Who does the Washington Redskins' name and logo benefit more?

[CreekDog]

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	The owners of the team and those with a financial interest in it
	1 (100%)
	Native Americans, Indigenous Americans or particular American Indian Tribes or Tribal Members
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[CJCRANE]

1. A namechange would be a massive marketing opportunity!

They could bring in younger people to support the team and even do a global advertising campaign to bring in new fans for (American) football from around the world (a bit like how Manchester United or Barcelona etc are global soccer brands).

[NCTraveler]

2. You are talking about one of the strongest brands in the country.

It's consumer base is already young. It could market internationally without the name change.

[CJCRANE]

4. But news is based on an "event".

Manchester United became a global brand because of the plane crash in the 60s (or whenever it was).

The global news channels would feature the story because of the controversy and then the namechange. You are literally talking about billions of dollars of free publicity.

The international news channels/newspapers etc. don't care about an established brand. That isn't an event.

[CJCRANE]

9. Also (in addition to my previous post)all the Redskins merchandise would become collectors' items.

I'm not an expert but I think there's a capitalist motivation for a namechange.

[NCTraveler]

11. Not trying to be arguementative...

but there is not an overall benefit for an organization to change one of the strongest brands in the country. They would have to sink a billion dollars into a new brand just in this country alone. It would then still probably not be as strong of a brand as the current one. I am not sure how the organization would greatly benefit from their merchandise becoming collectors items. No capitalist venture would remove one of the strongest brand images in the US.

[CJCRANE]

14. That's fair enough. I'm not an expert. I'm not even a sports fan.

But maybe that's why I think a namechange would be good. I'm the kind of person that would pay attention to a namechange. I would think "you know what? Maybe I'll follow this team".

But maybe that would p*** off too many established fans of the team. I don't know. It's an interesting conundrum.

[NCTraveler]

22. I do agree that it would be an interesting change.

One of the interesting things about capitalism is watching marketers working to create a brand image and marketing to sell their product. The amount of money spent on advertising is staggering. While changing this brand would go against everything ever taught in business school, someone brilliant can come along and change the model. You just never know, but generally a name change is a bad idea even if it doesn't have great recognition.

[CreekDog]

15. Are Native Americans a "brand"?

I think based on calling them a "brand", you actually can answer the poll question above that you seemed to have struggled with. It's not that difficult.

[NCTraveler]

17. If you don't understand that the Washington Redskins name and thier logo...

are by every single definition of the word a brand, I cannot help you much.

[CreekDog]

18. Oh I do understand that, what I don't understand is how you can say they're a billion dollar brand

but have trouble answering the question of who benefits more from their name and logo --the team or Native Americans?

[NCTraveler]

19. I simply find it similar to:

Who does the Buccaneers name and logo help more, the organization or buccaneers?

It is lame to the point that they aren't linkable.

[CJCRANE]

24. But AFAIK there are no pirates currently residing in America. nt

[NCTraveler]

29. You are correct there. I fully agree.

I think the dogg should simply make his point.

[CreekDog]

40. pretty much everyone else gets it, i'm not changing the poll for you.

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. Except on Wall Street. n/t

[CreekDog]

25. don't change the subject, Native Americans aren't "Buccaneers"

they're real.

you're in North Carolina, if you don't know this, then you have some serious eye opening to do.

[NCTraveler]

28. I got it from the start.

The question wasn't serious. That can be seen from your reply. That is why I answered as I did. I simply understood you weren't serious.

[CreekDog]

30. what was not serious about it?

that i actually have an opinion on the matter?

[pipi_k]

34. See, this is one reason

why some polls suck.

They seem to be opportunities for people to shame others for not giving the "right" answer.


and really, it probably wouldn't be all that bad except for when people do give the "wrong" answer, and they get snark back, like, "It's not that difficult". What the hell does that mean? Is someone who doesn't answer the "right" way an idiot or something?

oy...

[pintobean]

42. It's a typical CD poll

and thread.

[whatthehey]

21. Brand strength is a blunt instrument here

Brand strength is often measured in recognition, positive association and so on. That's very important when you are walking down an aisle with dozens of nigh-identical boxes of crackers and have an ad-generated hankering or family-generated habit for Wheat Thins. Call them Tiny Bites one day in a blue box and your customers would likely miss them. How important is it when you are the sole NFL team in town with constant free media coverage? No basketball fan in town thought the Bullets had disappeared within 24 hrs of the name change. Marlins fans know they are still in Florida. There was no huge marketing effort needed to retain those fans or sell TV or stadium naming rights. The licensed merchandise impact would be for the NEW logo, as a large swathe of fans want the newest/all replicas - hence the NHL's penchant for revolving 3rd strips and all leagues' passion for retro days. What Redskins fan would possibly be confused or ignorant sbout a new name within a day or two of the change? What would make the brand less strong as long as it remained an NFL team with the concomitant non-stop exposure (which a name change would INcrease; you'd get far more ESPN time with a big "controversial" story than yet another losing byline and RG3 injury update)?

[NCTraveler]

27. No business with a brand as strong as this one would change it.

Please show me the paying attendance record for the Florida Marlins last year. Name recognition with them in Florida is not all that good.

"Marlins fans know they are still in Florida." Seems only the thousand or so people who attend the games got the memo.

[Chan790]

46. There could be an economic argument in the near-future separate from this...

there's a question pending in the US Patent and Trademark Office against the name to revoke the team's trademark for the name and logo; you cannot trademark a name or image that contains any offensive imagery or content.

Last month, a test case in advance of the coming ruling from the USPTO, a trademark court struck down a similar trademark on the grounds that the word "redskin" is a slur and cannot be afforded protection.

A repeal of the trademark would effectively zero both the team and NFL revenues from the name and logo at the same time it would prevent any future action to protect those intellectual-properties. Any jackass with technical means would be free to make and sell Redskins merchandise.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/07/trademark-ruling-bad-omen-for-redskins-name-legal-battle/

[LanternWaste]

39. many people believe that commercialism rationalizes the exploitation of a culture for profit.

I imagine many people believe that commercialism rationalizes the exploitation of a culture for profit.

A commercialism and profiteering that did the majority of its sports franchise branding during the early to mid twentieth century-- when American imperialism was almost through with the process of minimizing the role of the native American to nothing , and "reflected a larger governmental and racial atmosphere in America that did not see these tribes as constituents in the future of the republic." (Ned Blackhawk, a Yale professor who specializes in Native American history and law)

[pipi_k]

5. Not sure if anyone

is benefiting or not benefiting by the name and logo, or whether they would benefit by a name/logo change.

What probably would benefit the team and its owners more would be a winning record, but whatever...

[CJCRANE]

6. That would help but sometimes the morale of a team

is linked to intangible things. Maybe a namechange would give them a boost.

[pipi_k]

31. Maybe...

I mean, yes, there are lots of intangibles...but sometimes they're just the results of bad management or coaching decisions.

In any case, we'll never know until/unless a name/logo change ever happens.

[CreekDog]

8. so who is benefiting more from all the tshirts, ballcaps and souvenirs with the logo and/or name?

the not really knowing who benefits more...try harder.

[whatthehey]

23. and would changing the name make them sell less or more? Try harder...

[CreekDog]

26. the question was asked in the present tense

and it wasn't asked who would benefit more before or after a name change.

it asked who benefits more from the name now. Native Americans or the team's financial interests/fortunes.

if you're trying to be obtuse, you're succeeding.

[pipi_k]

32. That

wasn't the question.

If you wanted that sort of answer, the question should have been framed that way.


Also...it's not the NAME itself, nor the LOGO itself that are benefiting anyone.

It's the fact that it's a football team representing a particular part of the country...fan loyalty. People don't buy merchandise based on name or logo unless it represents their team.

[whatthehey]

7. Not sure it benefits either to be honest

Other than fan grumbling and a trivial fee for graphic design, changing it would cost little (uniforms etc are replaced constantly for pro teams, buying the next job lot with new logos would be meaningless) an would if anything likely spur increased licensed merchandise sales as rabid fans would want the new design. Despite chest-pounding to the contrary I would confidently predict that the fan base loss from a name change would be near zero, and tickets the few dozen or so give up would be snapped up at full price.

Probably the only real value is a subjective one in the mind of fans who reliably hearken back to 80 years of "tradition", while of course spurning the equally aged tradition of 210lb linemen and mid-5 second WR 40yd times. Brand names certainly have market value. If Coca Cola were changed to "Pemberton Pop" tomorrow it would slash their share price dramatically and require a truly huge ad campaign and decades of marketing to rebuild brand exposure and loyalty. But that's a company on millions of shelves globally with hundreds of competitors. There is only one NFL team in DC and only 32 IIRC in the world. It would take about 2 days and a couple of press releases to do the same trick for the Redskins. After all who gives a rat's about the Washington Bullets now? Of course few give a rat's about the Wizards anyway, but that's not the fault of the name.

Now I'm not fussed one way or the other about the name. The few NA's I know don't seem to be either. General surveys show that anecdotal sample is more the norm than otherwise amongst their ethnic group. But since a non-trivial percentage of NA's do care, and since a licensing boom is more than possible, If I were the owner I'd be heading that route personally. Washington Monuments anyone ?

[catbyte]

20. You obviously don't know this "NA." It's a disgrace to our nation'a capital & our nation as a whole

It is our "N" word, yet nobody seems to care. Why not just rename the St. Louis Cardinals the St. Louis Spicks? Washington Wetbacks? Denver Darkies? Honolulu Hebes? Yeah, just try getting away with THOSE.



Proud Ojibwe & hater of that despicable name.

[whatthehey]

33. No I don't. But you don't speak for all any more than they do.

Fairly large surveys show no clear preference for or against the name. Why? Not a clue.


Some people of Irish birth or ancestry loathe being callled Micks or Paddies and the drunken bellicose stereotype. Some embrace it. The preference between "Black" and "African American" is likewise muddled (another personal anecdote: the one black person whom I know well enough to openly discuss such things with absolutely hates "African American" with a spitting fury, telling anyone who uses it that he has no connection to Africa at all and is proud to be Black. I know for a fact that the exact opposite is also easy to find). I know a few SE Asians who hate "Oriental" even.

Your stance is of course perfectly appropriate and unchallengable. You hate the R word. I get it, I would never use it to you or about you. I don't use it to the folks who have no problem with the team name either, of course, but that's because they prefer tribal names and I know them. Collectively that's impossible of course. Never come across an objection to NA before but ok there too. What do you prefer?

[pipi_k]

35. One thing I've learned

is that no matter what, there will always be someone who's offended over something.

And, like you said, they have a valid point...but then there are also those who aren't offended in the least.

So what do we do...tally the numbers and go with the wishes of the larger group? That probably wouldn't work out so well, even though it would probably be fair.

And then there are some who would say that if even ONE person is offended, that's reason enough to stop using the word or term. Fair enough.

I hate these words:

"panties" and "boobs" for starters.

They are infantilizing toward women, IMO, and they make me feel sort of creeped out and dirty. I demand people stop using them!

I honestly don't know what the answer is.

I just wish people would hang little lists of their forbidden words on their chests so the rest of us don't have to wonder what's OK with them and what's not.

[CreekDog]

41. apparently you've decided what people in other racial groups should be offended by

and what they shouldn't be.

maybe you could just decide for them on all issues so that their complaints won't affect things you have no stake in.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. Many SE Asians hate "Oriental." That's why the preferred term these days is Asian.

There is no right word for everyone, but there are words that are generally accepted as derogatory terms and caring people avoid usage. Such things change over time. When the Washington Redskins chose that name there was less sensitivity to using Indians as mascots.

That's not the case now. Many high schools and colleges have done away with logos depicting Indians and names referencing them. The Redskins, as a professional business, has had the opportunity to change theirs but steadfastly refuses to do so. It's not as if pro ball teams don't ever change their names after all.

[CJCRANE]

36. I agree.

How hard would it be for the Redskins to test the retention for new fans after a name change?

Not hard at all.

All they need to do is think of some new names and poll existing and possible fans.

It's a massive marketing opportunity.

[Nye Bevan]

10. I don't see how the constant controversy and criticism benefits the team in any way.

And as mentioned upthread, a new name and logo would present huge merchandising and marketing opportunities.

OTOH, the existence of the controversy tends to remind people about mistreatment of, and discrimination against, Native Americans.

[CreekDog]

13. but who benefits in terms of money?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. I don't think the name benefits anyone.

If anything it just represents an attitude of a bygone era.

There's actually precedent for a name change right in the city of DC. The Washington Wizards were once called the Bullets. The name was changed because it was believed at the time to glorify the gansta image.

[Iggo]

16. The people who like to say, "It's not racism, it's tradition."

[pipi_k]

37. one more thing...

Would changing the name and logo of the Redskins to something more acceptable...like, for example...the Washington Nanticokes...benefit the Nanticoke tribe?

No.


So asking the question, whom does the Redskin name and logo benefit more is sort of disingenuous, IMO.

No team logo or name, in and of itself, ever benefited the person/place/thing for which it was named.


No Seattle merchandise benefits actual seahawks, as far as I know.

No Kansas City merchandise benefits actual Native American chiefs, again, not as far as I know.

[CreekDog]

45. doubling down on being obtuse doesn't make me look worse

by the way.

[Comrade Grumpy]

44. Stupid poll question. n/t