Not to me, maybe I am alone in this but I usually recognise teams popular nicknames and I will openly say I never knew that.
Just confused about why you see our nickname in particular as being 'franchise'-esque when I actually thought we had one of the more well-known nicknames - even pre-name change debacle.
You'd never heard us sing "You're getting mauled by the Tigers" back in 08/09 or 09/10? Or any reference to us being the tigers? That's a bit of a mystery. Fair play. Just seems very weird.
For some reason I thought it was the 20's but almost as soon as I posted I went to look it up because I thought I had it wrong.
This is like a plumber telling a solicitor that he doesn't understand the law. Not that it's the most significant thing in this particular case, as it's the backstory that's led to the dislike of the current badge and if the new owners listen to the fans, as we hope they will, then they'll add the name to the badge, as it's what the majority of fans want.
Can't be arsed reading thst at the moment, but you seem to have excelled yourself with your opening comments. Except for direct replies to your comments, what insults have I made? Why do you think i'm on holiday? Is that just another assumption you've jumped t
A bit arrogant OLM, you have a very high opinion of yourself and not too much knowledge of folk you talk down to. Sit down with five different marketing companies and you will not get five takes the same on this. I agree the back story is the dominant issue, I always have, but that can be managed, in the larger scale of things, as it shouldn't be. But never mind, well discussed.
It's not arrogance, this just happens to be my day job, I have 35 years experience and I do know what I'm talking about. No marketing company is going to suggest that a good way to grow your brand internationally, is not telling people the name of that brand. The biggest football clubs in the world still put their names on their badges (or at least their initials), the only clubs that don't are MLS clubs and I bet barely anyone on here (other than our US posters) could tell you which club is which. By having no name on the badge, you gain nothing, other than the potential for confusion and a lack of recognition.
I think if the full name was introduced to the current badge it would be passable, but I'd much prefer to see the old one reinstated. I don't think there was anything wrong with the old badge, always thought it looked good. The new one is obviously an attempt at being more modern and minimalist (whilst also purging the dirty name) and I just don't quite think it hit the mark it was aiming for. It's rushed, and looks it. I wouldn't waste anymore more time fiddling with it or developing yet another new one, just stick the old one back on. Nowt wrong with it.
I know little about marketing and I would not pretend otherwise, but one thing that I do know is that nothing you use can be taken in isolation. I also know that marketing teams work to a brief and they often put several designs forward for the client or the company executives to approve. The fact is that in isolation the badge means nothing, Even with all of the wording on it, no one is going to be attracted to supporting Hull City because they like the badge on the shirt alone.
Im massively confused by this - hasnt every professional football team in England got a nickname? I cant think of any that havent.
Nobody's suggesting they do. Outside the UK, websites and TV stations regularly use our old badge, as without it, people don't know which team it is. If you're trying to grow recognition globally, which if these makes the most sense? please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
