New Exeter Chief's logo.

[Oakboy]

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.”

Well, I certainly qualify for category three by hell of a margin!

[Puja]

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.

Leicester have had tigers as a nickname for about a hundred years, back when they used to play in brown and yellow and I have a scarf from 1995 that say Tigers, so there is some link.

I believe Leicester changed their badge to the current tiger's head and shield because they couldn't protect the old one which included the town crest. I suspect that "Leicester" on its own would be problematic to protect as well.

Puja

[Oakboy]

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.

Leicester have had tigers as a nickname for about a hundred years, back when they used to play in brown and yellow and I have a scarf from 1995 that say Tigers, so there is some link.

I believe Leicester changed their badge to the current tiger's head and shield because they couldn't protect the old one which included the town crest. I suspect that "Leicester" on its own would be problematic to protect as well.

Puja

Fair enough. Out of interest, though, Puja, I don't think on here that you habitually refer to 'Tigers' do you? I thought, without checking back, that you normally say 'Leicester'. I accept the nickname's historical merit but wondered how much it matters.

Probably, not supporting any one club, I just don't understand the nicknames' significance. I do like watching Exeter (the nearest club) but have never thought to refer to them as 'Chiefs'. I know one season ticket holder. He says 'Exeter' every time I speak to him.

[p/d]

I don’t know anyone who uses the club ‘nickname’ when discussing rugby. More frequently Briz, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, and - in Bath’s case - shyte have become common place.

One exception is Saints, I suppose

[Blandy]

I don’t know anyone who uses the club ‘nickname’ when discussing rugby. More frequently Briz, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, and - in Bath’s case - shyte have become common place.

One exception is Saints, I suppose

Was thinking about this as I was reading through and realised I pretty much always say Falcons when talking to some one face to face. I wonder if the name Newcastle is just so strongly associated with the football team even though I am not a football fan and not even from Newcastle originally!

[p/d]

I don’t know anyone who uses the club ‘nickname’ when discussing rugby. More frequently Briz, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, and - in Bath’s case - shyte have become common place.

One exception is Saints, I suppose

Was thinking about this as I was reading through and realised I pretty much always say Falcons when talking to some one face to face. I wonder if the name Newcastle is just so strongly associated with the football team even though I am not a football fan and not even from Newcastle originally!

Perhaps it could be that Newcastle, Northampton and Leicester aren’t names easily shortened

[Puja]

I don’t know anyone who uses the club ‘nickname’ when discussing rugby. More frequently Briz, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, and - in Bath’s case - shyte have become common place.

One exception is Saints, I suppose

Was thinking about this as I was reading through and realised I pretty much always say Falcons when talking to some one face to face. I wonder if the name Newcastle is just so strongly associated with the football team even though I am not a football fan and not even from Newcastle originally!

Perhaps it could be that Newcastle, Northampton and Leicester aren’t names easily shortened

Mind, Leicester has the same number of spoken syllables as Tigers.

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

Was thinking about this as I was reading through and realised I pretty much always say Falcons when talking to some one face to face. I wonder if the name Newcastle is just so strongly associated with the football team even though I am not a football fan and not even from Newcastle originally!

Perhaps it could be that Newcastle, Northampton and Leicester aren’t names easily shortened

Mind, Leicester has the same number of spoken syllables as Tigers.

Puja

Are you counting the number of syllables to explain the pronunciation to yanks or non-native English speakers?

[Mr Mwenda]

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.”

Excellent from Adams.

I'd also say the cost of a rebrand/new nickname is probably low. The older fans grumble but keep watching. Indeed, that becomes part of the tradition. Then hopefully new fans are perhaps attracted.

[Mr Mwenda]

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.”

Excellent from Adams.

I'd also say the cost of a rebrand/new nickname is probably low. The older fans grumble but keep watching. Indeed, that becomes part of the tradition. Then hopefully new fans are perhaps attracted.

One could try to think up nicknames that might hurt revenues? Exeter racists? Bristol minstrels? Leicester dildos? Saracens?

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Only reason for the change is Rowe cant get big sponsors. Noone wanted to touch them with the knock on effect to the sponsor. Devon still has a club with the dodgy logo though and no idea if they are going to change in Exeter Athletic.

[Puja]

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.”

Excellent from Adams.

I'd also say the cost of a rebrand/new nickname is probably low. The older fans grumble but keep watching. Indeed, that becomes part of the tradition. Then hopefully new fans are perhaps attracted.

I mean, look at Bristol Bears for a perfect example of your point. This board was filled with mockery when they did that, but it seems to have taken and now doesn't feel weird to hear through sheer force of repetition. It's not like anyone on here calls them "The Bears" cause we're all old and set in our ways, but it's not hurt them.

Puja

[jimKRFC]

I mean, look at Bristol Bears for a perfect example of your point. This board was filled with mockery when they did that, but it seems to have taken and now doesn't feel weird to hear through sheer force of repetition. It's not like anyone on here calls them "The Bears" cause we're all old and set in our ways, but it's not hurt them.

The Bristol re-brand, while controversial at the time, has definitely taken time to bed. The older supporters (like me) don't use it at all, you may have noticed I never use "Bears" in the match posts.

But, it has caught on with younger supporters and more casual supporters. When out in Bristol there are loads more cars with stickers, kids with hats/jackets etc.. and the crowd is way younger than before. Even locally, in Melksham, a Bath heart land there are quite a few stickers and jerseys around, when previously there were none.

On the whole it has been worth it and has paid off for Bristol (even if I don't get it).