Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WFT Branding Study (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

Plus We could still reference the Red wolf due to our team colors. Our team name would be Wolves but we can still bring awareness to the Red wolf. No way would they acknowledge the Redwolves fan base and awareness of the species, go with Wolves and just ignore the Red wolf awareness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing that matters a good deal is just how much they want this actual name to tie into Redskins legacy, and not just Washington in general. Every time they speak they are very adamant about how important it is that the name honor the teams history. While some of the proposed names can loosely be tied to Washington itself, is that enough for them? Or does Dan need the name to tie to the history of the football team itself? Even with Warriors, everything you say about it tying to the teams past is going to come off like a weak marketing connection more than a genuine callback. Which is fine for me because I don't care how much it ties back, but what about Dan?

 

If you had to convince the most diehard Redskins name loving fan, who was adamant the new name preserve the past as much as possible, what would you say? Because that's likely what Dan is. While I'm on board with most of the names, I have a hard time thinking of how they will really push that any of these have a true connection to Redskins legacy. I think that is extremely important to Dan. I remain unconvinced even after the video with Schefter briefly mentioning it as an interim name. I unfortunately still believe WFT is the lead name over there, because it has the strongest ties to our past for Dan by way of only focusing on Washington and not introducing anything new to redirect attention to. From what we know of Snyder, which name on the list do you think he'd personally want the most? The answer to that is very likely what our name will be. Despite all the bells and whistles and thorough process shown, unlike what the video says it eventually does come down to a blackboard with a name that needs to be picked, and Code and Theory will design it. I find it hard to believe the now 100% owner of the team, who wants to hand it down generationally through his family, is going to be ok with a name that's not first on his list...even if he's being told both the favorability and marketability aren't great.

 

Edited by DCF
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DCF said:

I think one thing that matters a good deal is just how much they want this actual name to tie into Redskins legacy, and not just Washington in general. Every time they speak they are very adamant about how important it is that the name honor the teams history. While some of the proposed names can loosely be tied to Washington itself, is that enough for them? Or does Dan need the name to tie to the history of the football team itself? Even with Warriors, everything you say about it tying to the teams past is going to come off like a weak marketing connection more than a genuine callback. Which is fine for me because I don't care how much it ties back, but what about Dan?

 

If you had to convince the most diehard Redskins name loving fan, who was adamant the new name preserve the past as much as possible, what would you say? Because that's likely what Dan is. While I'm on board with most of the names, I have a hard time thinking of how they will really push that any of these have a true connection to Redskins legacy. I think that is extremely important to Dan. I remain unconvinced even after the video with Schefter briefly mentioning it as an interim name. I unfortunately still believe WFT is the lead name over there, because it has the strongest ties to our past for Dan by way of only focusing on Washington and not introducing anything new to redirect attention to. From what we know of Snyder, which name on the list do you think he'd personally want the most? The answer to that is very likely what our name will be. Despite all the bells and whistles and thorough process shown, unlike what the video says it eventually does come down to a blackboard with a name that needs to be picked, and Code and Theory will design it. I find it hard to believe the now 100% owner of the team, who wants to hand it down generationally through his family, is going to be ok with a name that's not first on his list...even if he's being told both the favorability and marketability aren't great.

 

As much as I am pro-Wolves, I am also anti-WFT. Anything but WFT. Or WFC.

There is no way WFT has any tie to our history. In fact, it is redacted history. The only thing that WFT does connect to our history is the name Washington, which ANY new name will be paired with.

 

No way would Jason Wright be talking about a new direction, moving the brand beyond football, making new traditions via the fans, and simply keep a rushed name that is practically the Washington ___________s. Dan may be stubborn, but he not so stubborn as to hold onto the past so much that it sacrifices our future branding potential. 

Let's be honest. Any connection to our Redskins past will fade over time. Nobody will focus on the Washington part when there is the name Football Team right in their face. 
When people in the future look back at this name change, they want the name change to make some sense. Any non-WFT name we choose will make some sense in context. Going from Redskins to WFT will make no sense to our future generation. The Washington Wizards didn't have the internet to get a good understanding of what name would work. But now with people online 24/7 WSH will see what name is mostly "favored". And they are learning two undeniable facts.

1. The colors Burgundy and Gold should stay the team colors
2. WFT should not be the permanent name

And don't fall for "not every fan is on social media", because on the whole internet altogether, people do not want to keep WFT. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DCdangerous said:

 

When people in the future look back at this name change, they want the name change to make some sense. Any non-WFT name we choose will make some sense in context. 

 

What connection to or continuation of our past would a name like " Justice " or " Alliance " or " Generals " or " Seals " have ?

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

 

What connection to or continuation of our past would a name like " Justice " or " Alliance " or " Generals " or " Seals " have ?

That's the next level of name connection. They have zero connection to our team history but 100% connection to the area. But those name only work best with RWB colors. And since we will be keeping our current team colors, those names won't work.

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

...but 100% connection to the area. 

 

But, we already have that with the name " Washington " which isn't changing of course.

 

What names that you've seen suggested so far, would you say have a connection to or a continuation of our past, that don't have the word " red " in them ?

 

 

And Painkiller, I already know what you would say.  😀

 

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spearfeather said:

 

But, we already have that with the name " Washington " which isn't changing of course.

 

What names that you've seen suggested so far, would you say have a connection to or a continuation of our past, that don't have the word " red " in them ?

THAT is the expert level of connection. If we cannot have any Native American Imagery, then you need to do some thinking into how the name connects or has a continuation of our past.

Hogs connect to group of linemnen in the 80s, but Hogs are domesticated male pigs. Not intimidating. Nobody wants to grunt to root for their team. Squealing isn't better.

Now Warriors may seem like a no-brainer (Redskins' occupation) but people have been suggesting the name as backup for so long that it is kinda tainted. Even if you use a different type of soldier to represent the warrior, even modern military, it cuts the connection to the past in half.  and TLDR, Golden State cornered the market on Warriors due to their popularity. So not as marketable.

Wolves may not be a DIRECT connection to our past as Warriors is, but it does have quite a sneaky indirect connection.  In Native American mythology, when a Native American dies, it comes back in the form of a wolf, one of the spirit animals Native American honor, just like the eagle and the bear. The front office wouldn't say it officially, but use fans can connect the dots. And wolves are not exclusive to Native Americans since many cultures around the world honor it, so activists can't say we aren't moving forward (especially if we don't have the Red in the name) even though they were ok with many high schools and Arkansas State changing from Native American names to Red Wolves. Also this would avoid a TM dispute with Arkansas State. And with our team color burgundy pretty much a shade of red, our logo can still reference the regional endangered Red wolf. So Wolves can be a "spiritual successor" to the old name with colors that reference the regional animal.

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

THAT is the expert level of connection. If we cannot have any Native American Imagery, then you need to do some thinking into how the name connects or has a continuation of our past.

Hogs connect to group of linemnen in the 80s, but Hogs are domesticated male pigs. Not intimidating. Nobody wants to grunt to root for their team. Squealing isn't better.

Now Warriors may seem like a no-brainer (Redskins' occupation) but people have been suggesting the name as backup for so long that it is kinda tainted. Even if you use a different type of soldier to represent the warrior, even modern military, it cuts the connection to the past in half.  and TLDR, Golden State cornered the market on Warriors due to their popularity. So not as marketable.

Wolves may not be a DIRECT connection to our past as Warriors is, but it does have quite a sneaky indirect connection.  In Native American mythology, when a Native American dies, it comes back in the form of a wolf, one of the spirit animals Native American honor, just like the eagle and the bear. The front office wouldn't say it officially, but use fans can connect the dots. And wolves are not exclusive to Native Americans since many cultures around the world honor ...

 

I mean we can either have Native American images or references, or we can't. Most people seem to think we can't, and maybe they're right.

You explained there is a connection between the Wolf and the American Indian ( regardless of whether it's exclusive to them or not. The advocates will leave no stone unturned. Trust me on that. I can hear them now. " A mockery of our traditions, beliefs, and our culture. " ) And if that's the case ... Wolves is out.

 

Right ?

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

 

I mean we can either have Native American images or references, or we can't. Most people seem to think we can't, and maybe they're right.

You explained there is a connection between the Wolf and the American Indian ( regardless of whether it's exclusive to them or not. The advocates will leave no stone unturned. Trust me on that. I can hear them now. " A mockery of our traditions, beliefs, and our culture. " ) And if that's the case ... Wolves is out.

 

Right ?

Nope. Arkasnsas State went from Indians to Red Wolves. High schools like Paw Paw High school and Conrad High school went from Redskins to Redwolves. What do they have in common? There was no blowback by activists saying it was a mockery. They moved on to the next team referencing Native Americans directly.

Besides, Wright says they will not choose their selection out of fear (meaning they won't select a name to avoid offense). This selection is more about the positivity a brand can bring, and Wolves has more positivity in it than offending anyone. 

As for those activists, they will be mad no matter what. They wanted us to change EVERYTHING. Even our team colors. But Wright said the colors will stay, so they will be offended no matter what name it is. At least Wolves carries the LEAST amount of blowback risk, due to activists reporting that WFT and Warriors just keeps the old name alive. At least with an animal, any offensive connection will be diluted because animals are pretty much everywhere in every culutre.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 3:08 PM, eorndorff said:

Somewhere out there is a Red Wolf that is catching some feels, and is probably scared to come out of its cave, because of all the attention being thrust upon the species. Better yet, the wolf is honored to be part of an NFL brand, but some Karen from PETA feels sorry for the wolf, and is making signs to stand in front of the stadium. “Don’t objectify the Wolf”. “Wolves have feelings too”. 

Being that Karen as a person who owns a vegan restaurant and has been active in animal rescue for a very long time, I'll just say that nobody is going to give a **** unless they're keeping wolves in tiny cages to parade around, because that sucks. We can get the dogs from GOT that look like wolves, support wolf sanctuaries (which are ****ing cool as hell) and all that, but wolves in cages and I'd flip out too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, max21 said:

I would buy so many overpriced Washington Wolves golf polos 

You think if WSH went with Wolves, they partner with pet supply stores (Petsmart or Chewy) and pet food (Buffalo Blue Wilderness)? That would be a marketing goldmine! They would be fools to not tap that market with a canine name. NFL teams already have pet apparel and Browns only scratches the surface with pet supplies. But with Wolves, we can make specific partnerships!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DCdangerous said:

Nope. Arkasnsas State went from Indians to Red Wolves. High schools like Paw Paw High school and Conrad High school went from Redskins to Redwolves. What do they have in common? There was no blowback by activists saying it was a mockery. They moved on to the next team referencing Native Americans directly.

 

I'm not convinced us and Dan Snyder would be treated the same way as Paw Paw High School. Did they try to get them to change their colors the way they did us ?

 

I'm not feeling any connection with Wolves and who we were, and I don't think a substantial part of the fanbase would either.

 

 

Edited by Spearfeather
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm not convinced us and Dan Snyder would be treated the same way as Paw Paw High School. Did they try to get them to change their colors the way they did us ?

 

I see no connection with Wolves and who we were, and I don't think a substantial part of the fanbase would either.

No they did not. So they will still be offended no matter what we do.
Any other name that is MORE connected to who we were will get more blowback from the activists.
And that "substantial part" are mostly extreme pro-Redskins fans who want it to be Redskins and nothing else, except WFT which they use as a vessel for Redskins.

Edited by DCdangerous
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 2:34 PM, FootballZombie said:

 

Even if that was an occurrence in the past it is not the case now, yet the naming convention still persists. If we adopt a name that is currently used by any other major franchise, especially a popular one, there is little to stop the continued practice.

What do you mean "even if", this is a fact, it happened. And that is the reason that some people continue to do it. Because somehow it became popular for one organization a long time ago and has continued. It is not an occurrence for other franchises. Nobody says the Arizona Football Cardinals. I dont remember hearing that when both played in St. Louis. 

I just dont see happening with another franchise. It is a New York Football Giants thing. Like J E T S, Jets Jets Jets. They dont even say San Francisco Baseball Giants. 

HTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DCdangerous said:



And that "substantial part" are mostly extreme pro-Redskins fans who want it to be Redskins and nothing else, except WFT which they use as a vessel for Redskins.

 

Do you think Wright and Snyder will disregard a substantial part of the fanbase or not ?

And keep in mind what you said about Wright saying that a name won't be chosen out of fear.

 

 

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

What do you mean "even if", this is a fact, it happened. And that is the reason that some people continue to do it. Because somehow it became popular for one organization a long time ago and has continued. It is not an occurrence for other franchises. Nobody says the Arizona Football Cardinals. I dont remember hearing that when both played in St. Louis. 

I just dont see happening with another franchise. It is a New York Football Giants thing. Like J E T S, Jets Jets Jets. They dont even say San Francisco Baseball Giants. 

HTTR

FTR, San Francisco Giants were first in New York  over 40 years before NFL_NYG. So NY Football Giants HAD to add the Football in it to be distinctive.  And MLB Cardinals were in St. Louis before NFL Cardinals moved to St Louis in 1960. oh and here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

If WSH adds Football to their name along with the new name, it will be probably be for TM reasons.
 

Screenshot 2021-04-08 161549.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm not convinced us and Dan Snyder would be treated the same way as Paw Paw High School. Did they try to get them to change their colors the way they did us ?

 

I see no connection with Wolves and who we were, and I don't think a substantial part of the fanbase would either.

I would now after reading DCdangerous' dissertation. This is fascinating and would allow Redskins fans to see the mythical transition from death back to life of our beloved team mascot. I like it, but I also like Redwolves, much better than Wolves. 

1. Warriors

2. Redwolves

3. Sentinals

HTTR 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, bentskin said:

I would now after reading DCdangerous' dissertation. This is fascinating and would allow Redskins fans to see the mythical transition from death back to life of our beloved team mascot. I like it, but I also like Redwolves, much better than Wolves. 

1. Warriors

2. Redwolves

3. Sentinals

HTTR 

Thank you! Even a small step towards the Wolves after reading my manifesto is rewarding!

Edited by DCdangerous
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Do you think Wright and Snyder will disregard a substantial part of the fanbase or not ?

And keep in mind what you said about Wright saying that a name won't be chosen out of fear.

 

 

If that substantial part is unwilling to compromise, it will be a factor in their decision. Wright DID say not everyone is going to like the name.

Whether it is old school fans or new school fans, one side will not be happy.  But i don't think they will satisfy their fans of the past if it limits their potential marketing in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bentskin said:

What do you mean "even if", this is a fact, it happened. And that is the reason that some people continue to do it. Because somehow it became popular for one organization a long time ago and has continued. It is not an occurrence for other franchises. Nobody says the Arizona Football Cardinals. I dont remember hearing that when both played in St. Louis. 

I just dont see happening with another franchise. It is a New York Football Giants thing. Like J E T S, Jets Jets Jets. They dont even say San Francisco Baseball Giants. 

HTTR

 

If you differentiate one team, changing another becomes rather redundant. SF baseball Giants is unnecessary if you refer to one team as Football Giants. the goal is already accomplished.

 

We don't live in the same cyber age anymore. Coverage of teams is much more national now. That increases the amount of clarity needed. For the same reasons that you posted in you previous entry, people have to be able to separate and identify teams. Now that has to occur on a national, or even global level, due to how we now have greater levels of communication

 

If a new team comes along today that clashes with an existing brand, especially a big one, national coverage will face stronger pressure and a greater need to find ways to differentiate it.

 

That is much less of a need for teams that have already existed in the social conciseness, or are not very big to begin with.

Edited by FootballZombie
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Do you think Wright and Snyder will disregard a substantial part of the fanbase or not ?

And keep in mind what you said about Wright saying that a name won't be chosen out of fear.

 

 

 

I believe Wright can't disregard that substantial part of the fanbase, in part because Dan is likely largely in that camp himself. I know that some may believe the marketability of a new name would play a stronger role than his devotion to a name that is a forever Redskins placeholder in WFT, but I'm not so sure. Especially when there's enough support for WFT that the name is contending in the top 5. He's demonstrated an ability to be spiteful, unprofessional, and incredibly shortsighted in business. If all that stands in the way is some data saying this Wolves or Warrior brand will market a little better, I'm not sure that'd be enough if he's over there standing on the table for WFT. It's not about rational thinking of marketing a brand and smart business acumen, it's what Dan Snyder really wants he gets with every risk of it thrown to the wind. He just did it with Haskins and he hasn't changed, I don't see the name being any different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Snyder is willing to throw all of his hired professionals opinions out the window to draft Haskins, if he's willing to ignore everyone telling him "this will only set you back and blowup in your face, it's going to fail", if he basically thinks he's smarter than all of those guys over and over again... What makes anyone think he wouldn't ignore branding experts opinions as well just to lock in the name he really personally wants for the next 100 years? Experts have told him for the last 20 years that his decisions will not work, and he does them anyway. I have no faith in him listening to branding experts that tell him this will make the team more money, just as others have done in the past when it comes to the teams success, all to no avail. He seeks out people that share his opinion to confirm his bias (no matter how qualified they actually are), and goes from there. Would this really be any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DCF said:

If Snyder is willing to throw all of his hired professionals opinions out the window to draft Haskins, if he's willing to ignore everyone telling him "this will only set you back and blowup in your face, it's going to fail", if he basically thinks he's smarter than all of those guys over and over again... What makes anyone think he wouldn't ignore branding experts opinions as well just to lock in the name he really personally wants for the next 100 years? Experts have told him for the last 20 years that his decisions will not work, and he does them anyway. I have no faith in him listening to branding experts that tell him this will make the team more money, just as others have done in the past when it comes to the teams success, all to no avail. He seeks out people that share his opinion to confirm his bias (no matter how qualified they actually are), and goes from there. Would this really be any different?

There is a BIG difference between now and the Haskins incident, or in fact EVERY time Snyder got involved with the draft. The fans are never really involved in the draft room or during draft discussions. This time, the fans are involved more than anything they were in before. NO WAY would Snyder just listen to the fans who want any name that is NOT WFT, and just simply ignore them. That will hurt any improvement he made with Rivera, with Wright, with Donaldson, with any new hire to show that he is listening.

When he made those draft moves, he did it with no input from fans. But this is the moment where he "opened up his ears" and we are "shouting" to him. He can't say "I hear you, but I'm doing it my way." Giving us a voice and not listening to us is a BAD move. And I don't think he is that stubborn.

 

Edited by DCdangerous
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DCF said:

If all that stands in the way is some data saying this Wolves or Warrior brand will market a little better, I'm not sure that'd be enough if he's over there standing on the table for WFT. It's not about rational thinking of marketing a brand and smart business acumen, it's what Dan Snyder really wants he gets with every risk of it thrown to the wind. He just did it with Haskins and he hasn't changed, I don't see the name being any different.

 

Oh, I don't doubt this at all. If Snyder doesn't like Red Wolves, or any other name for that matter, then we won't be that regardless of what any particular poll says.

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...