Who has been the biggest expansion?

[flippikat]

The best thing Super Rugby did was get rid of the geographical location in the franchise names. The colours say enough, but give the brands enough flexibility. I.e. the Hurricanes can play in Palmerston North or Napier without pissing off locals who don't want consider themselves Wellingtonians.

Yeah, the SR teams had 3 options

- keep the Provincial descriptor which risked alienating fans outside Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury & Otago.

- Change the descriptor to a vague geographical term (eg Central Hurricanes, Northern Blues etc), which are not only vague but hard to get right - what would you accurately use for the Crusaders, for instance?

- Just drop the geographical names and use the nicknames as branding. Clean, easy, simple & inclusive of the whole region.. not just the host city.

It'll be interesting to see how the Warriors adapt their branding when a 2nd NZ teamin the NRL happens. Do they switch to Auckland or North Island?

There's precedent with teams in American sports using the whole state name when there's another team in the state (Texas Rangers in MLB based in Dallas, while there's the Houston Astros there too.. or Golden State Warriors in NBA).. so they could conceivably remain the NZ Warriors.

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

While I agree with most of your post, It’s got nothing to do with the “Aussie market”. It’s because Auckland Warriors went broke and they need to be taken over by another entity to keep going which couldn’t have the same name for obvious reasons. “New Zealand Warriors” kept the continuity of the Warriors branding alive. It was a better option than what happened with the original Gold Coast club that kept changing names everytime they were taken over by a new entity.



Wasn’t a good move for the Australian based clubs. The Waratahs, Brumbies and Reds branding has taken a real hit since dropping their geographical names in my opinion.

Is that a result of dropping location from the branding or just poor overall performance from Rugby Australia in general though.

Yep bang on re. The Warriors switch from Auckland to NZ, what I meant is that the only place they're referred to as the NZ Warriors is Australia. Here they aren't at all. It's simply 'The Warriors'. Everyone knows what it means - that pro league club from south-central Auckland.

 

[Pippen94]

Toronto.

 

[Pippen94]

I mean here in NZ they're not referred to as the NZ Warriors, and most NZers would probably agree that the team doesn't represent them. It's really just branding for the Aussie market.

People in NZ know they're an Auckland team and those outside Auckland who support them do so because they're either ex-Aucklanders or they're Leaguies. Not having Auckland in the name gives them flexibility with marketing, ability to take games on the road without pissing off fans who don't consider themselves Aucklanders, and draws in viewers from all over NZ for Sky.

The best thing Super Rugby did was get rid of the geographical location in the franchise names. The colours say enough, but give the brands enough flexibility. I.e. the Hurricanes can play in Palmerston North or Napier without pissing off locals who don't want consider themselves Wellingtonians.

Lol, was worse thing about super rugby

 

[flippikat]

Lol, was worse thing about super rugby

That's an Australian-centric view of it... and the Australian SR teams have their branding easy as it's basically one team per state or territory.

Fact is that the NZ Super Rugby teams represent conglomerations of provinces, and naming them after just the host province would be a snub to the rest of their markets.

 

[Pippen94]

That's an Australian-centric view of it... and the Australian SR teams have their branding easy as it's basically one team per state or territory.

Fact is that the NZ Super Rugby teams represent conglomerations of provinces, and naming them after just the host province would be a snub to the rest of their markets.

So turned off Aussie and kiwi fans: only 2/3 of audience hated it

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

That's an Australian-centric view of it... and the Australian SR teams have their branding easy as it's basically one team per state or territory.

Fact is that the NZ Super Rugby teams represent conglomerations of provinces, and naming them after just the host province would be a snub to the rest of their markets.

Yep, 99% of nz rugby fans would prefer a longer NPC with a return to provinces. Crowds would be exactly the same, quality of football not all that dissimilar either.

I'm not a Union guy, but anyone can see people get far more into their provincial stuff than franchise footy.

 

[Growthegame]

The best thing Super Rugby did was get rid of the geographical location in the franchise names. The colours say enough, but give the brands enough flexibility. I.e. the Hurricanes can play in Palmerston North or Napier without pissing off locals who don't want consider themselves Wellingtonians.

Wasn’t a good move for the Australian based clubs. The Waratahs, Brumbies and Reds branding has taken a real hit since dropping their geographical names in my opinion.

Is that a result of dropping location from the branding or just poor overall performance from Rugby Australia in general though.

Yep bang on re. The Warriors switch from Auckland to NZ, what I meant is that the only place they're referred to as the NZ Warriors is Australia. Here they aren't at all. It's simply 'The Warriors'. Everyone knows what it means - that pro league club from south-central Auckland.

To be fair no one in Australia refers to them as the “New Zealand Warriors” either.