This is going to be a subject that many aren’t really too keen on. But it appears sporadically in other threads and I think it merits a thread of it’s own.
Rebranding. Our current onfield performance is horrible, but that pales in comparison to our current image off the field. A once feared and revered club has been reduced to a laughing stock. No coach, poor governance, questionable decision making and generally spineless behaviour.
One way we could look to restore order to our once mighty club, is to actively reshape our image off the field. I’m not talking about simply making the logo look ‘new’ and ‘shiny’. I’m talking about rebranding from the ground up.
Last night I was catching up on some news and read that apparently Tony Abbott pled for US to ask for assistance in bombing Syria and then I thought to myself “bombing… bomb… bombers?” and it made me realise just how archaic and insensitive our nickname is. Is this something that we really want to be associated with? Before we try to justify it, let’s make one thing clear, bombs don’t discriminate between terrorists and innocent civilians and I don’t think that discussing that is the intention of this thread.
Like I said at the start, not everybody will be keen on the idea, but it’s definitely not without precedent. In 1995, Abe Pollin - owner of NBA team Washington Bullets, decided to change the name of the organization to Washington Wizards as the term ‘Bullets’ has violent overtones. I’m not saying we have to do a complete backflip and change it to the Essendon Carebears, but even the word ‘Jet’ – whilst essentially the same thing – has less violent overtones than ‘Bomber’.
Rebranding. Our current onfield performance is horrible, but that pales in comparison to our current image off the field. A once feared and revered club has been reduced to a laughing stock. No coach, poor governance, questionable decision making and generally spineless behaviour.
One way we could look to restore order to our once mighty club, is to actively reshape our image off the field. I’m not talking about simply making the logo look ‘new’ and ‘shiny’. I’m talking about rebranding from the ground up.
Last night I was catching up on some news and read that apparently Tony Abbott pled for US to ask for assistance in bombing Syria and then I thought to myself “bombing… bomb… bombers?” and it made me realise just how archaic and insensitive our nickname is. Is this something that we really want to be associated with? Before we try to justify it, let’s make one thing clear, bombs don’t discriminate between terrorists and innocent civilians and I don’t think that discussing that is the intention of this thread.
Like I said at the start, not everybody will be keen on the idea, but it’s definitely not without precedent. In 1995, Abe Pollin - owner of NBA team Washington Bullets, decided to change the name of the organization to Washington Wizards as the term ‘Bullets’ has violent overtones. I’m not saying we have to do a complete backflip and change it to the Essendon Carebears, but even the word ‘Jet’ – whilst essentially the same thing – has less violent overtones than ‘Bomber’.
