Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:57 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

:WALL:

Lots of people have said to me that they thought Harlequins was a Rugby Union side. This is not a bad thing, this is in fact a great thing. The Harlequins brand carries a huge amount of credibility. I then explaint to them that Harlequins have a Rugby League side now too and we share their ground. And that's it. Its hardly difficult to understand. The way we sell our game reflects this.

An advertisement for Harlequins Rugby League carries a hell of a lot more clout than an advertisement for London Broncos, which genuinely means nothing to people and then I could understand at them not having a clue at what you are talking about.

I don't want to start a whole load of arguments....but well, that's what 10 or 20 people that now know Quins have a league team from you telling them? Maybe if you went into Oxford Street like those religious nutters and harp on with a tanoy system about us you might reach more people....until then, I'm sorry...the mass population and rugby fans see Quins as a union team..in fact they are probably one of the oldest 4 union teams in the world.

I'm not against sticking with Quins and I'm also not against moving...but whatever is decided needs to be sensible and pushed thoroughly.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:02 pm  

jbuzza wrote:

We have failed to take advantage of the Harlequins name. However, if we are going to stay at the Stoop then I think the name should remain and we should make the best of having it.

Not that I'm 100% in favour of the potential change of name, but what is the advantage of the name, I do understand the bennies that the Stoop brings, but what advantage does the Harlequin FC brand bring beyond potential Harlequin double headers, instantly identifiable kits (as Harlequins, it is up for debate the trade off against readers not choosing to read on when they see who this London RLFC team is against ah this is not union, I'm not reading this), a named brand in the same way as the image but with an article headline.

We pay to play at the Stoop and if we stick with the name there I reckon we should do more with the union side, not less, because at the minute we seem to be winning a few fans because of the Stoop, not because of the name linked to the team that plays at the Stoop.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:05 pm  

The confusion is that we are that similar to Harlequins RU. It may seem stupid but its true. Harlequins RU are known for their quartered shirts and it isn't until you get close to tell the difference between the RU team and the RL team! I know Harlequins RU have the jester with legs and Quins RL have a legless jester but its that similar it becomes hard to differentiate.

You say people must be able to read but if you see Harlequins in big capital letters and RL at the end on an advertisement, unless you sat down and had a good look, you'd probably think "Ah, Harlequins. Union team." You mentioned RLFC meant nothing, neither does RL. I quite like the look of the Tag Rugby advertisements in London on the Tube, I've never properly stopped to look at one but they are eye-catching, well to me anyway.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:08 pm  

Hear Ye! wrote:

I don't want to start a whole load of arguments....but well, that's what 10 or 20 people that now know Quins have a league team from you telling them? Maybe if you went into Oxford Street like those religious nutters and harp on with a tanoy system about us you might reach more people....until then, I'm sorry...the mass population and rugby fans see Quins as a union team..in fact they are probably one of the oldest 4 union teams in the world.

I'm not against sticking with Quins and I'm also not against moving...but whatever is decided needs to be sensible and pushed thoroughly.

Yes, and the mass advertising is done in a way where the Rugby League is highlighted beyond a simple "Harlequins" message. It's not hidden in the small print. And I would say that word of mouth is the most important tool we have as a small club.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:09 pm  

Moe Lester wrote:

The confusion is that we are that similar to Harlequins RU. It may seem stupid but its true. Harlequins RU are known for their quartered shirts and it isn't until you get close to tell the difference between the RU team and the RL team! I know Harlequins RU have the jester with legs and Quins RL have a legless jester but its that similar it becomes hard to differentiate.

You say people must be able to read but if you see Harlequins in big capital letters and RL at the end on an advertisement, unless you sat down and had a good look, you'd probably think "Ah, Harlequins. Union team." You mentioned RLFC meant nothing, neither does RL. I quite like the look of the Tag Rugby advertisements in London on the Tube, I've never properly stopped to look at one but they are eye-catching, well to me anyway.

See previous post. See the promotions that the club has done. Rugby League is the main theme. Harlequins are the supporting element. Rugby League and London RLFC wouldn't be a draw. At least with Harlequins, people are drawn to the recognizable element of the message. I doubt people would simply dismiss anything to do with it because they instantly assume it is linked to the Union club. And this of course is irrelevant unless you discuss the channels and audiences that you are using to market the club.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:11 pm  

What's gonna happen to the 'Harlequins Rugby League Foundation' then?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:15 pm  

As far as I know, not a single Super League club uses "RLFC" anymore. Yet some people think it is a wonderful idea and we should adopt it as it would instantly associate us with Rugby League and people would easily pick this up. Madness.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:26 pm  

How about:

Loandon Hardlyeverwins?
London Let's Have another new name changers?
London New Name Version 5.0?
London Insert Stupid Animal Team Name?
Insert New Name Change RL?
New Name Every 3 Years RL?
London 1980ers?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:50 pm  

Londo06 wrote:

Not that I'm 100% in favour of the potential change of name, but what is the advantage of the name.

Lots of people have heard of Harlequins, they know it is rugby and recognise the distinctive colours. As such it has value as a brand.

We haven't exploited that and explained to people that Harlequins now means something different like rugby all year round or two kinds of rugby.

There would have been lots of ways of doing this. When people ask for Coke, the question is whether you want regular or diet.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:05 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

As far as I know, not a single Super League club uses "RLFC" anymore. Yet some people think it is a wonderful idea and we should adopt it as it would instantly associate us with Rugby League and people would easily pick this up. Madness.

Saints, Hull and Hull KR?
Most Wigan fans want to be rid of the Warriors tag and just be Wigan RLFC.
Dave, you are entitled to your opinion, but why all the name calling? Morons? Come on!
I live down south, and Harlequins is known as a Union club. Fact. The same would happen if you joined forces with Saracens, or Wasps, or London Irish or London Scottish.
Yes, you do some marketing, but you play in THEIR colours, in THEIR ground, using THEIR name. I have to get close up to spot the difference between a RU shirt and a RL shirt. When I see a Union shirt, I walk away as I have nothing to say to them. I even see Union shirts at your League home games!
A name change won't make you win more games, but it will stop you being associated as the poor relation.