BFA Logo Poll

Foosball chat / key issues and discussion

We need a new logo

YES
30
75%
NO
10
25%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
nfm24
Posts: 1426
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:12 pm
Real Name: Neil Morrison
Location: Leeds
Contact:

Post by nfm24 » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:25 pm

Rob Davey wrote:we need to come up with many ideas and plans of how to get people to come and play foos. And then put those plans into action.
Correct, and tht is exactly what we have been doing on the grass roots group, and that is exactly why this issue came up.
Boris wrote:The 'table football' options were not split, but were eliminated one by one until there was a straight fight at the end between the two most popular options, then the winner was ratified by a substantial majority.
Four names with TF in, one name with foosball in. Hardly a fair vote, as was discussed at the meeting.

Any winner would have been ratified by a majority because the alternative was leaving the name as the ridiculous "Bar Football Association" (can anyone explain why that was chosen in the first place ?).

In any case, which is a more important indicator : a vote held by around 50 people who are already known enthusiasts of the game, or the fact that MILLIONS of people know what TF is, and hardly any know what foosball is.
Boris wrote:Putting a sticker over the old logo would look daft and amateurish, so a logo change is not a no-cost option.
Why not have a different logo for promotional literature / business cards to send to the grass roots venues, and for contacting sponsors etc? That's where a logo and a name needs to add value and professionalism to the organisation... nobody outside the elite scene is going to see the national team kit.  Keeping the current logo (and name) is not a no-lose option.
DaveZ wrote:But as I recall the arguments that won the day at the time for foosball were: [...] as an essentially made up word foosball is alien to all cultures and hence more readily adoptable
And you're seriously arguing that is a <i>positive</i> for using "foosball" ??!!  The fact that the word is 'alien', and nobody knows what it means?  That's positive?
DaveZ wrote:foosball [...] most likely candidate for a single global term
ITSF don't agree with you there.
Image

Rob Davey
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:36 pm
Real Name: Rob Davey
Location: Bristol

Post by Rob Davey » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:30 pm

I am in the grass roots forum so know what you are quoting.

It does not matter whether you call foos or table football. It doesn't matter a toss.

Don't worry or spend precious energy on name changes or logo changes.

You have to work out how to get people to come and play foosball. Once they start playing they won't worry what it's called.

Advertising on the internet will not get people playing foosball.

Flashing business cards around will not get people playing foosball.

What will get them interested is something like demos or challenge events.

Focus on that and put up signs saying table football if you wish - you can still be a member of the Bristish FOOSBALL Association and so can all the new players.

Rob

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Post by davez » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:04 pm

nfm24 wrote:
DaveZ wrote:foosball [...] most likely candidate for a single global term
ITSF don't agree with you there.
Neil,

I was recalling the arguments raised in favour of the term "foosball" which were made in 2003, well before the existence of the ITSF, and I already pointed out in my post above that the ITSF have since confounded this choice.

If we were to attempt to reapply those sentiments today, the term "table soccer" would probably win at least a couple of those arguments, even though it was a term invented in the USA.
Last edited by davez on Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Post by davez » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:04 pm

Rob,

Agree 100% again. It matters not what the organisation is called provided it does its job well. I bet we can all think of organisations that are so well known and do such a good job that nobody minds that their names are a bit odd. Eg Amnesty International, The Royal Automobile Club. I mean who the hell says "Oh hello, can you help me, my automobile just broke down". You don't care what RAC stands for when you break down. In fact I cannot even find what RAC stands for on their website. Bet you can think of better examples.

User avatar
nfm24
Posts: 1426
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:12 pm
Real Name: Neil Morrison
Location: Leeds
Contact:

Post by nfm24 » Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:27 am

davez wrote:I was recalling the arguments raised in favour of the term "foosball" which were made in 2003, well before the existence of the ITSF,
I know, and I am emphasizing that what little credibility those arguments had at the time has since dissipated.

Your RAC example is missing the point. Someone phoning the RAC already knows what they do, they fix/tow broken-down cars, otherwise they wouldn't be phoning them. So the name or logo of RAC does not need to explain anything. The BFA is not in that happy position.
davez wrote:It matters not what the organisation is called provided it does its job well.
This is an argument in favour of changing the name, as it is clear that changing to something with "table football" in it makes it easier for the organisation to do its job.
Image

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Post by davez » Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:44 am

You mean "Table soccer" don't you?

The Doctor
BFA Chairman
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:41 pm
Real Name: Andrei Russell-Gebbett
Location: London

Post by The Doctor » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:33 am

"The RAC was originally formed in 1897 as the associate section of the Royal Automobile Club to give members roadside assistance" (from Wikipedia) - this explains the name: it was the best name to have, given that it was an extension of the Club and every member of the club would recognise and trust it. It was sold by the club in 1999. The reasons for keeping the name are obvious.

'Amnesty' means a general pardon. The organisation was established by an English lawyer "when he read of two Portuguese students who had been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for having drunk a toast to liberty." (Wiki) I don't see how the name could be any more appropriate or misleading, given that Amnesty dedicate their time to supporting human rights/putting pressure on foreign governments to adjust their attitude to their and others' citizens' acts.

IMHO the reasons for changing to 'table football' are stronger than those for keeping 'foosball.' We don't have a strong present brand identity, as the RAC or Amnesty have. A name change will not confuse or alienate present or potential members of the organisation. In fact, a name change will be less confusing for potential members and the public at large, as we will be replacing a term that Joe and Joanne Bloggs never use with one that they do.

The name/logo are part of the carrot that we use to attract people to the game or, if they already play, to get involved with our organisation. That we aim for a fixed brand already (that is, the logo and name are the same whether on the website, on tracksuits etc.) tells you that the value of a logo/name is already assumed.

To all intents and purposes, the profile of the BFA is so low amongst the general public that this could easily be approached as an exercise in launching a brand, not a re-branding. If so, using a term that confuses more than it informs is perverse.*

I ask again: 'Why did Nintendo choose to call their game 'Table Football'?

* Even if Josh Public knows what 'foosball' means, he is still liable to ask himself the question of us, 'Why have they not called it 'table-football'? This is not a good thing.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Post by Richard » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:46 am

From memory, I voted for Table Football and against the ratification of British Foosball Association. I would change it to BTFA now given the choice. HOWEVER, any debate can only be had at an AGM so this is a slightly pointless discussino AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I do think Boris is correct and Neil incorrect re the argument about the selection of the name - the other table football names were all eliminated by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice procedure (you could argue that because there were 4 table football choices there should have been 4 choices, but you get my point that it was not as if it was a straight vote and tf lost by being split):

The Doctor
BFA Chairman
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:41 pm
Real Name: Andrei Russell-Gebbett
Location: London

Post by The Doctor » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:54 am

Richard wrote:From memory, I voted for Table Football and against the ratification of British Foosball Association. I would change it to BTFA now given the choice. HOWEVER, any debate can only be had at an AGM so this is a slightly pointless discussino AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
Aye, that's true. It's only come up because in our grass roots land, we have come up against these issues, and that these changes are best made all at once. That is, time and effort can be saved by creating both a new logo (which obv would benefit from change and is required for the bumf that will be going out with the promotional push that is in the offing) and a new name concurrently.

As it is, waiting for the AGM will mean that either literature going out will subsequently be out of date or that we stay with the less-than-ideal present situation. Tis a pity that there isn't more flexibility: for instance, by using a more controlled version of online polls, decisions could be made more quickly and be more representative (how many people turn up to the AGM?!). I guess that such a change would have to be approved at the AGM, tho!  :lol:

Bear in mind that these debates are actually not pointless, as they give everybody an opportunity to think about the issues, even if decisions that relate to them are delayed. They may also motivate people to attend the AGM, as they are made aware of what the live issues may be and their own attitude towards them.

User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:50 am
Real Name: Charles Allen

Post by Chaz » Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:43 am

Foos confuses non-foosers. Foosers however call it foos - it's a nickname really. I think I would agree with Richard and go for BTFA (and within Britain just TFA).
.

User avatar
robmoss2k
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:36 pm
Real Name: Robert Moss
Location: Bolton
Contact:

Post by robmoss2k » Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:51 am

The Doctor wrote:I ask again: 'Why did Nintendo choose to call their game 'Table Football'?
Because they have a multimillion pound marketing budget and it's the name they decided would be best after ploughing money we can only dream of into market research. Why is this discussion even happening? Why don't we just change it at the AGM and let the change happen slowly, just getting the new logo on new stuff?
Image

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Post by Richard » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:46 am

Why does a grass-roots initiative need to rebrand the BFA? Why can the BFA not have its own grassroots subsection, with its own logo and name etc? Why does one branding have to fit it all?

Surely the best thing is to go for something really noob focussed and then allow education over a period of time. FOR EXAMPLE you would not want noobs posting on this forum with all the flaming. So having a separate site, albeit linked clearly (a bit like "serious players see the ITSF sanctioned main part of the organisation")

Far better, in my opinion, for Andrei et al to just push ahead with whatever branding/name/structure/web etc they think is required, rather than waste their time and effort convincing the dinosaurs that inhabit the tops of the rankings to lose their loved foos. Just set this up, and either have it as a (autonomous) sub-part of the BFA or run entirely separately. One size does not have to fit all.

The Doctor
BFA Chairman
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:41 pm
Real Name: Andrei Russell-Gebbett
Location: London

Post by The Doctor » Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:41 pm

Richard wrote:Why does a grass-roots initiative need to rebrand the BFA? Why can the BFA not have its own grassroots subsection, with its own logo and name etc? Why does one branding have to fit it all?

Surely the best thing is to go for something really noob focussed and then allow education over a period of time. FOR EXAMPLE you would not want noobs posting on this forum with all the flaming. So having a separate site, albeit linked clearly (a bit like "serious players see the ITSF sanctioned main part of the organisation") Just set this up, and either have it as a (autonomous) sub-part of the BFA or run entirely separately. One size does not have to fit all.
Interesting idea!

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Messiah » Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:52 pm

And move all the local events sections of the forum into this area.
Still going....

User avatar
nfm24
Posts: 1426
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:12 pm
Real Name: Neil Morrison
Location: Leeds
Contact:

Post by nfm24 » Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:02 pm

Richard wrote:Why does a grass-roots initiative need to rebrand the BFA? Why can the BFA not have its own grassroots subsection, with its own logo and name etc? Why does one branding have to fit it all?
This is a bit like what I suggested before, about the organization having two names, although what you suggested is more like an independent organization.  The logo and name only adds value in attracting noobs, and in presenting a professional image for sponsors and industry people etc.  It doesn't need to do anything for the already-hooked people, so I don't see why it can't be changed overall (apart from the obvious inertia).
Image

User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:50 am
Real Name: Charles Allen

Post by Chaz » Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:41 pm

It can be sub-divisional. I don't see why you need to pretend you're a different organisation by using a different name if you're actually going to be a subset of the same organisation.

Why not have something like "BFA Grassroots" with a similar but not identical theming.
.

Post Reply