On LN tonight they asked four people what they thought about the name change and they had two in favour two against. Was this just the BBC attempts at a 'balanced' report or is it an reasonable representation of City's support? Of the two who had no issue with it, one was a 20 something female, the other an 'old' guy who said the Allams having pumped in £20 mill to save the Club 'could do what they like'.
On LN tonight they asked four people what they thought about the name change and they had two in favour two against. Was this just the BBC showing no bias or is it a reasonable representation of City's support? Of the two who had no issue with it, one was a 20 something female the other an 'old' guy who said the Allams having pumped in £20 mill to save the Club they could do what they like.
Yes he can do what he wants but no he can't do what he wants, if u get me? Its the people's club and without the fans he is nothing at this club in my opinion, I'm not in favour of the name change by the way.
He is the current custodian of our club. It is not his toy or 'business' even if he owns it financially.
The first would make somebody a good wife, as she is clearly so easy going, the second sounds like a prison wife.
No, they would have asked many more than four I saw Jake Zuckerman outside the ground at the end of the game. He must have asked at least a dozen supporters. Good journalistic practice requires that as near as possible your 'vox pops' must represent the balance of opinion of those surveyed. Let's say they did 11 and it was 6-5 that would be near enough balanced to 2-2. If they had done 12 and it was 9 for and 3 against then they would have had 3 for - 1 against on camera.
They can't really have a seemingly biased article (even though it is a majority for anti-name change), so they have to sit on the fence and have people for and against. Just like when they go on about politics, they give each party the same coverage.
The analogy I like best for this scenario was the one where someone asked if you rescue a drowning cat from a bag in a canal, would it then be acceptable for you to beat and abuse it? Yeah, we love the Allams for rescuing us from oblivion. But what's the point if they're then just going to create anarchy? They really could be proper Hull City legends and heroes in the shape of Jack Walker at Blackburn. But this name change thing is scuppering any chance of that. Another thing has got to me about this 'irrelevant and lousy' name thing. Names like City, United, Town, County, Athletic, Rovers, Wanderers are unique to British football, (or they were - I know a few international clubs have adopted them). But even so, these are the names that arose in Britain originally. They give English football, (and Scottish of course) its unique identity. What could possibly be more marketable than that?
We're joining the list of clubs with owners doing pointless daft things, not at the level of the Venky's, but on a par with Vincent Tam. I suspect Assem is not yet aware of this and has no idea of the current ill feeling at Cardiff, from a change that has made zero difference to Cardiff's appeal overseas.
I still cant help but believe that this name change idea is partly the fault of American sports teams. As our team names do change and some times for marketing reasons. I cant think of to many other countries where it is common to change a teams name. I have tried to find some articles on name changes that were done for marketing reasons. There are some I know of that were done. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed to the Tampa Bay Rays. The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim changed their name to the Anaheim Ducks. The Washington Bullets changed their name to the Washington Wizards as they thought that the Bullets were glorifying the street violence in the city. There are others. I can see a pattern for some of our teams that changed their name from long names and shortened them to versions of the original. I can not seem to find any evidence that the name changes brought in more revenue. That isnt completely true as they do point out in most articles that changing the name meant that new kits(jerseys in the US) had to be bought by fans the year after. That isnt really relevant in England as kits change every year anyway. Most of the articles that I can find written a year or two latter in the case of Tampa say that the name change had no effect and that only with investment from ownership and improving on the field performance did revenue increase. In a fox business article about a name change for one of our NHL teams in Canada their first point I think is pretty valid. Their first point is "Fan Involvement is Key". They say that, "We think getting all of your constituencies involved in a decision makes a lot of sense, said Diane Prange, chief linguistics officer at brand-naming firm Strategic Name Development. They have to own it, they have to love it and you want to make them feel good about the process. ". I dont know anyone that feels like they love the name change nor that they feel good about the process that the Allams have taken here. It seems to me that if all this is coming from a marketing example being extracted from American sports that perhaps they are misinterpreting the reasons why we change names and misinterpreting the results.
Back to the point of the post - in interviews with the Allam's I have never felt that local BBC presenters showed any obvious support for him over anyone else. Don't see why this should be anything other than balanced.
With football fans the tendency is to interview the 'colourful' ones who are often the most vacuous ones who make good eye candy with their 'crazy fan' garb. Sober mature eloquent individuals are rarely featured, they prefer the ones with cliche soundbites, ideally a couple.
