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

[88Comrade2000]

If the team becomes a consistent winner, people who remain; will forget about the name change.

 

I  bet those who left because of the name change; might find it hard to stay away, if this team is on a Super Bowl run. Especially for those, living in the D.C. area.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just now, clietas said:

 

You new to America? 

 

You read the media reports and people's reactions?

 

Someone had to remind everyone lol...

 

[Kosher Ham]

10 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

There are Chiefs and Senior Chiefs below the Master. (solely for reference) 

Yeah. But MC is two derogatory words. 

Pit Chief? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 minutes ago, dchogs said:

He's had damned near 30 years to craft the team narrative such that this wouldn't be happening today. 

 

As for this part:

 

- It's been 20 years, not 30.

- Jack Kent Cooke didn't do anything more than Snyder has to "craft the team narrative" against what's happening today, and this was happening on his watch, too.

 

3 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

Yeah. But MC is two derogatory words. 

Pit Chief? 

 

Hey! The Washington Mas--whoops, sorry, wrong thread.

[dchogs]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

As for this part:

 

- It's been 20 years, not 30.

- Jack Kent Cooke didn't do anything more than Snyder has to "craft the team narrative" against what's happening today, and this was happening on his watch, too.

 

my bad.  2 decades instead of 3 (we've just sucked for almost 30 years).  still plenty of time. 

 

... and true.  doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been happening and that if it had, we may be in a stronger position today.  i would love to keep the Redskins name.  people legitimately think it is a racist term-- i disagree, but i've been reading the research people here have uncovered over the last 20 years.  instead of crafting the narrative that the Redskins org actually cares about native americans and leading efforts to help (not just with $$$ but with sweat equity, organizational priorities, etc), snyder has the rep (well earned) of being someone who only loves his money.  so now, he could give billions to NA efforts and it would be seen as a self-serving action.   all water under the bridge and theoretical, but maybe 2 decades of work within the NA community and the education of the general public would have had an effect.  maybe not. 

 

i do agree that it's nice (and surprising, honestly) that danny has been quiet with his philanthropy.  as it should be.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, dchogs said:

my bad.  2 decades instead of 3 (we've just sucked for almost 30 years).  still plenty of time. 

 

... and true.  doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been happening and that if it had, we may be in a stronger position today.  i would love to keep the Redskins name.  people legitimately think it is a racist term-- i disagree, but i've been reading the research people here have uncovered over the last 20 years.  instead of crafting the narrative that the Redskins org actually cares about native americans and leading efforts to help (not just with $$$ but with sweat equity, organizational priorities, etc), snyder has the rep (well earned) of being someone who only loves his money.  so now, he could give billions to NA efforts and it would be seen as a self-serving action.   all water under the bridge and theoretical, but maybe 2 decades of work within the NA community and the education of the general public would have had an effect.  maybe not. 

 

i do agree that it's nice (and surprising, honestly) that danny has been quiet with his philanthropy.  as it should be.

 

 

I don't really disagree with you on any of that.

[Skinsinparadise]

I just caught a Sheehan podcast where he said he learned the Redskins did an internal poll towards the end of last season and among other things tested was Dan and Bruce's favorability separately among the fans and it was in single digits for both, sounded like mid single digits the way he described things.  So about 95% disapproval, 5% approval?  

 

In my business, I've looked at a ton of polls and even dabble sometimes myself on occasion albeit I am not a professional pollster.  Working on one this weekend.   Those numbers if true are insane.  If someone's unfavorable numbers typically exceed 50% in my business they are just about toast.  If their negatives hit the 60s, its insanely high and they won't be elected with just about 100% certainty.  Negatives in the 90s shows a complete meltdown in someone's status.  I've never seen anything like that in all my years of looking at surveys and on occasion doing one -- at least not in terms of a macro base -- you sometimes see that in micro-targeted universes 

 

My point is if Dan has that level of nonconfidence with the fans -- I wonder how this would shake out?  You can argue it either way.  You can say he has nothing to lose since he's already bleeding fans and has little confidence from the ones left so maybe a positive PR hit and rebranding along with hopefully some wins -- attracts some new fans or captures some of the people who were turned off by the name.  I got no idea how many of these people exist.  Judging by talk radio though some of these do exist.  Then you can go the opposite way with a group of fans who say Dan's steadfast defense of the name is the one thing they really dig about him.  

 

I just stumbled on this article.  They make the case that Dan almost has nothing to lose.  My gut is they are wrong on some of their points.  But I don't know.  Dan likely has his own internal data on the subject. 

 

https://www.sportico.com/2020/leagues/football/redskins-brand-worth-substantially-less-time-right-to-change-name-1234608413/

 

REDSKINS’ BRAND WORTH “SUBSTANTIALLY LESS” THAN BELIEVED; TIME RIGHT TO CHANGE NAME

 

 

Our Take: In 2019, Forbes valued the Washington NFL franchise at $3.4 billion—an estimate that attributed $231 million specifically to the Redskins’ brand. It’s unclear how the publication arrived at that number, but Peter Schwartz believes the club’s identity is worth “substantially less.” Sportico’s resident valuations guru said: “The ongoing controversy over the team name—including the 2018 trademark dispute—has resulted in a significant decrease in the appreciation of the value of the team. Viewed through that lens, the Redskins’ brand is actually a net-negative.” Larry Taman (Managing Partner, Brand Positioning Doctors and Co-Host of the Brands, Beats & Bytes podcast) agreed with Schwartz’s assessment. “If the team went up for sale tomorrow, I believe 95% of prospective buyers would pursue a name change,” he said. “And if I’m right about that, the brand really isn’t worth anything.”

 

While Snyder has never publicly indicated that he would consider doing away with the Redskins’ name, it’s worth wondering if the promise of boosting club profitability would be enough to drive the billionaire owner to overhaul the team’s identity (particularly if this season sees depressed attendance/revenues because of COVID-19). Darryl Cobbin (Managing Partner, Brand Positioning Doctors and Co-Host of the Brands, Beats & Bytes podcast) reminds, “At the moment, only the most die-hard of Redskins fans are buying team merchandise (see: 0 players in the NFL’s top 50 for jersey/merchandise sales in 2019). But if the club were to get a new name and it’s marketed the right way, all of a sudden folks who aren’t even fans of the franchise could be buying the gear.”

 

Changing the overwhelming negative narrative that surrounds the team would also help the franchise rebuild its fan base and theoretically sell more seats (attendance is down 31% over the last decade, their season-ticket waiting list has also shrunk from a reported 200,000 names to 0). Swangard explained that there is a “massive base of young people [both in and out of market] who care more about what a brand stands for than the product or service it is selling. If the Redskins changed their name, people who never rooted for the club before would begin to because of the perception they’re taking a leadership position as it relates to promoting social progress.”

 

It’s worth noting that in addition to the potential revenue upside in a rebrand, there are costs associated with the franchise maintaining the status quo. Swangard explained that “everyday [Snyder] waits [to change the name], it becomes harder—and thus more expensive—to retain and attract new fans.”

[Mr. Sinister]

^Kinda what I meant when I said he probably had more to gain from this than to lose.

 

He may still be a dickhead, but sans the name and with Ron and a steady influx of good players, he can start to rebuild at least a portion of what he has thoroughly destroyed

[CRobi21]

*Missed the thread edit*

 

[Mr. Sinister]

Wrong thread, fam.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Mr. Sinister said:

^Kinda what I meant when I said he probably had more to gain from this than to lose.

 

 

I get your logic, could be so. 

 

It's certainly a low point for him-team.   We got national reporters talking about this team bleeding fans.

 

I think the wild thing about this juncture in Dan's ownership is that early on or arguably even through most of his ownership while the team hasn't been hot -- they at least have been relevant nationally.   Not only is the team not relevant anymore but they've become a national punchline for how irrelevant they've become.   For 2 years running we couldn't get a Sunday night game.  Now we can't get a prime time game period.   From a marketing standpoint, apathy is perhaps the biggest enemies to sales.

 

Oddly enough all this name change stuff has thrust the team into the national spotlight for a change.   Maybe, Dan can pull off some marketing hit from it?  

[Mr. Sinister]

If he does this the right way, yeah. I still have an inkling that he's gonna find a way to screw this up, though.

 

Kinda funny how he's been so steadfast in his defense of the team name, yet when it comes to how he's treat ed d its legacy and the fans, you really start to think that maybe he doesn't care one bit about any of it (except the money it's made him)

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

If he does this the right way, yeah. I still have an inkling that he's gonna find a way to screw this up, though.

 

Kinda funny how he's been so steadfast in his defense of the team name, yet when it comes to how he's treat ed d its legacy and the fans, you really start to think that maybe he doesn't care one bit about any of it (except the money it's made him)

 

Dan isn't the most competent dude so that's certainly in play.  I am not a UnWise Mike guy to say the least.  But I stumbled on this tweet catching up on stuff.   but it somewhat hits a point about Dan if true. 

 

 

 

[GOSKINS_08]

What is that tweet trying to say? Lol maybe I’m drinking too much 😂 but I don’t see what the point Wise is trying to make.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Dan isn't the most competent dude so that's certainly in play.  I am not a UnWise Mike guy to say the least.  But I stumbled on this tweet catching up on stuff.   but it somewhat hits a point about Dan if true. 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought Dan was in discussions behind the scenes with Goodell about the possibility of a name change being needed for awhile now (instigated by Goodell, from how I understood it).

[Corcaigh]

4 hours ago, dchogs said:

let's do both. doesn't have to be either/or.  

For those taking the position that a NA mascot/logo honors their history, or would be interesting to see the owners dedicate, say, 10% of net income to NA charities and development organizations.

[Burgold]

4 hours ago, dchogs said:

that may or may not be true (i honestly don't know or don't remember), but with snyder supposedly being a marketing genius, 

Snyder being a marketing genius is a myth long ago exposed as false. He figured out telemarketing early and sold his company for a mint. He has since failed at quite a few businesses, but telemarketing was not marketing genius it was the realization that if you hit enough people you will get some small return on investment. In actuality, from what we've experienced as Redskins' fan, Snyder is a terrible marketer. Even stranger, he's a resistant one. The Redskins are not aggressively marketed. They are not inventive. They just sort of sit there like kings that money will flow to because they are that wonderful.

[Commander PK]

41 minutes ago, GOSKINS_08 said:

What is that tweet trying to say? Lol maybe I’m drinking too much 😂 but I don’t see what the point Wise is trying to make.

I agree, this prick UnWise Mike is finally going to get what he wants and he still can’t resist taking another shot.   

[Kosher Ham]

Snyder is responsible for all of the screens behind coaches and  players with the ads and stuff.

[Skinsinparadise]

34 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I thought Dan was in discussions behind the scenes with Goodell about the possibility of a name change being needed for awhile now (instigated by Goodell, from how I understood it).

 

Don't know about how they define "awhile".  I saw someplace a week ago.  Obviously this issue has been simmering for years.  Dan hasn't budged. 

 

But as for when Dan started relenting (if that part is true) we don't really have a timeline for that.    Keim saying that Dan has talked about it with the league before last week to me suggests recently.

 

The point though from the ex-employee that Dan is impulsive isn't the first person to say that about him.  Though he clearly isn't impulsive about everything.  He's very loyal as an example to his top lieutenant and doesn't fire coaches easily.  

 

Dan clearly is a bit of enigma since he doesn't reveal himself much and is media shy. 

12 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Snyder being a marketing genius is a myth long ago exposed as false. He figured out telemarketing early and sold his company for a mint. He has since failed at quite a few businesses, but telemarketing was not marketing genius it was the realization that if you hit enough people you will get some small return on investment. In actuality, from what we've experienced as Redskins' fan, Snyder is a terrible marketer. Even stranger, he's a resistant one. The Redskins are not aggressively marketed. They are not inventive. They just sort of sit there like kings that money will flow to because they are that wonderful.

 

I agree with this.  I used to think he was a good marketer.  I don't anymore.    IMO he's made a number of obvious marketing gaffes that make me think he's out of touch.  For one of the younger owners in the league he's arguably somewhat old school as for understanding the times and sports fans.  I don't feel like elaborating about it here but I've done so on other threads.

 

I recall one person who knows him said he's not much of a techie including he doesn't use email and is old school.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

57 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The point though from the ex-employee that Dan is impulsive isn't the first person to say that about him.  Though he clearly isn't impulsive about everything.  He's very loyal as an example to his top lieutenant and doesn't fire coaches easily. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I'd define discussing the issue for 1-2 weeks before now and possibly another 1-2 weeks further as a "quick about-face," "impulsive" or "reckless."

[Skinsinparadise]

44 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I'm not sure I'd define discussing the issue for 1-2 weeks before now and possibly another 1-2 weeks further as a "quick about-face," "impulsive" or "reckless."

As for the ex employee defining Dan as impulsive. And 1-2 weeks being a quick change or a long time....

 

I don’t see it the same way as you.  But it’s also to me meaningless to the debate.  You can interpret the semantics of it obviously as you like.  
 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for the ex employee defining Dan as impulsive. And 1-2 weeks being a quick change or a long time....

 

I don’t see it the same way as you.  But it’s also to me meaningless to the debate.  You can interpret the semantics of it obviously as you like.  
 

 

I'm trying to interpret the intention of the tweet. I'm assuming that Wise is trying to use Snyder's current actions on this as further evidence that he's impulsive and reckless. Considering it's been 7 years since he said he'd never change the name, it seems an odd thing to use to pin "reckless and impulsive" on him.  GOSKINS_08 was confused by the tweet as well lol...

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Low-key, this is the biggest moment of Dan’s professional life.  There’s an opportunity here to set a foundation with massive positive growth potential.  Both on the field and on the books.

 

Engage. Ask. Listen. Trust.  Breathe deep.

 

Step boldly into a new future...Hail.