The same way that Mccoys or Esso or Frosties use the tiger to promote their product. It's not restricted to the tiger. Many companies have used strong/powerful animals to promote themselves. They cant all be wrong.
Those who watch us in Asia, watch our games on Star Sports Asia, where we are generally referred to as The Tigers(just an Man United are the Red Devils, Liverpool are The Reds etc). It needs no name change to build on that if that was what the club wanted to do, but the plan still falls down on the fact that fans in Asia aren't interested in teams that don't win stuff.
I can see why you would refuse to believe it is to do with the council , it seems incredibly petty , but looking at it all that is the only conclusion I can reach
Very true. It is not an exact science but it helps. Not in every case. But you are missing the point.
Again i believe they would be foolish to change the name of club that has global appeal already. But as it all comes down to money, if they are the top teams when that happens they will still have top players and be 2 of the best teams in the world. For that reason i still think people will find that attractive.
It has alot to do with the council and AA spat with them. In fairness HCC are utterly hopeless and clueless. How the heck did Geraghty get the job for starters.? He should be pensioned off and quick.
Fair enough, i did not know this. When i have seen those tables on foreign tv it looks like Hull City to me. I could be wrong though. With regard to winning stuff, lets hope this is about to change.
I asked if the consumers and the tv executives would find it AS attractive. If it is less attractive it's not worth as much. Why would the FA want to jeapordise even a fraction of the current value on the whim of a pensioner who won't be involved in the game by the end of the current tv deal?
No after his meeting with Geraghty he said he'd have nowt to do with them ever again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20773372 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...m-snub-civic-reception-hold-celebrations.html I think that's pretty conclusive.
I don't know if it will be AS attractive. But if they are still massive teams i would think they will still be interested and would find it attractive. I don't think they have any grounds to suggest it will affect the current league value.
A bit of a side issue, but Exxonmobil don't use their Esso brand in China, they only market their Exxon and Mobil brands, so they don't have any tigers in their advertising there. If only they had the marketing nous of AA, they wouldn't be bumbling along with a mere US$420b turnover.
People buy products for many reasons. Strong branding is part of that. Why do you think companies use animals such as a tiger?
How would that help? If it was sponsorship related and companies really did want to sponsor a tiger club above a non-tiger one, then why wouldn't the nickname be sufficient and how would incorporating it into the playing name help? But none of those companies are called Tigers. They just use it for marketing, same as we should. In your desperation to hold a certain view you've just demonstrated why it isn't necessary to change the name!
If it's not as attractive it's worth less. Why would the FA and Sky gamble with it if there is no financial benefit to them, but has a chance of being detrimental? Sky tv was built around Premier League football, they know what they are doing, our owners are so clueless they had never even heard of Steve Bruce before Peter Chapman suggested him as manager.
The only thing the Allams had to do was convince the FA , maybe Ehab had his Frosties box in the presentation ? I can't believe he couldn't convince them with Tony the Tiger
Currently, the most successful animal in an advert here is a meerkat. Historically, two of the most successful have been a penguin and a labrador puppy, all for novelty value, rather than the image the animal portrays and that includes Tony the bloody tiger.
