Doc, i still whole-heartedly disagree, but damn you are good at this.
And vice versa. At the end of the day we must remember that it's just a hypothetical team.
Ultimately I just enjoy talking about marketing and I think rugby league has been getting by without really selling itself strongly. If the right guys - Ian Elliott on the commission - really click into gear, the game's going to grow in leaps and bounds. I'm glad they're doing a clean out, it's long over due.
I would hope the ARLC has a very long term idea of what it wants to do with NZ. If they don't see a third NZ team anytime in the next few decades then I would go with Southern Orcas pimarily in Wellington but with representation in the Sth island. If the ARLC can one day see a third team in the Sth Island they should go with Wellington and leave that market open for the future.
Well given all the others bidding its most likely that we'd only have 2 New Zealand for quite some time, if at all, so having the second side focus on Wellington & the South Island makes sense.
Ultimately what we want is a 50-50 divide in NZ rugby league supporters between the two teams. That's going to fuel the 'rugby league conversation'.
Imagine Wellington and Perth playing away games against teams like Penrith/Titans/Raiders,there will be crowds of 3k
Ultimately form plays its part but it's also about how they schedule the draw, promote memberships and build home crowds.
If Sydney clubs can start getting 20k+ membership then it won't matter if Perth or NZ2 only draw a minority traveling away fans, the home side could still have 15-20k home fans.
Then what's the point of calling the 2nd team New Zealand if they're only proactively engaging specific markets?
Because you should never do anything to turn away a willing customer. I don't care if they're not in your specific market. You engage specific markets. You embrace all general markets.
It's basic selling 101.
And don't start disconnecting existing customers from a brand they already bought into, hence why you don't start telling the rest of New Zealand that the Warriors are now an 'Auckland-only' club.
flamin said:
They're perceived as an Auckland team because they've only played one home game outside of Auckland in their history.
And a New Zealand Orcas team playing games in Wellington & Christchurch would be perceived as a local team for the exact same reason.
Every time you mention the Warriors being perceived as an Auckland team despite them not having the 'Auckland' branding you only serve to highlight how a second New Zealand team can do the same in Wellington & Christchurch.
docbrown said:
To use your own words "didn't work because the other locations were already represented".
There is no club based in Wellington or South Island so your argument does not apply.
flamin said:
I was referring to the fact that northern NZ is already represented by the Warriors.
Sorry, but you're have an each way bet here. Earlier you said -
flamin said:
They're perceived as an Auckland team because they've only played one home game outside of Auckland in their history.
and
flamin said:
the Warriors and a 2nd NZ would not be representing the same parts of the country
You haven't got your story straight on this one and it's pretty unconvincing.
To be honest, I think you've lost sight of your argument here.
flamin said:
You were the one who compared a 2nd NZ team to the Jets/Giants to claim they were similar.
Yes
I was the one who compared the Jets/Giants because it is a similar real world situation.
You were the one who invented the scenario of an imaginary second North Queensland team in Cairns as if that had any bearing on reality.
You are the one complaining about the Cowboys and Broncos both potentially calling themselves Queensland when
you are the one bringing it up in the first place.
If you feel the need to keep inventing imaginary situations in order to argue with yourself then please leave me out of it. ;-)
docbrown said:
And again I go back to start - if you want to prove that the 'New Zealand' name will hinder that then prove that they won't sign up for membership or go to games because of the 'New Zealand' name.
Just think about it logically. Nobody is going to turn away from the club because they're called 'New Zealand' instead of 'Wellington' or 'Southern'.
flamin said:
You want to talk about about a hypothetical situation that can only be measured through experience but you refuse to let other people talk in hypotheticals or talk about their experiences.
The only arguments to counter it have been subjective (I think Southern represents the team better than New Zealand) or based on far-fetched hypotheticals created by others ("Australian Titans and Queensland Broncos are crap names").
Honestly, if you want to prove that the New Zealand moniker is inferior to the "Southern" or "Wellington" names, then do it, but do it with some degree of logic.
If the New Zealand branding is so inferior to these alternatives, please just point out one scenario where the "New Zealand" branding is going to turn a potential customer away.
flamin said:
Of course a PNG team could be called PNG. Much the same as the Warriors were called NZ. If a 2nd PNG team came in and they were representing an area that a Port Moresby based team was not engaging with I'd fully expect that the 2nd team would have a different name to fit its region.
Again you're being subjective. Just because another team comes in it doesn't mean an existing club should be forced to change its identity.
These rules of branding that you're trying to apply are your own invention. They don't exist in the real world.
flamin said:
Of course fans won't turn away in droves.
Of course not, as I said there were no negative implications with having the New Zealand Warriors & New Zealand Kiwis brands existing at the same time.
flamin said:
You already mentioned the North v South rivalry. It makes sense to build on that with a name that reflects that rivalry.
And yet two Brisbane teams could build on a similar rivalry without needing to have different names that reflects that rivalry.
If two Brisbane teams can do it, two New Zealand teams can do it as well.
flamin said:
Further some locals will be put off if the team is not perceived as a truly local team - much the same as those non-Aucklanders who are already put off by the Warriors because theydon't perceive the Warriors as truly representing them but instead as an Auckland team who don't often engage with the rest of the country.
Finally! This goes back to the core question I was asking - "What do people think is going to happen? People won't sign up for memberships or go to games because they're called 'New Zealand'?
Of course not.
Those locals are put off because they perceive that the Warriors haven't done the ground work in engaging Wellington & South Island. It has nothing to do with a 'New Zealand' branding.
I would suggest that the cause of your confusion is mixing the concept of 'branding' with 'community engagement'
flamin said:
If it didn't work for the Warriors then why would "New Zealand" work for Wellington now?
Because you have to back it up with action, again community engagement is the key and if you would have read what I've written previously I have mentioned that numerous times already in this thread. Branding will only get you so far. Community engagement is the next step.
flamin said:
Then you prove with "facts" that an Aucklander will be more inclined to reject his local team and buy a membership simply because the team is called New Zealand but only proactively engages with Wellington/South Island and never plays a home game in Auckland.
I don't recall saying that at all. In fact, I don't even know what you're trying to say with that confusing paragraph.
flamin said:
there is no chance this bid team will go with the name New Zealand.
Even though you're now relying on psychic powers you're probably right.
Given that the last successful NRL bid team was called the 'Gold Coast Titans' I hold no high expectations that a second New Zealand side will be well branded and well marketed.
