But you just proved that location name means nothing and then go on to say that naming them NZ would make a big difference over Sth Isl......
Which is it?
Not all, it's not mutually exclusive, I said there are multiple reason reasons why people support clubs (favourite player, family support, home team, mascot and colour appeal) but that the broader the branding and the better the brand appeal, the greater the potential for attracting new fans across New Zealand.
You can call the New Zealand club Christchurch.
Or you can call it Canterbury.
Or you can call it South Island.
Or you can call it New Zealand.
All of these open doors to some type of fanbase. Some open more doors than others. Some close doors to others. Some open too many doors that fans feels they don't even want to walk through (i.e. don't call them the Pacific Ocean Whatevers).
Calling the club Christchurch or Canterbury shuts doors in the rest of the South Island.
Calling the club South Island shuts doors to potential fans in the North Island who might want to support a team other than the warriors (similar to the Dolphins in Brisbane).
Calling the club New Zealand? Well, you've seen it work for the Warriors. They have fans all over the country and also in Australia. The same thing will happen if you call the second team New Zealand too.
As for the mascot and colours, yes some people will follow a team simply because of pre-existing personal preferences. You can't predict what an individual will like, but you can do market research to find out what's more popular in the areas that you're targeting. Why do you think the original Gold Coast bid were pushing for Dolphins so much? Dolphins are a popular universal animal support across wide demographics and no major sports team in our region had that branding except for a second tier QRL team. And Redcliffe fought them because off their history and they knew it was a marketing winner.
If I were to survey market colours in NZ, I suspect I'd get some combination of black, white, red, green and yellow. I'd mock up some sample combinations then test those. Personally, to distinguish from other NRL teams and the Crusaders, I'd go a white body like the Dragons, with red & black v's or stripes colouring. But again - market test it.
Then the mascot. You can market test these too. The options so far are keas and orcas. What will resonate more? I suspect the New Zealand Orcas. Not to say that keas aren't amazing animals, they are. But orcas are famous world wide - basically your mascot is Free Willy. Who else uses it in Australia or NZ? Wellington and Tauranga, so there might be a Redcliffe type fight if its selected, so back ups are need just in case.
I think the New Zealand Keas can work as a brand. My main issue with the kea is: does it stand out from the variety of other bird mascot used in this region? You have 5 AFL bird teams (crows, magpies, hawks, swans, eagles), 2 NRL bird teams (sea eagles, roosters), technically the force use a black swan, A-League (phoenix). There's the Kiwis. NBL has the Hawks. Also the Breakers use a kea as a mascot already. It's a lot of birds with a lot of repeats.
So then you market test other New Zealand iconography, not just animals. Volcanoes maybe? But it's too North Island. Mountains? A bit similar to the Highlanders? Sheeps/rams? Lots of jokes there... Bulls? Has potential but very associated with Canterbury already who might not end up as part of the ownership structure.
Although I've said birds are overused in sports, there is one that isn't overused in Australia and New Zealand. Penguins. Kid and family friendly. Universally iconic. No major competition from competing sports brands in the region. I think if you market tested it, it would come out close to what the Orcas would get, and above the Keas. If I can't get Free Willy, I'd go with the Penguins from Madagascar - I mean New Zealand.
And just for fun, here's some lazy AI: