Tony Rowe - Shouting To Himself
Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2024 9:58 am
The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://www.rugbyrebels.co.uk/
It showsExeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer
Yeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:20 amIt showsExeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer
I mean I'd take that over this any day.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:34 amYeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:20 amIt showsExeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer
Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.
Puja
Interesting comment, Puja. Without getting into a pro/anti debate about Exeter or Rowe, I just found myself thinking about why NEW fans of the game would take to a club - leaving aside tradition, geography, bias etc.
Absolutely agree - they should be everyone's favourite second team and indeed were for a while. As with so many of English rugby's problems, it started with the Saracens salary cap scandal. Rowe's graceless public responses to that lost a chunk of goodwill and then it's been PR blunder after blunder since then, ironically fuelled by him being upset that they're not better liked.Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 11:55 amInteresting comment, Puja. Without getting into a pro/anti debate about Exeter or Rowe, I just found myself thinking about why NEW fans of the game would take to a club - leaving aside tradition, geography, bias etc.
Some reasons (in no particular order) might be:
Real pitch (i.e. NOT artificial).
Nice 'rugby' ground - i.e. not shared with football.
Underdog background.
Personable, English DoR with good TV manner.
Good youth policy/record.
Solid financial structure.
Good EQP base.
Good connection with city/community.
Good area support base.
Strong university connection.
Might it mean that Exeter SHOULD be easier to sell than one or two others? It does rather make your point, I suppose!
Damning with faint praise, but your point is a good one. No Rowe, no Exeter and then there were 9. I may not care for him, but he is a vital part of rugby in this country and I have to respect what he's done and his commitment.twitchy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 11:44 amI mean I'd take that over this any day.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 10:34 amYeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."
Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.
Puja
![]()
Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.
Played right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 2:16 pmOh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.
That persistent nonsense is inexcusable. Simply should not still be happening.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:00 pmPlayed right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 2:16 pmOh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.
As it is, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the absolute bare minimum, complaining all the way, and they're still playing that damned Cowboys and Indians chant over the PA at games.
Puja
At the time, a really good 'ideas' man could have come up with a new West Country/Devon image that took them right away from it. The marketing potential - new kit, new image, new name, new era . . . - was there to be grabbed. Tradition does rugby no favours sometimes. The game is now professional. Even Leicester have numbers on their shirts now!morepork wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:14 pmThat persistent nonsense is inexcusable. Simply should not still be happening.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:00 pmPlayed right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 2:16 pm
Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.
As it is, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the absolute bare minimum, complaining all the way, and they're still playing that damned Cowboys and Indians chant over the PA at games.
Puja
They should have acknowledged their unique regionality and rebranded themselves The Wurzels when they had the chance; and replaced that silly feathered head dress logo with a good honest turnip.Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2024 2:16 pmOh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.
I understand that view but it's just the wrong approach in today's PR environment, IMO. It may make a few diehards happy but it does not sell the club in a modern way. Arguing that things should not be as they are won't work. The club could have been cleverer, basically.Crash Hamster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:53 pm I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.
Why would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?Crash Hamster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:53 pm I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.
Obviously, it's the Chiefs who have cocked a snook, rather than me personally, but I might suggest because not everyone cares about cultural appropriation. You can find it terrible if you like, I find it amusing.morepork wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 7:10 pmWhy would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?Crash Hamster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:53 pm I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.
Crash Hamster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 8:48 pmObviously, it's the Chiefs who have cocked a snook, rather than me personally, but I might suggest because not everyone cares about cultural appropriation. You can find it terrible if you like, I find it amusing.morepork wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 7:10 pmWhy would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?Crash Hamster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:53 pm I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.
155,000 people die each day and no-one gives each person a second's thought. If you wish to die on the hill of 'Chiefs are evil for previously having had a badge which depicts someone from another culture' crack on. Don't forget to be consistent in your dislike for all forms of cultural appropriation by any and all cultures, though...