Lions Guernsey survey results: An open letter to Malcolm Holmes

[whatboutbob]

Background

Almost three years ago on October 22, 2009 the Brisbane Lions announced a new logo for a new era.

But would they stop there?

Rumours had been circulating for months that the Lions administration were intending to change our guernsey. When queried, the Club denied this. However the rumours came from more and more credible sources. In response, on October 25, 2009 saveourjumper.com.au was launched, petitioning the Club against changing the guernsey and encouraging Lions fans to email the Club about the issue.

Within little more than a week the petition had garnered more than 2500 signatures, which were duly forwarded to the Club.

The Club continued to deny they were intending to change the guernsey.

Then on Friday 13th November, 2009 the new Lions guernsey was revealed. Coinciding with the launch, this letter from the Club was published online and emailed to Lions members.

In the letter Lions CEO Michael Bowers belittled the feedback they had received in the previous couple of weeks thusly:

Now the reality of that media dubbed 'fan backlash' is that by 5pm Wednesday 11 November the Club had received a total of 369 emails - 36 supporting and 333 opposing the design changes.

Of these 333, only 214 were current members from our 2009 total of 26,324 which represents just 0.8%.

What he did not note was that all of this feedback was given despite the Club denying there was any change pending, denying the "99.2%" of members who didn't email in pre-emptively about a supposedly non-existent change, the opportunity to have their voices heard on the issue.

Bowers similarly attempted to marginalise the SaveOurJumper petitioners:

A Membership Dept review of a private petitions-based website against changes to the jumper could only confirm 11.7% of the petitioners were actual members - meaning a whopping 88.3% were not. Club staff treat all contact politely but we're sure many members would be thinking: "Hey, sign up as a member and then we'll talk!"

Bowers later revealed in a radio interview that the "Membership Dept review" was simply a search of the Lions database for the petitioners’ email addresses - hardly an exhaustive search for the truth.

But even then, he still admitted that based purely on whispers and despite denials from the Club that they had any such intentions, more than 300 members had taken the step to actively plead with them to not alter the guernsey.

To this day that remains the last public announcement the Club has made about the now monikered "Paddle Pop" guernsey.

A month later at the Lions 2009 AGM, Chairman Tony Kelly was queried about the limited consultation around the guerney’s introduction and asked if he would have done anything differently with the benefit of hindsight. Kelly replied with a terse and dismissive “No” before ridiculing the notion of members getting a say in the guernsey design by comparing it to them selecting the team each week.

Unsurprisingly, less than a year later, in late 2010, after a review of the Club by outside consultants, Bowers "stepped down", as had Kelly, weeks earlier. They were replaced by interim CEO Steven Wright and Angus Johnson respectively.

Many members and supporters hoped this changing of the guard would signal the return of the former guernsey in 2011, or at least that they'd be polled for their preference. However those hopes soon proved false.

In March, 2011 new CEO Malcolm Holmes was appointed. Later that year, still bitterly disappointed by the Club's lack of consultation with them regarding the guernsey change, more than a hundred Lions members united to encourage the Club to adopt a Charter which would commit the Club to more broad consultation for any future guernsey changes. The Club did draft and adopt the Charter, which again raised hopes of restitution. However no such commitment ensued, so hopes were again dashed.


Recent History

That brings us, inexorably, to this season. Throughout 2012, with the Club's major sponsors' contracts due to expire, many members and supporters assumed a guernsey change was a given for 2013, thinking that surely the Club would take this opportunity to make amends.

However last Wednesday those hopes were again crushed when Malcolm Holmes revealed that he had no such plans, having extended the current guernsey design for another 2 year term at the end of last year.

The news did not go down well. To anyone who has spent much time here that wouldn't come as a big surprise. The majority of our regular posters have expressed dissatisfaction with either the current guernsey and / or the lack of consultation before altering a significant facet of our Club’s culture.

But what more could we do? The Club had already dismissed our previous petition as emotional ranting from a fringe minority and we’ve heard nothing more from them on the issue since.
Then last Friday, just 48 hours before the Lions' final game of the season, MacMum posted this:

Get a few people to do a quick poll on Lions supporters at the ground on sunday....all that has to be asked is ...which jumper do you prefer..paddlepop or premiership jumper??..

No need to get into nitty gritty versions of Lion or jumpers......those two mentioned in the question covers it..

..the results will give a genuine idea of what the vast array of supporters want our jumper to be..

..and I don't want to hear it can't be done, because it could very easily..

...and the next day (Saturday) one of our members with a background in behavioural psychology , [user]IanHaso84[/user], picked up the baton and ran with the suggestion.

While Haso crafted the questions to ensure a statistically meaningful response, volunteers came out of the woodwork to help. Professional graphic designer [user]Brisroy Fitzbane[/user] (nee Kuklinski) used his mad skillz to draft and print the survey, while [user]PattyKisagun[/user], [user]Haggis McHaggis[/user], [user]GingerGreatness[/user], [user]Jorgo[/user] and [user]Caiphus[/user] all contributed their time before Sunday's game surveying hundreds of Lions fans as they headed into the Gabba.

The results are unequivocal, but for that, I'll turn, at long last, to Haso's analysis:

 

[Haso]

Before running comparitive and correlational statistics, a quick word on our sample. It was taken from individuals on the way into the Gabba on the 2nd of September, 2012, in the last game of the season against the Western Bulldogs. All individuals were approached regardless of club merchandise, age, gender, etc. The aim was to ensure no bias in selection of survey participants. Those who participated were recruited from different areas around the outside of the Gabba. It is important to note that those who participated were not BigFooty community members, but randomly selected attendees to the final Brisbane Lions season 2012 match.

9 non-supporters were excluded from the analysis, as they did not represent our referral population (Lions supporters).

The Questionnaire

(click to expand)

In the questionnaire, 3 example guernseys were offered for rating. The fomer (premiership) guernsey, the current guernsey, and a potential guernsey with the original Fitzroy Lion. In comparing the design of our former jumper and current jumper, we wanted to make sure that the former guernsey wasn't rated higher simply because it is our premiership jumper. Given the normal propensity to resist change, the new potential jumper should have had a strong disadvantage in comparison to the former and current guernsey. The addition of this option was also used as further evidence of the design of the Lion, beyond merely a change in overall guernsey design, being important to supporters.

The sample

We surveyed 314 individuals.

238 members

76 non-members.

75% of the sample were members, so these group sizes are not equal. Given the size of the sample, 'significance' tests should be robust enough, but conservative measures will be taken to account for the uneven group sizes.

310 were supporters, 4 were non-supporters (of the Lions). These numbers won't affect the outcome, and will not be used further in the analyses.

The questions themselves were analysed to determine the frequency of ratings and responses per question.

The questions

The frequency of responses for guernsey decision important was as follows:

The very strong ceiling effect on this distribution would indicate that guernsey decisions were very important to this sample. Not surprising, as these were the people who were willing to fill in the questionnaire.

The frequency of responses for club communication of big decisions to members and supporters was as follows:

The strong ceiling effect again would indicate that it is very important to this sample of people that the club communicate important decisions to its members and supporters.

The frequency of preference for the former guernsey is as follows:

The majority of interviewees indicate here that they have a strong preference for the former Lions guernsey.

73.2% either agreed or strongly agreed with this guernsey.
16.2% were neutral on it.
8.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this guernsey.
1.9% did not answer.

The frequency of preference for the current guernsey is as follows.

The spread is not even here, and there is no clear preference either way. The distribution is 'bimodal', meaning that there are two clear groups here, one group clearly not supporting this guernsey, and another clearly supporting it. I will get back to these group differences later. In either case this distribution strongly indicates that the current guernsey is divisive.

44.3% reponded with agree or strongly agree
15.3% responded with neutral
40.1% reponded with disagree or strongly disagree
0.3% did not respond

The frequency of responses for the suggested potential new guernsey are as follows:

There is a strong ceiling effect here, with most respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this guernsey.

59.9% agreed or strongly agree with this guernsey
13.4% were neutral
25.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this guernsey.
1.6% did not respond.

Out of the above 3 guernseys, the old and the potential new were both received well by the majority of respondents, while the current guernsey was divisive, with roughly equal groups strongly agreeing and strongly disagreeing with it.

Now that the data has been inspected and rough trends observed, group means can now be analysed to determine statistically significant differences.

A quick explanation of statistical significance.

When we compare groups (of people, or variables, of whathaveyou) we compare their means to each other, relative to the amount of error, or spread among the distributions. What this contributes to is a measure of probability that the difference that we have found in the sample also exists in the population that we are sampling from (Lions supporters). This is called the statistical 'significance'. It is reported as a 'p' value, as in p = ___. 'p' represents the probability that the difference that we have found between these means was just found through random chance in this sample, and does not exist in the population at large.

The commonly used cut-off for statistical significance is p < .05. This means that we would be more than 95% sure that the difference that we found also exists in the population (Lions supporters). This is the basis for statistical inference, and is the whole reason that we do stats in the first place (we would have to measure the whole population otherwise).

Comparing mean ratings of guernseys.

Respondents gave a rating out of 5 for the past, current and potential guernseys on the questionnaire. Seeing as every respondent answered for each guernsey, we an compare the means of these ratings with a repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

A quick note: The distributions were positively skewed. ANOVA is robust to this kind of skew, as long as the skew is in the same direction for all groups (it is).

A graph of the mean ratings for the three guernseys is as follows:

There is a visual difference there, but this must be confirmed with a significance test:

An analysis of variance found that a significant difference exists between mean ratings for each guernsey, F (1.681, 526.079) = 32.812, p < .001, partial eta squared = .095.

This indicates that a significant difference exists between guernsey rating means.

Now that we have found that a significant effect exists, we can investigate individual differences between means.

The past guernsey was rated higher than the current guernsey and the suggested potential new guernsey to a statistically significant level (p < .001 for both).

The potential suggested future guernsey was also found to be rated significantly higher than the current guernsey (p = .001)

This indicates that while the suggested new guernsey was significantly more popular than the current guernsey, the past guernsey, worn from the start of the merger and through our premiership years, and containing the original Fitzroy Lion, was significantly more popular than both.

These findings indicate that the mean rating for the past guernsey was higher, followed by the proposed new guernsey, and the current guernsey was rated the lowest on average. Statistically significant differences were found between each of these groups, suggesting a real gap in attitudes towards the guernseys, not simply found through random chance.

It should be noted also that while, as mentioned above, the new and untried potential guernsey should possibly have been rated lower than the current guernsey, it was actually rated higher on average.

We found an unusual distribution of ratings for the current guernsey, where equal sized groups rated that guernsey either high or very low. The hypothesis is that membership status might play a part in teasing these effects out. I can include membership as a factor in the above analysis and run it again. With two categories in the membership factor (members and non-members), and 3 guernsey rating means, this analysis will include 6 groups, have repeated measures (this is what we call a mixed design).

A line graph is a little easier to interpret for this many groups, and is as follows. This is in essence the same graph as above, but each of the three guernsey groups is further split into members vs non-members:

Please note: 1 = Former guernsey, 2 = Current guernsey, 3 = Potential new guernsey

Observing above, there are some clear differences even among individual guernsey ratings when we introduce membership. Members appear to strongly favour the old guernsey, then prefer the suggested new one next, then the current one. Non-members appear to rate the former guernsey highest, the current one second highest, then they like the suggested new one least. This looks like what we call an interaction effect. We must first find a significant interaction effect before we look at differences between individual means:

A significant interaction effect was found between the membership and guernsey variables F(1.692, 527.843) = 5.994, p = .004, partial eta squared = .019.

This indicates that a different pattern exists between members and non-members, and ratings on particular guernseys depend on membership.

Looking now at individual differences between means.

• A significant difference was found in rating of members and non-members on the past guernsey, with members rating the past guernsey higher (p = .006).
• A significant difference was found between members and non-members on their ratings of the current guernsey, with non-members rating the current guernsey higher (p = .031)
• A significant difference was found between members and non members on their ratings of the suggested potential new guernsey, with members rating this one higher (p = .037)

Again, statistical significance indicates that this pattern is very likely to exist among Lions supporters at large as well.

To summarise this analysis:

• A strong difference exists between members and non members on guernsey design.
• Members seem to strongly prefer the old guernsey over the current guernsey and the suggested new guernsey, but prefer both over the current guernsey.
• Non-members are fans of the current guernsey, however, their rating of it is still below the rating that members gave the old and suggested new guernsey.

In this analysis, those who are non-members could be seen as more transient type supporters, who are slightly less interested in the club and its workings, while the membership group could be representative of the more interested and emotionally involved groups. This does not necessarily mean that non-members all automatically are not as interested and involved in the club, but there would be substantial overlap between the two groups in this regard.

This analysis shows that there are indeed group differences in preference for the each guernsey, and that those who are members for the most part prefer the old guernsey, don't mind the potential new guernsey and rate the current guernsey lowest.

The last analyses that were conducted were regression analyses. These use correlations to determine whether or not a particular variable can be used to predict other variables.

For the first lot, membership status was used to try to predict ratings on the three guernseys.

Membership predicting ratings of old guernsey, a significant effect was found, R squared = .156, F (1, 313) = 7.787, p = .006., beta = -.156

Membership predicting ratings of current guernsey, a significant effect was found, R squared = .121, F (1, 313) = 4.669, p = .031, beta = .121.

Membership predicting ratings of potential new guernsey, a significant effet was found, R squared = .118, F (1, 313) = 4.390, p = .037, beta = -.118.

These figures serve to back up what was found in the analyses above. Being a Lions member predicted whether or not respondents rated the old guernsey higher, the current guernsey lower, and the new potential guernsey higher. These findings were statistically significant, and are very likely to generalise to Lions supporters at large.

A further hypothesis was that those who voted highest on the current guernsey, the non-members, which could also be representative of the most recent Lions fans or less invested supporters, may also have been ambivalent on their ratings, and did not deviate on their ratings across all guernseys.

The analyses was split into only those who are members, and only those who were non-members, and compared mean differences on ratings of guernseys:

For members, a significant difference was found between guernsey ratings, F (1.659, 1108.882) = 37.143, p < .001.

For non, members, so significant difference was found between guernsey ratings, F (1.785, 133.867) = 1.858, p = .164.

Again I will refer to the below graph to interpret this for you:

So non-members, those who rate the current guernsey higher did not deviate too much on their ratings of the others as well. This indicates that this group who rated the current guernsey could be interpreted as being ambivalent about their ratings of the guernseys.

On the other hand, those who rated the current guernsey lower on average, deviated quite a bit more on the other two ratings, indicating a pattern of attitude toward the guernsey design, rather than ambivalence.

This last analysis indicates that there are a distinct group who do not specifically care about the guernsey, and that they rated the current guernsey as high as the other two options on average. On the other hand, those who do appear to care about the issues surrounding the guernsey deviated quite widely on their ratings.

 

[whatboutbob]

So the survey data has confirmed what we've long known to be true – the “paddlepop” guernsey is divisive. The question is, what is the Club going to do about it?

Simply, it is time for the Club to publicly commit to a time frame to do what it should have done 3 years ago - to transparently poll its members about the guernsey and heed the results - what it should have done in the first place. We will not be kept in the dark any longer.

And if they don't? Well, look at what we managed to achieve with this survey in less than 48 hours. Imagine what we can cook up for next year given an entire off-season.

But hopefully it won't come to that. For many the "paddlepop" remains a symbol of a dark period in our club's history; a monument to an arrogant and divisive administration. Malcolm, let's treat this wound so that we can all move forward, united, respectful and relentless. Poll us. Heed us. Heal us.

NB: I’ll be forwarding this link to Malcolm at midday tomorrow. I encourage you all to share your thoughts below on the matter.

 

[Viceregal]

Endorsed wholeheartedly!

 

[Caiphus]

I found it interesting that for the most part the 18+ males were all for the old Lion. Females were a little more partial to the paddlepop... did anyone else notice a similar trend?

 

[Jorgo]

The important factor for me in analysing these results is the make up of the survey audience. This was not a survey of "fanatical keyboard warriors" here on BigFooty, but a survey of the average Lions supporter as they walked into the Gabba to watch their beloved team play.

The fact that a mere 5 of us were able to, with extremely limited planning and stationed at just 3-4 places around the Gabba, get 314 responses to a survey from the average supporter clearly indicates there is a desperate yearning out there from our club's supporters to have their say on this issue.

Imagine what could be achieved in this regard if this was conducted with the full backing of our Club and it's considerable resources!!

That is all we are seeking... simply to be heard.

Please Malcolm, come forward and firmly commit to a prompt timeline to give us that say. We've been ignored for long enough.

 

[Caiphus]

The interest levels and participation of people were brilliant too. If we planned a little better and had a lot more pens and stable surfaces to write on we probably could have gotten all 1000 filled out. Which would have been over 5% of the attendees at the Gabba on Sunday.

 

[GingerGreatness]

We've done the legwork now. No need for $20k marketing feedback experts and consultation groups.

The paddlepop couldn't win a poll in Brisbane with its being the incumbent design. Happy to do the poll again in Melbourne if the club wants to test the waters there though.

The participants were all paying punters. No "contribute $ to the club first and we'll talk" escape clause this time.

We are not a united club under a flag that divides us, and represents to some of us, the means in which our old flag was taken away.

Please, please, please just confirm that the jumper will be put to a vote for the 2014 design. That'll get me through the next 12 months.

 

[GingerGreatness]

Only regret - not doing this Round 1, 2010.

I blame Fev.

 

[Brisroy Fitzbane]

Great work compiling all of this data gents. I really hope the club listens to its members and supporters this time round

 

[Skoob]

In the letter Lions CEO Michael Bowers belittled the feedback they had received in the previous couple of weeks thusly:

Now the reality of that media dubbed 'fan backlash' is that by 5pm Wednesday 11 November the Club had received a total of 369 emails - 36 supporting and 333 opposing the design changes.​

Of these 333, only 214 were current members from our 2009 total of 26,324 which represents just 0.8%.​

Interestingly also glossed over in Bower's letter was that on those figures quoted, of the 36 supportive emails the club received, it is unknown how many of those were members. If we assume they were all members, using his own argument, it is seen that the change was supported by only 0.13%. A damn sight less than the quoted .8% against.Not only were members not consulted, but the imbalance of opinions voiced was ignored.

The new administration brought new hope, it would be disappointing to say the least if they were to make the same mistakes of not consulting or at least listening to its members and supporters.

 

[Fatcat08]

Fantastic work all involved. I fail to see how the club can proudly say that they have fulfilled the mandate they set to be united when a key part of our football club continues to be such a divisive symbol for our supporters. To maintain a strong symbol of an administration that was independently assessed to be unsuitable to lead the club and continually insulting to both members and supporters is astounding.

I hope that in reading these comments that Malcolm doesn't get the impression that the majority of good work the club has done lately in many facets of administration is being disregarded. It isn't. Much of the work by the club lately has been widely supported.

However all of those actions will fade into the background and be unfortunately quickly forgotten if the club does not address this issue. Whether it results in a change or not, if the current administration don't at least try to correct the injustice that was done in the complete lack of member consultation in this matter then unfortunately they will be seen as no better than the people they replaced.

Member numbers: 1111341 and 1111342

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the reputation of our current administration may well be defined by how they deal with this. There is now irrefutable proof that people aren't only invested in the issue, but are also very divided on it. Honestly, I see no other option but to address it head on. Hopefully Malcolm is able to do this and ensure our faith in those running our club is restored.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Good job guys, Now it's up to them to listen to the supporters.

 

[Rowallan Lion]

Brilliant work, guys!

The Brisbane Lions have done many great things of late to draw old and new fans of Fitzroy, the Bears & the Lions together, but this is one matter which continues to divide & frustrate.

It's time the members were consulted with, and kept informed of, matters which are obviously so close to our hearts.

Geoff Muir,
Brisbane Lions Member #1015034
Fitzroy Member #319

 

[jjami15]

An amazing, well thought out and informative piece of research. It disheartens me to think that we, the members,were supposed to be part of change in regards to our proud guernsey, but we weren't. I love my club, I love my team but I do not love the current guernsey. In my wholeheartedly opinion I believe that we are a laughing stock of the AFL family, that being all fans of all clubs with what our team wear out on to the field. I will never wear it and neither will my family. Proud member since 2010.

 

[Brisroy Fitzbane]

Although I had been a member previously, for a variety of reasons I was not a member in 2009 (despite attending some games and buying some merchandise).

I recall vividly at the time being personally insulted by the then CEO in relation to this matter. I was told my opinion did not count. I signed up promptly so that I could attend the AGM and have been a member ever since. That evening I was appalled at the manner in which Tony Kelly addressed the voices of members who had shown enough interest to attend. Even more disappointing to me was his attitude relating to the change. He mentioned that he subscribed to an American NFL theory of "if it ain't broke... We'll fix it anyway". I personally think this is not the direction we should be heading. Aussie Rules yeh... Not some Yankee game please. Also, when asked about the consultation process that occurred with Port Adelaide's new strip he mocked something to the effect of "So what...it just has a big V on it"

I, and I know many others have been very happy with the direction the club is traveling (on field and off)... However you can't keep us in the dark any longer! Members and Supporters of the Lions rate this as a very important issue... They also want to be included!!!

Let's lead by example as a united club! Let us be a Football Club! (Not just a corporation)

 

[notting18]

Great work to all involved. The current administration have done great things for the club and I hope they can continue that by fixing the biggest mistakes of the past.

 

[Sir G]

It's simple LISTEN TO ALL YOUR FANS!!!! Bring back our original jumper,* we won 3 premierships in that jumper.

 

[Monkey Daniel]

Great work people !!!!

Yes Lions admin and whoever else is responsible, it is our club !!! We are members, please consult us now for a change of guernsey in readiness for 2014. Even include the option/question on 2013 membership renewal forms to collect the data.

If it can be done on the internet for the Hall of Fame, then it can be for the Home and Away guernsey !!!

 

[wantok]

It's simple LISTEN TO ALL YOUR FANS!!!! Bring back our original jumper,**** we won 3 premierships in that jumper.

 

[Football Pope]

Top job guys, brilliant....Will there be a leak to the papers if it falls on deaf ears?

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Top job guys, brilliant....Will there be a leak to the papers if it falls on deaf ears?

We're hoping further action like that is not necessary.

 

[matwt73]

"The current design is divisive".

That says it all for me. Not that its bad, not that its universally loathed (clearly it isn't), to be honest I don't mind it. But it is divisive and a house or team or club divided...

Some genuine member focussed consultation is needed on this and promptly.

Member-1812964

 

[wantok]

Great work guys. This divisive jumper must go!