Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[Ice-Wolf]

Plenty of the conversations with Port fans in here seem eerily similar.

View attachment 1119673

More like conversations with you and AndyD

 

[BustedWing]

what legal case is there to be made when we say it wouldn't affect Collingwood's identity? Has there been proof of Melbournites accidentally purchasing Port memorabilia, mistaking it for Collingwood goods? How are the mighty gigantic Collingwood afraid of being mistaken for someone else wearing a completely different jumper design?

Brand value dilution. Its been explained a few times in this thread.

 

[Power Raid]

That's fine, but remember also those Port fans born in the 00s, 10s, 20s would associate all of the club's success with black, white and teal.

As a port supporter, I don't want Port to wear black and white or the prison bars in the AFL. I would like to go the other way and get the Port Adelaide Magpies to wear teal. One club.....one guernsey. If it's not PBs then it has to be teal.

I also respect Collingwood's history of black and white.


However:
1) The AFL has to look at it's white shorts policy and replace it with a proper home, away and clash guernsey for all sides. So a club wedded to any one guernsey should not remain valid if the AFL are serious.
2) Port should be able to wear prison bars on occasions but no more than twice a year. I'd prefer we don't waste it on the crows, as the port v tigers final looked great and reminiscent of the great Port v Glenelg clashes.
3) Collingwood has a great history but so does Port. We should value and respect each other's clubs and find a way that delivers that.
4) Eddie shouldn't whinge about Port not generating enough cash flow if Collingwood are actively denying Port of revenue.

 

[BustedWing]

More like conversations with you and AndyD

This thread is now 152 pages of Port fans having the bleeding obvious explained to them over and over.

Their response is to pretend its not been said yet, and cry about being oppressed.

Its tiresome.

 

[simba_]

Brand value dilution. Its been explained a few times in this thread.

the weakening of the power of a brand which may occur when a company has too many brands and spreads its resources too thinly in trying to support them all.

how does that apply? seems like it could apply to something more like Collingwood expanding into Netball and all that without being able to support it. not saying you can't, just seems to apply to within a brand as opposed to competition. seems like more of the fearful attitude, why are you afraid your brand is that weak it will be misidentified? everything i outlined shows how separate the brands are, people simply aren't stupid enough to get confused when things are so established and separate.

What is Brand Dilution?
Brand dilution is when brands are made less effective and less valuable through use on products that don’t fit the brand.

But how can a brand be excessively used? Doesn’t the brand just grow through use?

In our definition of brand, we discuss the preconceptions customer have with products that feature a brand, and that can increase sales and profit. That creates brand equity; there is a value to a brand because it is an asset generates future revenue profits.

Brand dilution or overuse of the brand is when those preconceptions are lost or changed. Brands come with expectations, and when a product or piece of media does not live up to those expectations, the customers’ minds adjust.

Put in another way, customers can be disappointed or confused when something does not live up to a brand’s promise, and that diminishes the power of the brand in their minds. It makes the brand less meaningful. This effect multiplied over many customers is brand dilution.

this is essentially saying what I am saying, Collingwood are fearful that their brand will be diluted by Port Adelaide. but this isn't because "people are so stupid they will buy a Port guernsey instead", like Eddie has brainwashed the Melbournites into parroting. the reason is this - Port Adelaide is its own massive army. we have all the numbers to back it up and the more people realise that, the more it hurts Collingwood. they have built their brand on the illusion that they are an absolutely gigantic army that always has 80,000 people at every home game - that is all marketing, not reality. they are afraid the reality of 1) their brand being smaller than the perception and 2) Port's brand being bigger than the perception will hurt them.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

This thread is now 152 pages of Port fans having the bleeding obvious explained to them over and over.

Their response is to pretend its not been said yet, and cry about being oppressed.

Its tiresome.

No you posting the same wall of text about "brand" and having to explain to you over an over why you aren't right in this context is tiresome.

It's like they've just covered branding to you at school and you need to regurgitate the text book to us without you understanding it.

 

[The Burger King]

I’d dare say racism devalues a brand a fair bit.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I’d dare say racism devalues a brand a fair bit.

Only to those on the outside, plays well with the supporter base.

But yeah as has been stated numerous times other teams playing in the same colours is well down on the list of things that could hurt Collingwood's brand and is something that happens in numerous major professional sporting leagues (close and open) across the world and has for decades.

 

[BustedWing]

the weakening of the power of a brand which may occur when a company has too many brands and spreads its resources too thinly in trying to support them all.

how does that apply? seems like it could apply to something more like Collingwood expanding into Netball and all that without being able to support it. not saying you can't, just seems to apply to within a brand as opposed to competition. seems like more of the fearful attitude, why are you afraid your brand is that weak it will be misidentified?

In this case it is the AFL (who owns the licences) entering another brand (PAFC) into the marketplace that negatively impacts the CFC market space, the Australian Footbal market.

Other terms that might be appropriate in this case include "Brand Identity", "Brand bonding" or "Brand misappropriation"

 

[BustedWing]

I’d dare say racism devalues a brand a fair bit.

Agree - not the best thing to have happened to/by the CFC branding wise.

 

[Lagooner]

Market segmentation.

QED.

 

[simba_]

In this case it is the AFL (who owns the licences) entering another brand (PAFC) into the marketplace that negatively impacts the CFC market space, the Australian Footbal market.

Other terms that might be appropriate in this case include "Brand Identity", "Brand bonding" or "Brand misappropriation"

as I have asked, why would such a 'massive gigantic' brand fear a 'much smaller' one? Do Man Utd fear Stoke? do they fear Joe Blogs buying a Stoke shirt instead of Rooney?

 

[Engimal v3]

I’d dare say racism devalues a brand a fair bit.

What's the relevance in this thread? Or are you saying because Eddie was racist, Port should wear prison bars?

Cheers in advance

 

[BustedWing]

as I have asked, why would such a 'massive gigantic' brand fear a 'much smaller' one? Do Man Utd fear Stoke? do they fear Joe Blogs buying a Stoke shirt instead of Rooney?

To use the term "fear" is far from accurate. Do you fear mosquitoes? Probably not. Them being around ruins your picnic - but it doesnt ruin your life.

So...you bring the bug spray along.

PAFC wearing prison bars wouldn't DESTROY Collingwood, but it would IMPACT their brand value in a negative way.

A part of Collingwoods brand identity is "the team that wears black and white stripes in the AFL". This has been leveraged and cultivated over decades in this league, and it is worth something.

Port, do not lay claim to the same thing in the AFL (they do in the SANFL, but not in the league they are in now).

Continualy using Premier league clubs, or NBA teams (or even A league teams) as counter examples do not lend weight to you argument. They, for many reasons, do not leverage their jersey imagery in the same way as Collingwood specifically, and the AFL generally, do.

There are lots of reasons for this.

 

[simba_]

PAFC wearing prison bars wouldn't DESTROY Collingwood, but it would IMPACT their brand value in a negative way.

a very, very small way

A part of Collingwoods brand identity is "the team that wears black and white stripes in the AFL". This has been leveraged and cultivated over decades in this league, and it is worth something.

this is inherently shallow and a meek argument. your identity is who you are as a club and what you do and say -which has been God awful lately, which is why your President distracted you into believing you simply stood for colors, as I have addressed.

Continualy using Premier league clubs, or NBA teams (or even A league teams) as counter examples do not lend weight to you argument. They, for many reasons, do not leverage their jersey imagery in the same way as Collingwood specifically, and the AFL generally, do.

the reasons: it is shallow and small-time to base your entire identity around 2 colors, lol. that is why, as I said, these global brands are 100x bigger than any AFL franchise will ever be - because of the very mentality you are displaying. you need to think beyond simply being "The Big Black And White Army of Victoria", that is too small time, as we are seeing right now. your ex-Prez called you the "Man United of Australia" yet your mentality is more like an Amateur local team scared of losing what they have.

 

[jle101]

Even though the comparisons to soccer aren't 100% analogous, they are valid to an extent. It's up to the consumer to properly discern what it is they are purchasing before they actually go ahead & make said purchase.

If someone wants to buy a Man Utd shirt & walks out of the store with a Liverpool FC shirt, then unfortunately that's a mistake on the consumer's behalf & comes down to just plain naivety and/or ignorance. It's a simple case of buyer beware. Same thing can be said if you went to the servo & picked up a can of Mother instead of that can of Monster you were after. Both brands are similar, but at the end of the day, you the consumer made the mistake of not paying close enough attention.

To put it bluntly, if you can't easily tell the difference between Man U/L'pool or C'wood/PA even after just a cursory glance, then you are simply a casual & it doesn't matter what item you are buying or what team you are "supporting". Any proper fan of the game knows what they're looking at instantly.

 

[BustedWing]

a very, very small way

Your opinion.

An incorrect one at that.

your identity is who you are as a club and what you do and say

It is that too, but it is also many other things, INCLUDING your visual imagery. Why you pretend otherwise is beyond me.

which has been God awful lately, which is why your President distracted you into believing you simply stood for colors, as I have addressed.

This is just a "Blah blah collingwood suck poo poo pants, so therefore you lose" argument - the sort of thing thats effective next to the monkey bars, but not particularly strong in the legal or business world.

it is shallow and small-time to base your entire identity around 2 colors

Entire identity? Sure...that would be a poor marketing strategy. SOME of your branding identity? Definitely a good idea, and something companies as par for the course.

these global brands are 100x bigger than any AFL franchise will ever be

Which goes some of the way to explaining their position on their jersey colours vs Collingwoods.

you need to think beyond simply being "The Big Black And White Army of Victoria"

Why? Its quite effective in the Australian marketplace.

your ex-Prez called you the "Man United of Australia"

Quite the showman - Eddie! No idea why you think this is relevant however.

yet your mentality is more like an Amateur local team scared of losing what they have.

You must always be conscious of protecting your brand - yes, I agree with that. This "amateur local team" insult is a little silly though.

 

[BustedWing]

Even though the comparisons to soccer aren't 100% analogous, they are valid to an extent. It's up to the consumer to properly discern what it is they are purchasing before they actually go ahead & make said purchase.

If someone wants to buy a Man Utd shirt & walks out of the store with a Liverpool FC shirt, then unfortunately that's a mistake on the consumer's behalf & comes down to just plain naivety and/or ignorance. It's a simple case of buyer beware. Same thing can be said if you went to the servo & picked up a can of Mother instead of that can of Monster you were after. Both brands are similar, but at the end of the day, you the consumer made the mistake of not paying close enough attention.

To put it bluntly, if you can't easily tell the difference between Man U/L'pool or C'wood/PA even after just a cursory glance, then you are simply a casual & it doesn't matter what item you are buying or what team you are "supporting". Any proper fan of the game knows what they're looking at instantly.

When it comes to sponsor alignment, as just one example, brand confusion and its effects are not limited to just the "proper fans".

 

[jle101]

When it comes to sponsor alignment, as just one example, brand confusion and its effects are not limited to just the "proper fans".

Would be hilarious if a company came along & sponsored Port instead of Collingwood by accident!

 

[BustedWing]

Would be hilarious if a company came along & sponsored Port instead of Collingwood by accident!

That’s.....not what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Would be hilarious if a company came along & sponsored Port instead of Collingwood by accident!

Like recruiting Mayne instead of Mundy

 

[simba_]

This is just a "Blah blah collingwood suck poo poo pants, so therefore you lose" argument - the sort of thing thats effective next to the monkey bars, but not particularly strong in the legal or business world.

i didn't bring that up as a cheap shot, it's to illustrate how the colors are actually at the very bottom of identity, the people driving the train set up all the perceptions before it comes to simple emblems, logos and guernseys.

the AFL narrative is exactly what the Collingwood faithful are parroting - you are all stupid. Aussies are simple, stupid, beer drinking bogans. you can't tell your arse from your face. we, the league, must break things down for you: there's a big bad team everyone loves to hate over there, there's a small hard-working team nobody fears over there, there's a has-been there and a never-was here, they all represent different peoples from different parts of Straya, they're all easy to tell apart, even YOU can tell them apart! when they set up the state franchises they made it as simple as possible. but what happens if all of a sudden the average idiot Joe Blogs finds out there's TWO black-and-white armies from TWO DIFFERENT STATES?! their head will explode!!!!!!

 

[jle101]

Another example I can think of, which admittedly is once again not completely applicable to this argument but does hold at least a little bit of water, is the case of Ferrari in F1.

They are by & large the most widely recognized & supported team in the field & their brand has not been diminished one iota by all of the teams which fielded red cars over the decades. Sure, some people in the past may have confused other teams which raced in red for Ferrari, but it has never been a problem for sponsors... ever.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

View attachment 1119645

I like the white shirt compromise- I’m in!

 

[BustedWing]

it's to illustrate how the colors are actually at the very bottom of identity

Says....who? You?

Its a part of the overall brand make up, and for some organisations, its more important that it is for others.

the AFL narrative is exactly what the Collingwood faithful are parroting - you are all stupid. Aussies are simple, stupid, beer drinking bogans. you can't tell your arse from your face. we, the league, must break things down for you: there's a big bad team everyone loves to hate over there, there's a small hard-working team nobody fears over there, there's a has-been there and a never-was here, they all represent different peoples from different parts of Straya, they're all easy to tell apart, even YOU can tell them apart!

You've gone off the deep end a little bit here.

when they set up the state franchises they made it as simple as possible. but what happens if all of a sudden the average idiot Joe Blogs finds out there's TWO black-and-white armies from TWO DIFFERENT STATES?! their head will explode!!!!!!

You're still not understanding are you...

Deliberately perhaps.