: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:00 pm  

Alex BP' wrote:

We added the tag because of the introduction of Super League.

Have we benefited from the 'Warrior' tag? I can't think of any evidence of us doing so. In regards to 'Warriors' being a world wide name, well due to lack of silverware and a lack of achievments on the pitch our name hasn't really been circulated world wide. In fact I doubt those outside of the UK who heard of Wigan pre-1996 know that we have changed our name to 'Warriors' because we have not done anything to warrent being in the world media.

wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others.

i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them.

mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works.
Knights? Roosters?
same thing.

it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf?

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:02 pm  

Alex BP' wrote:

I added the poll after I made that post.

For some reason, most of those people who want to keep the tag aren't posting their reasons why?

I'll add another piece of annecdotal reasoning too Alex. I work in the music industry and a couple of years ago was working with a German production team. When they found out where I was from they asked did I support Wigan to which I, of course, replied yes. The response was 'must be good to have a team in the Premiership!'... The point is we live in a very rugby-centric community and it's very easy to think that the rest of the country/world follows suit. That's simply not the case. The Warriors tag gives us an extra level of branding that further differentiates us from the football team. Let's face it, if someone says they support the Yankies, The 49ers or the Redskins no one is in any doubt which team they're on about!

The simple fact is that no-one, including those voting to drop the tag, even thinks twice about using the Kangaroos, Kiwis or Lions tags; neither do they think twice about wearing gear emblazoned with the names and logos of American football/baseball teams that use branded nicknames. Hell, we don't even think twice about refering to the NRL teams as the Bulldogs, Sharks etc. It may take a couple generations but the same will be true of the Warriors tag.

The simple fact is that I know, from my own experience of introducing 2 new fans last season, that the Warriors tag does capture the imagination of new fans. I come from the Central Park era of Wigan R.L. but am not blind enough to see that things have changed since those days. As older fans we can choose to use the Warriors or not as personal taste dictates, but with so much more now vying for the attention of new/potential fans, anything that helps promote the club to this group is to be welcomed. After all, just like the younger players we are all currently getting behind, they are the future of our club!

[Pemps]

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:04 pm  

I'm not bothered either way. My lad knows us as Wigan Warriors but I know us as Wigan. The fact that we're called Wigan Warriors doesn't mean I have to refer to us as that.

It's doing no harm at all.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:10 pm  

Get it dropped ASAP in my opinion, its cheesy and pointless. We are Wigan R.L.F.C

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:11 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I'm not bothered either way. My lad knows us as Wigan Warriors but I know us as Wigan. The fact that we're called Wigan Warriors doesn't mean I have to refer to us as that.

It's doing no harm at all.

I share this view, i over heard some young lads chatting at the bus stop last week "are you going watching the warriors on saturday".

To the younger generation (our future) we are known as the Warriors, we shouldn't just change the name back just because the older generation want to or dont see it as tradition. We have moved on just as the game has.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:13 pm  

Alex BP' wrote:

But apart from Max, in what other way to way utilise our 'Warrior' name?

We incorporated the design into the finest shirt we have hever had!

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:15 pm  

wigan pie man wrote: wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others. i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them. mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works. Knights? Roosters? same thing. it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf? When you look at Wigan in pre-1996, two major trophies in 13 years is a lack of silverware, is it not? An appearence in a Grand Final is not silveware. If you ask anybody in NZ and Australia who the 'Warriors' are they'll tell you New Zealand Warriors. They see Wigan as 'Wigan' mainly because we made headlines when we were just 'Wigan'. Also, look at the following random Australian articles where not one of them mentions the name 'Warriors'. They simply do not relate us to the tag. http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... public_rss http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/ro ... 23277.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Wigan ... 00382.html In regards to merchendise, what merchendise does the name 'Warrior' help to sell/promote? The only thing I can remember that has been made with ''WARRIORS'' in mind was this:

wigan pie man wrote: wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others. i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them. mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works. Knights? Roosters? same thing. it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf? When you look at Wigan in pre-1996, two major trophies in 13 years is a lack of silverware, is it not? An appearence in a Grand Final is not silveware. If you ask anybody in NZ and Australia who the 'Warriors' are they'll tell you New Zealand Warriors. They see Wigan as 'Wigan' mainly because we made headlines when we were just 'Wigan'. Also, look at the following random Australian articles where not one of them mentions the name 'Warriors'. They simply do not relate us to the tag. http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... public_rss http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/ro ... 23277.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Wigan ... 00382.html In regards to merchendise, what merchendise does the name 'Warrior' help to sell/promote? The only thing I can remember that has been made with ''WARRIORS'' in mind was this:

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:15 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

I share this view, i over heard some young lads chatting at the bus stop last week "are you going watching the warriors on saturday".

To the younger generation (our future) we are known as the Warriors, we shouldn't just change the name back just because the older generation want to or dont see it as tradition. We have moved on just as the game has.

Nail and head Hogan!

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:23 pm  

In regards to merchendise, what merchendise does the name 'Warrior' help to sell/promote?

Any merchandise sold to younger fans for whom the Warriors tag is part of their club identity, Alex. You can't take things in isolation. The Warriors name is part of a greater whole. In fact I'll counter your argument by asking what merchandise does the 'Warrior' prevent from selling? It's a complete non-question.

Btw I'm not having a go at you...just answering your question.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:24 pm  

Vicki_w wrote:

I voted 'yes'. I think it works, especially with young children. The 'tags' that the clubs have adopted have been important in the SL era to give clubs easily recognisable brands. Regardless of tradition/history/whatever, the 'Warriors' brand is used effectively as a marketing tool and helps to get youngsters' attention.

I sat with 5-year old Miss JTB on Saturday night with the replay of the match on TV and when she spotted Mighty Max she was leaping around with excitement (and I don't think it was the Quavers). That can only be a good thing.

I see your point, but I was 9 when I first started watching Wigan; we weren't called Warriors then, and if we were, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. It was enough for me that I liked the sport - I was aware of "branding", due to the coverage of American Football on Channel 4, but it never occurred to me that we should do the same, and I certainly didn't develop an affiliation to any Gridiron teams because of it. This is despite the fact I actually quite like American Football.

The Mighty Max point - we can have a mascot without being called 'Warriors". Can't we?