant amount.  You might have a handful of people quit on the team on principal, barely a ripple.  Product sales would likely jump once the fan base gets accustomed to whatever the new name might be.

 

What are the costs?  Here's one stab at an answer, from sports statistician Neil Greenberg:

 

“A good patent and trademark attorney costs $300 per hour on the low end and four figures an hour on the high end,” explains Jessop. “It is expected Redskins will appeal this. Depending on how that appeals turns I could see this battle going all the way to the Supreme Court. Whether the Court chooses to hear the case is another issue but it could cost millions to fight legally.”

But how would a name change and the ensuing court battle affect their valuation?

“It wouldn’t,” said Michael Ozanian, Forbes Executive Editor. “Revenues will be the same and profitability will be the same because of the salary cap. It is an opportunity to move forward with a brand that has a positive connotation.”

 

 

Not everyone at Forbes agrees, apparently:

 

 

Forbes: Why The Washington Redskins Will Never Change Their Name

 

In a page out of the 1990s, the issue of Native American sports nicknames is cropping up again. Specifically, the Washington Redskins are suddenly under the microscope.

 

[...]Goodell was the first to respond, sending a letter to the Congressional Native American Caucus in which he politely told the members to butt out.

 

A snippet of Goodell’s response: The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context.

 

In other words, the name isn’t going anywhere. Goodell knows it’s a strong brand that’s good for business. So does Snyder, who has publicly proclaimed he won’t change it. Not that the nickname’s critics don’t have an argument. When you get down to it, a term like “Redskins” – literally denoting skin color – does carry a more improper tone than “Braves,” “Indians,” “Chiefs” or other traditional monikers. But some people point to the last word in the Goodell excerpt – context.

 

“If you walk around and call people redskins, it’s offensive,” says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, a research firm that measures consumer attitudes toward sports teams and athletes, among other properties. “But when it’s for the Washington Redskins, it’s not offensive, it’s everything the commissioner said.”

 

The public can debate the name and context all day, but a change will remain unlikely. Passikoff’s research captures the reason: strong fan loyalty that’s based above all else on history and tradition. The Redskins, the NFL’s third-most valuable franchise at $1.6 billion, rank 13th of the league’s 32 clubs in Brand Keys’ sports loyalty index.

 

That’s only slightly above average, but as Passikoff notes, the club ranks No. 7 in the “history and tradition” component of the index, keeping company with franchises like Green Bay, Chicago and Dallas. That history component is the foundation – it varies little from year to year, bringing sustained value, while the rest of the index fluctuates with the recent fortunes of the team. Washington had been mired in mediocrity for years until Robert Griffin III created a new buzz and a playoff ride this past season.

 

Meanwhile, Forbes assigns $131 million of the Redskins’ $1.6 billion valuation to its brand strength, behind only the Cowboys and Patriots. How much of that brand strength is specifically tied up in the name? It’s impossible to say, exactly. But when you’re minting money even in down years, as the Redskins do, you don’t have much interest in trying to find out.

 

 

 

One of the key takeaways from that article is the "History and tradition component"...that component's "sustained value" will take a direct hit if the Washington Redskins become the Washington (Fill In The Blanks), with all the history and tradition tied into it's brand and emblem tossed out the window. To believe that can easily be replaced with something new is laughable. Again, only the Cowboys and Patriots currently have a stronger H&T component...and that's with the Skins losing far more often than winning over the last few decades. You can't simply ask the entire fan base to buy into a rebranding like it means little to them. That would be adding insult to injury.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How much of that brand strength is specifically tied up in the name? It’s impossible to say, exactly. 

 

 

That's the key takeaway for me.  These economists tying a specific money value to brand strength are making stuff up.  Especially given an NFL franchise.  

 

I'm trying to figure out - specifically - how a name change would effect a team's bottom line.  The physical rebranding of stuff has fixed costs associated with it. That's measurable.  I haven't seen a good explanation of how a name change would hurt the franchise beyond these initial rebranding costs - logo development, PR campaign for the new name, change of signage, uniforms, other physical imprints of the logo on products real and virtual, etc. I really don't see a long term drop-off in television viewership, attendance, or sponsorships - where the real money is.  And I've seen nothing so far that convinces me otherwise, beyond vague speculation. 

Edited by Dan T.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't want to cheer on morons anyways. If they can't fact check something so simple for their multi million dollar job, I'm not a believer they will be able to handle the intricacies of a playbook.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Snyder called the bluff of the name changers, suggesting to change the name to Warriors and keeping the logo which was designed by a  NA? 

 

You know that the answer would be "not good enough", they then tell them to take a hike were keeping it as is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the key takeaway for me.  These economists tying a specific money value to brand strength are making stuff up.  Especially given an NFL franchise.

 

Their not "making stuff up", which I find somewhat funny in that when the editor of Forbes comments with something that agrees with your stance, you have no problem quoting him as a reliable financial source. But when someone else at Forbes comments with something you do not agree with, then it becomes "These economists are just making stuff up" lol...

 

Corporate brands most definitely have equity. 80 year old brands in an industry in which tradition and history are important to its "customers" hold a value that would be foolish to blow off as "stuff made up". Just because you can't say exactly how much of the history and tradition component is tied into the name doesn't mean the name is inconsequential to the value of the brand and profits made by the team.

 

 

I'm trying to figure out - specifically - how a name change would effect a team's bottom line.  The physical rebranding of stuff has fixed costs associated with it. That's measurable.  I haven't seen a good explanation of how a name change would hurt the franchise beyond these initial rebranding costs - logo development, PR campaign for the new name, change of signage, uniforms, other physical imprints of the logo on products real and virtual, etc. I really don't see a long term drop-off in television viewership, attendance, or sponsorships - where the real money is.  And I've seen nothing so far that convinces me otherwise, beyond vague speculation.

The value of each individual franchise varies for a reason. So viewership and sponsors aren't the only important aspects of a franchise's monetary worth. Have you wondered why the Redskins are valued at $1.3 billion? Ever wonder why ALL NFL franchises aren't valued at that amount? It can't be due to winning.

 

The portion of a franchise's worth that can be attributed to its brand is most definitely important. Some who are naive on the matter assume that any brand will due, because ultimately fans don't give a rat's ass what the team's called or if the team name, helmet emblem or team colors have any connections to their experiences and memories growing up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Snyder called the bluff of the name changers, suggesting to change the name to Warriors and keeping the logo which was designed by a  NA? 

 

You know that the answer would be "not good enough", they then tell them to take a hike were keeping it as is.

Calling a bluff would mean keeping the Redskins as the name. Maybe changing the Washington part could be seen as calling a bluff. Changing the name to warriors (or anything else) would be called folding. Edited by nonniey
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Snyder called the bluff of the name changers, suggesting to change the name to Warriors and keeping the logo which was designed by a NA?

You know that the answer would be "not good enough", they then tell them to take a hike were keeping it as is.

For a long time I thought this would be a good compromise, since it removes the name which many deem racist while allowing us to keep our theme, logo, and colors.

Unfortunately both sides are so entrenched at this point I doubt either would be happy with that solution.

Then again maybe that's the mark of a good compromise.

Edited by s0crates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat interesting article about sports brand equity:

 

**********************

 

Emotional equity also plays a role when sport entities strive to brand or re-brand themselves. Take a look at the citation below:

 

“In February 1927, Toronto’s struggling NHL franchise, the St Patrick’s, was sold to an investor group doing business as the Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club, Limited. Managing partner Conn Smythe made two quick and significant decisions. The first was to secure a well-known war hero as board chairman, to ‘burnish the club’s image’ (Ross, 2008, p. 163). The second was to use a new crest on the team sweaters – a maple leaf similar to that which had adorned Canada’s gold medal-winning 1924 Olympic hockey team. Smythe later recalled (Smythe and Young, 1981, p. 86) that he knew the leaf ‘meant something across Canada.’ Today’s sport marketers would say that Smythe was engaged in ‘branding’ his team with people and symbols that would increase name recognition, perceived product quality, emotion, and loyalty among his fan base. In marketing jargon, he would increase his ‘brand equity’.”

 

[...]...sport branding is an essential part of the process when sport entities want to distinguish themselves from competitors. The significance of a name and logo are key assets when sport entities strive to build strong relationships with their fans...the name is more imperative than the logo due to the fact that the latter is easier to change and that the name most often acquires more exposure (e.g. via media coverage). The ‘emotional equity’ comes into play when the name and/or logo apply the ‘sentiment’ that there is a connection between the sport entity’s name and/or logo and the home area’s story, spirit and nature...In general, these branding lessons are vital when a sport entity finds itself in an initiating-stage or a re-branding process – especially if the entity does not have ‘the star power’ or ‘sporting quality’ to back up the process.

 

[...]...branding is experiential in nature and...‘sporting success’ and ‘sporting traditions’ over a long period of time matter....My conclusion is that a name and a logo are important in sport branding. Recently, we saw it when more than 16,000 fans of the English football club Everton protested against the club’s new crest, click here for more info. Still, this part of the branding process cannot be left alone. Sport branding is also about ‘other actions’, i.e. how the brand is cultivated. In other words, the sport entity must grow a strong society around the brand...The NFL is a commercial money train and thus a powerful brand and the importance of names and logos have been carefully implemented in the branding process of the league’s teams.

 

********************

 

 

We would be naive to think the only real costs to re-branding the Redskins would be putting the new name on everything and the only effect it would really have on fans is them buying new team jerseys.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to take a moment to thank the majority of posters in this thread.

 

It has been mostly civil, reasonable and respectful during us all debating our points (Except when someone new comes into the fold and starts to rehash points we have already discussed multiple times).  

 

Scores of information, research and excellent points made by many including some life experiences.

 

I can only imagine how this topic would be addressed on other message boards and how frustrating/tiresome it would become.  

 

Thanks again folks, pat on the back for all, including the Mods.

 

~ KH

 

EDIT: Hail To The Redskins.

Edited by Kosher Ham
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their not "making stuff up", which I find somewhat funny in that when the editor of Forbes comments with something that agrees with your stance, you have no problem quoting him as a reliable financial source. But when someone else at Forbes comments with something you do not agree with, then it becomes "These economists are just making stuff up" lol...

 

Corporate brands most definitely have equity. 80 year old brands in an industry in which tradition and history are important to its "customers" hold a value that would be foolish to blow off as "stuff made up". Just because you can't say exactly how much of the history and tradition component is tied into the name doesn't mean the name is inconsequential to the value of the brand and profits made by the team.

Which would have been a really telling rebutle, if he had claimed that any body who claims that the name has any value whatsoever were "making things up".

But, what he said was that people assigning a specific value to the name, were making things up.

And I believe he is correct. Things like that cannot be measured with specificity. People can express opinions. Some opinions may be more credible than others. The opinions can be sampled, and maybe even arrive at a consensus opinion.

But even a consensus opinion is still an opinion. (Just one that has a lot more credibility associated with it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling a bluff would mean keeping the Redskins as the name. Maybe changing the Washington part could be seen as calling a bluff. Changing the name to warriors (or anything else) would be called folding.

 

 

For a long time I thought this would be a good compromise, since it removes the name which many deem racist while allowing us to keep our theme, logo, and colors.

Unfortunately both sides are so entrenched at this point I doubt either would be happy with that solution.

Then again maybe that's the mark of a good compromise.

 

 

I only said he would suggest it, it would then expose what Socrates is saying, that gesture won't be enough, they are after the whole logo and any affiliation with Native American representation. Once the Redskins cave, if they ever do, it won't be the end of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only said he would suggest it, it would then expose what Socrates is saying, that gesture won't be enough, they are after the whole logo and any affiliation with Native American representation. Once the Redskins cave, if they ever do, it won't be the end of it. 

 

It won't be enough for some of the activists. 

 

But will it be enough for 90% of folks? 

 

(Problem with that point, though.  Seems like "Redskins" is good enough for 90% of folks, already.) 

 

(Yes, I'm rounding things off and speaking in generalities.  This was not a post about statistical analysis and margins of error.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...