RugbyRebels

https://www.exeterchiefs.co.uk/news/chi ... l-identity






They should have done this ages ago, but well done to them for finally doing it.

Makes sense

Yeah makes sense. Good change.

Not before time - even better, the rest of us get to call them tit-heads (assuming it doesn't get changed between now and actually being printed / embroidered on anything)

I think it’s quite good, although I can’t un-see the tit-head thing now which has pointed it out.

Seems weird they’re still using the vaguely ‘Western’ style font for Chiefs though?

Slow hand clap at them finally, finally, getting this right. Hopefully, (and unhelpfully, not explicitly stated) this is going beyond the badge and will include rebranding all the "Red Indian" tchotchke and stadium bars and no longer actively encouraging the tomahawk chop.

Although I note that Tony Rowe couldn't help but get in a quick reference to the "Teams in this area have been called Chiefs for hundreds of years" excuse for the previous one not being racist. Presumably there was a marketing consultant at his shoulder, with a bag that was whipped over his head so he could be dragged away before he started insisting that he still thought he was right all along.

Puja

Phew, got there in the end.

Logo's fine.

Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s quite good, although I can’t un-see the tit-head thing now which has pointed it out.

Helmet's actually reasonably accurate - but the style has often been mocked before. IIRC the nipple is to attach horse hair or coloured cloth etc to make you stand out


I also agree on the font for "Chiefs" - but I guess it's to keep the rebrand budget down.
I'm not convinced the flashes of red work either - in the "chiefs" or the lipstick

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s quite good, although I can’t un-see the tit-head thing now which has pointed it out.

Helmet's actually reasonably accurate - but the style has often been mocked before. IIRC the nipple is to attach horse hair or coloured cloth etc to make you stand out


I also agree on the font for "Chiefs" - but I guess it's to keep the rebrand budget down.
I'm not convinced the flashes of red work either - in the "chiefs" or the lipstick

I assumed it was a deliberate feature to allow the trans community among their supporters feel included?

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s quite good, although I can’t un-see the tit-head thing now which has pointed it out.

Helmet's actually reasonably accurate - but the style has often been mocked before. IIRC the nipple is to attach horse hair or coloured cloth etc to make you stand out


I also agree on the font for "Chiefs" - but I guess it's to keep the rebrand budget down.
I'm not convinced the flashes of red work either - in the "chiefs" or the lipstick

Possibly. I think Comic Sans would have suited Tony Rowe quite well.

twitchy wrote:https://www.exeterchiefs.co.uk/news/chi ... l-identity






They should have done this ages ago, but well done to them for finally doing it.

That logo looks rather like one of Genghis Khan's pillaging hordes, and will probably pisss off a new set of objectors. Why not do the bleedin obvious and call themselves just "Exeter".

Spiffy wrote:

twitchy wrote:https://www.exeterchiefs.co.uk/news/chi ... l-identity






They should have done this ages ago, but well done to them for finally doing it.

That logo looks rather like one of Genghis Khan's pillaging hordes, and will probably pisss off a new set of objectors. Why not do the bleedin obvious and call themselves just "Exeter".

Quite. What is the obsession with the 'chiefs' bollix? The trouble is that rugby is riddled with traditional obsessions from 'amateurdom'. I've beaten my head against the proverbial brick-wall over the Lions. I absolutely loved the concept in the amateur game but I still can't see the relevance now the game has gone professional. Exeter have been a special case in arriving amongst the old clubs and challenging. I don't think they can have it both ways though. Either switch on to modern marketing or fuck off back to the amateur fun-loving game. I say that as a west-country fan.

Oakboy wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

twitchy wrote:https://www.exeterchiefs.co.uk/news/chi ... l-identity






They should have done this ages ago, but well done to them for finally doing it.

That logo looks rather like one of Genghis Khan's pillaging hordes, and will probably pisss off a new set of objectors. Why not do the bleedin obvious and call themselves just "Exeter".

Quite. What is the obsession with the 'chiefs' bollix? The trouble is that rugby is riddled with traditional obsessions from 'amateurdom'. I've beaten my head against the proverbial brick-wall over the Lions. I absolutely loved the concept in the amateur game but I still can't see the relevance now the game has gone professional. Exeter have been a special case in arriving amongst the old clubs and challenging. I don't think they can have it both ways though. Either switch on to modern marketing or fuck off back to the amateur fun-loving game. I say that as a west-country fan.

When did Exeter start calling themselves 'chiefs'? Yes, that's right in 1999...3 years after the game went pro. Like many other clubs, they went for a rebranding as part of professionalising and trying to attract new audiences.

The chiefs name was an organic thing that they actually called themselves (it means boss/gaffer in the west country). I don't think most people have a problem with that (I don't). It was just the nonsensical native american stuff.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Spiffy wrote:That logo looks rather like one of Genghis Khan's pillaging hordes, and will probably pisss off a new set of objectors. Why not do the bleedin obvious and call themselves just "Exeter".

Quite. What is the obsession with the 'chiefs' bollix? The trouble is that rugby is riddled with traditional obsessions from 'amateurdom'. I've beaten my head against the proverbial brick-wall over the Lions. I absolutely loved the concept in the amateur game but I still can't see the relevance now the game has gone professional. Exeter have been a special case in arriving amongst the old clubs and challenging. I don't think they can have it both ways though. Either switch on to modern marketing or fuck off back to the amateur fun-loving game. I say that as a west-country fan.

When did Exeter start calling themselves 'chiefs'? Yes, that's right in 1999...3 years after the game went pro. Like many other clubs, they went for a rebranding as part of professionalising and trying to attract new audiences.

So, one of the things they got wrong in upgrading. Why not just admit it and start again?

twitchy wrote:The chiefs name was an organic thing that they actually called themselves (it means boss/gaffer in the west country). I don't think most people have a problem with that (I don't). It was just the nonsensical native american stuff.

This.

I cant see many people objecting to a team being known as the Chiefs. After all we have Sharks, Warriors, Saints and Bears.

Its just a relief that the club have finally woken up and will be rebranding without the native American trappings.

I always thought chief related to part of a shield

Good stuff. A much better badge anyway.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Quite. What is the obsession with the 'chiefs' bollix? The trouble is that rugby is riddled with traditional obsessions from 'amateurdom'. I've beaten my head against the proverbial brick-wall over the Lions. I absolutely loved the concept in the amateur game but I still can't see the relevance now the game has gone professional. Exeter have been a special case in arriving amongst the old clubs and challenging. I don't think they can have it both ways though. Either switch on to modern marketing or fuck off back to the amateur fun-loving game. I say that as a west-country fan.

When did Exeter start calling themselves 'chiefs'? Yes, that's right in 1999...3 years after the game went pro. Like many other clubs, they went for a rebranding as part of professionalising and trying to attract new audiences.

So, one of the things they got wrong in upgrading. Why not just admit it and start again?

Yeah, but you got the amateurism wrong so just admit it and start again

fivepointer wrote:

twitchy wrote:The chiefs name was an organic thing that they actually called themselves (it means boss/gaffer in the west country). I don't think most people have a problem with that (I don't). It was just the nonsensical native american stuff.

This.

I cant see many people objecting to a team being known as the Chiefs. After all we have Sharks, Warriors, Saints and Bears.

Its just a relief that the club have finally woken up and will be rebranding without the native American trappings.

Is there really any value, commercial or inspirational, in having a nickname? Maybe there is some sort of twisted jealousy of the likes of Harlequins or Saracens. Perhaps I'm just a miserable sod but I don't see the point. As Banquo pointed out, the 'Chiefs' label is hardly a long-held tradition if they only adopted it in 1999. When I watch the occasional SH game I sometimes have to google the names to discover the nationality of the teams involved. That seems like a misguided marketing principle somewhere in the mix, IMO.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: When did Exeter start calling themselves 'chiefs'? Yes, that's right in 1999...3 years after the game went pro. Like many other clubs, they went for a rebranding as part of professionalising and trying to attract new audiences.

So, one of the things they got wrong in upgrading. Why not just admit it and start again?

Yeah, but you got the amateurism wrong so just admit it and start again

Happy for you to continue my education. I'm probably wrong more often than most.

Oakboy wrote:
Is there really any value, commercial or inspirational, in having a nickname? Maybe there is some sort of twisted jealousy of the likes of Harlequins or Saracens. Perhaps I'm just a miserable sod but I don't see the point. As Banquo pointed out, the 'Chiefs' label is hardly a long-held tradition if they only adopted it in 1999. When I watch the occasional SH game I sometimes have to google the names to discover the nationality of the teams involved. That seems like a misguided marketing principle somewhere in the mix, IMO.

I'd be really interested to know if there is any research on this. My guess is that marketing people are tasked with raising profile and revenues and don't have many tools to work with. I guess rebrands come with a publicity blitz, which presumably can make a difference. But it must be hard to really measure of Leicester Tigers earns more than Leicester RFC. I guess copywriting aspects of a brand are a factor to stop cotton traders just selling jerseys with the town crest.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
So, one of the things they got wrong in upgrading. Why not just admit it and start again?

Yeah, but you got the amateurism wrong so just admit it and start again

Happy for you to continue my education. I'm probably wrong more often than most.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Is there really any value, commercial or inspirational, in having a nickname? Maybe there is some sort of twisted jealousy of the likes of Harlequins or Saracens. Perhaps I'm just a miserable sod but I don't see the point. As Banquo pointed out, the 'Chiefs' label is hardly a long-held tradition if they only adopted it in 1999. When I watch the occasional SH game I sometimes have to google the names to discover the nationality of the teams involved. That seems like a misguided marketing principle somewhere in the mix, IMO.

I'd be really interested to know if there is any research on this. My guess is that marketing people are tasked with raising profile and revenues and don't have many tools to work with. I guess rebrands come with a publicity blitz, which presumably can make a difference. But it must be hard to really measure of Leicester Tigers earns more than Leicester RFC. I guess copywriting aspects of a brand are a factor to stop cotton traders just selling jerseys with the town crest.

Good thoughts there. Presumably 'Leicester RFC' is a 'protectable' brand name. Are the nicknames invented by the marketing people or do some have a fan-induced base? The latter is the only legitimate label, I'd say. It's not as if there are two premiership teams in any city other than London.

I think the appeal of nicknames is supposed to be for newer fans, especially younger folk and those with no geographic attachment to any club. By definition, no-one here.
Those new fans that everyone was trying to grab, and... optimistic in the numbers of, when the game turned pro.

The people who decide which horse to bet on, based on having a cool name, or wearing the person's favourite colour.

I can easily see a 10 year old choosing which club to support based on the coolest mascot; or an American noticing that the Prem is on TV there, and choosing one with the same nickname as their highschool sports teams. Otherwise, to those people, the teams are all the same.

Of course I hate them, and of course I allow a lot more leeway to those with longstanding nicknames, where it was traditional before I got interested in rugby.
To quote Douglas Adams (on tech): “I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”