Will they ever change the name?

Will the Harris Group change the name?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 68.8%

  • No

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
I hate the name and I say that without reservation or equivocation. Hate. It.

Having said that, I've been through a corporate rebranding effort once in my life and I know from friends in the marketing department who worked on it that it wasn't easy, quick, or cheap. That company was a $4 billion a year multi-national and we were only changing our logo, not our name. The process took over 2 years and cost the company over $10 million. Just to change a logo.

If I'm Josh Harris and I'm stuck in a stadium that, as recently as the '22 season, was dumping sewage from pipes on fans sitting the stands, I'd be spending that money on plumbing first.

I keep reminding myself that Harris and Co. just ponied up $6 billion-plus to gain control of this thing. Now they are spending more on a neglected stadium (that they are actively trying replace, I might add) and a neglected practice facility that has historically rated near the bottom of the league in player surveys.

Should the name change? Yeah, it should. No question.

Is it a priority? For the fan base, yes. For ownership? Probably not so much and while I hate the name I'd rather win.
 
Well, I think the least we should expect is a logo other than a stenciled Walmart styled 'W' on the side of the helmet.

If we are going to stay on the cheap side for awhile, we can look to the University of Washington and see the stylized 'W' with colored border they have to improve on what that pimple Snyder left us with.

It's a start.

And while we're at it - let's get rid of the black uniforms. It's all the rage with some teams to use black or lime green (Seahawks) or electric cherry red (Chiefs) as their alternates and while I don't think they look as good as their regular uniforms no alternate is as bad as ours.

We look like the Steelers out there.
 
Neophyte said:
I hate the name and I say that without reservation or equivocation. Hate. It.

Having said that, I've been through a corporate rebranding effort once in my life and I know from friends in the marketing department who worked on it that it wasn't easy, quick, or cheap. That company was a $4 billion a year multi-national and we were only changing our logo, not our name. The process took over 2 years and cost the company over $10 million. Just to change a logo.

If I'm Josh Harris and I'm stuck in a stadium that, as recently as the '22 season, was dumping sewage from pipes on fans sitting the stands, I'd be spending that money on plumbing first.

I keep reminding myself that Harris and Co. just ponied up $6 billion-plus to gain control of this thing. Now they are spending more on a neglected stadium (that they are actively trying replace, I might add) and a neglected practice facility that has historically rated near the bottom of the league in player surveys.

Should the name change? Yeah, it should. No question.

Is it a priority? For the fan base, yes. For ownership? Probably not so much and while I hate the name I'd rather win.
Click to expand...

I love 90% of that post. But what does changing the name have to do with winning? They’ll win - or they won’t. The name has no influence. You are 100% right that a name change is expensive, although I have to wonder if the resultant revenue if they choose a popular alternative doesn’t eclipse any short term expenses. In fact, I’ll go as far as to call that a total no -factor. Rename us the Wolves, Warriors, or Redwolves and the swag revenue dwarfs those initial costs.

Winning is the most important thing, but it has nothing to do with the name. If we were the Washington Cheesedicks and we went to the the NFC Championship, go Cheesedicks. But I’d still hate the name :)
 
Yeah, but I think the point is if Washington were to go on and win a Super Bowl in the next 2-3 years (OK, stop laughing now) then the name 'Commanders' may become more ingrained with the fan base overall and the organization's visibility more generally, and make a change less of an imperative for the owners.
 
Neophyte said:
I hate the name and I say that without reservation or equivocation. Hate. It.

Having said that, I've been through a corporate rebranding effort once in my life and I know from friends in the marketing department who worked on it that it wasn't easy, quick, or cheap. That company was a $4 billion a year multi-national and we were only changing our logo, not our name. The process took over 2 years and cost the company over $10 million. Just to change a logo.

If I'm Josh Harris and I'm stuck in a stadium that, as recently as the '22 season, was dumping sewage from pipes on fans sitting the stands, I'd be spending that money on plumbing first.

I keep reminding myself that Harris and Co. just ponied up $6 billion-plus to gain control of this thing. Now they are spending more on a neglected stadium (that they are actively trying replace, I might add) and a neglected practice facility that has historically rated near the bottom of the league in player surveys.

Should the name change? Yeah, it should. No question.

Is it a priority? For the fan base, yes. For ownership? Probably not so much and while I hate the name I'd rather win.
Click to expand...


One difference is that the customer support has been at an all time low. The current re-brand was likely a minor jolt, but a rebrand again could likely inject a cash flow influx like something we've never seen before. Further amplification of cash flow with proper sponsorships because of the new brand teaming up with the things you referenced.
 
Boone said:
I love 90% of that post. But what does changing the name have to do with winning? They’ll win - or they won’t. The name has no influence. You are 100% right that a name change is expensive, although I have to wonder if the resultant revenue if they choose a popular alternative doesn’t eclipse any short term expenses. In fact, I’ll go as far as to call that a total no -factor. Rename us the Wolves, Warriors, or Redwolves and the swag revenue dwarfs those initial costs.

Winning is the most important thing, but it has nothing to do with the name. If we were the Washington Cheesedicks and we went to the the NFC Championship, go Cheesedicks. But I’d still hate the name :)
Click to expand...
In my admittedly limited view:

Money = Winning

Hence why I tie these things together and why I said I'd rather win.

Granted, just throwing money at the problem will not suffice - it has to be smart money. Well spent money. Ideally, it should be the kind of money that will directly lead to more money - like stadium improvements. I will concede that you may have a point around merch following a rename. Perhaps if fans simply stopped buying merch until a rename is announced it might move Harris and Co. to prioritize that?


Bulldog said:
Yeah, but I think the point is if Washington were to go on and win a Super Bowl in the next 2-3 years (OK, stop laughing now) then the name 'Commanders' may become more ingrained with the fan base overall and the organization's visibility more generally, and make a change less of an imperative for the owners.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Winning big under the Commanders' monicker would be disastrous for the rename effort.
 
I guess one silver lining in favor of the name change could be that while the franchise shelled out a lot of money for the previous rebranding that may have been off the books by the time Harris took over. If he is carrying none of that cost or debt then he might be more in favor if he thinks the name change is a useful part of reinvigorating the fan base and generating long term support for this team.

It is hard for me to imagine Commanders merchandise topping the NFL charts. I suppose if Daniels becomes a superstar all anyone will care about is his name and number, but still, teams want to sell hats, jackets, flags, banners, and all sorts of items that just bear the team logo. Right now, that's got to be an insignificant part of their revenue stream. There's just no "cool" associated with Commanders and I'm not sure even winning changes that.
 
Bulldog said:
Yeah, but I think the point is if Washington were to go on and win a Super Bowl in the next 2-3 years (OK, stop laughing now) then the name 'Commanders' may become more ingrained with the fan base overall and the organization's visibility more generally, and make a change less of an imperative for the owners.
Click to expand...
I addressed how I feel about that in the original post.

As far as the argument that a name change is a net $$ loss for the team, I think that’s dubious and I’d like to see #’s behind that assertion. Hell - I’m willing to bet that even with the ‘Commanders’ name change the swag revenue long ago eclipsed whatever short term costs were incurred. Renaming the team with a solid and popular moniker is going to be a cash cow of epic proportions.
 
We are apparently the 31st team in product sales.

1715042664083.png
 
Cowboys: Haven't won jack in 30 years
Bears: Not relevant since 1985
Cardinals: Perennial losers.

So the whole "Win and merchandise sales will go up" rings kind of hollow here.

The uniform sucks along with the name. You can polish a turd, doesn't mean it will sell.
 
I think context matters. 1100 is a small sample size. And of course it was one of the worst seasons last year. When named the Redskins during the Snyder Era, ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc all sucked too.
 
Merch was selling well those first few years until people caught on to Snyder and what kind of crap he was full of.

Can’t believe Minnesota is 32nd in merchandising. Their long suffering fans seem fairly loyal and active.
 
Maybe Minnesota is lagging because while it’s easy to root for a winner and for an underdog, it’s tougher to rally for the mediocre or for those that always underperform expectations
 
burgold said:
Maybe Minnesota is lagging because while it’s easy to root for a winner and for an underdog, it’s tougher to rally for the mediocre or for those that always underperform expectations
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the income demographics of a fan base as well, as disposable income is going to play a role in items like merch
 
I'm surprised at the optimism reflected in the poll so far. I hope it proves correct.
 
I would love to see a REAL poll done with native Americans across the country. If it comes back largely that nobody cares I want it back to Redskins.

I know I'm on the outside here with wanting that name, but it really is a slap in the face to the man who was used on the helmet. Its akin to changing Aunt Jemima without speaking to her family who were extremely proud of that name and her being on the label.

It's time to stop being afraid of the PC police and stand firm when people are trying to change things that don't need to be changed.

If they really cared about the respect of the native Americans they'd do more to help the reservations and people on them. They would have made Atlanta, Kansas City, Florida State, San Diego State, and others change their name as well. But, it was a direct shot at us because of Snyder and being able to bully us.

Outside of that name....call them the football team again. I actually grew fond of that name because it was a middle finger to the establishment cowering to the loud mob.
 
Has there been any suggestion at any stage of using an alternative native American name ? I can understand how the term "redskin" could be viewed as a derogatory term.
Maybe a salute to one of the indigenous tribes from the Washington DC area would be acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top