Danny Snyder Forces The Washington Post to Rename “Redskins Insider” to “Football Insider”

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Is there water under the bridge?

troubled water

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How about a poll that says:

"Reads sensational thread headline"
"Reads complete story, and doesn't jump off a bridge"

Read it and still think Snyder is in the wrong. If this was an isolated incident then fine, but this is coming off the heels of numerous public screw ups that are making us look like a punch line time and time again. The fact that they would even ask for a name change to begin with is beyond me.

On top of that I have not seen Capitals Inside or Wizards Insider "asked" to change their names so why should "Redskins Insider" be forced to change other then for their lack of inside information?

[Ruhskins]

I don't see how this makes the Redskins look like a bad organization, they are doing what any other big corporation would do with a brand name.

The following things make (or have made) the Redskins a punch line:
- Getting blasted by the Eagles on Monday Night
- The season-long Haynesworth circus
- Giving up draft picks to rent McNabb for not even a season
- Just about anything Vinny Cerrato did
- Etc., etc., etc.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Read it and still think Snyder is in the wrong. If this was an isolated incident then fine, but this is coming off the heels of numerous public screw ups that are making us look like a punch line time and time again. The fact that they would even ask for a name change to begin with is beyond me.

On top of that I have not seen Capitals Inside or Wizards Insider "asked" to change their names so why should "Redskins Insider" be forced to change other then for their lack of inside information?

Agreed. Bad timing and not an isolated incident.

-hatas gonna hate

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Read it and still think Snyder is in the wrong. If this was an isolated incident then fine, but this is coming off the heels of numerous public screw ups that are making us look like a punch line time and time again. The fact that they would even ask for a name change to begin with is beyond me.

On top of that I have not seen Capitals Inside or Wizards Insider "asked" to change their names so why should "Redskins Insider" be forced to change other then for their lack of inside information?

Well

1. Asking for a name change is not the same as forcing
2. They have the right to ask, largely due to contractual obligations they have with other organizations
3. How do we know this hasn't been brought up before
4. It's not uncommon at all for teams and leagues to do this, and it's also not uncommon for the primary instigator in this matter to be the media partner that's paid a lot of money to them (as I mentioned from personal experience)
5. He's not the first Redskins owner to do this
6. Because you haven't seen Capitals Insider or Wizards Insider doesn't mean you should a) assume they haven't or b) think they have the same contractual obligations to other entities to do so.

This isn't a huge deal, in my opinion. But I get it, we all hate Snyder. He's an evil, awful man no matter what he does because he ruined a team that last won a Super Bowl nearly 10 years before he even bought the team. Whatever, that's fine. I'd bet my membership here that more people here than not would be hated by Skins fans too if they owned the team.

[diehard]

If it were your name and/or brand, you'd feel differently.

[Daseal]

Yeah, just another excuse for people to bash Snyder. I don't think this guy can do anything right as far as the public is concerned.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well

1. Asking for a name change is not the same as forcing
2. They have the right to ask, largely due to contractual obligations they have with other organizations
3. How do we know this hasn't been brought up before
4. It's not uncommon at all for teams and leagues to do this, and it's also not uncommon for the primary instigator in this matter to be the media partner that's paid a lot of money to them (as I mentioned from personal experience)
5. He's not the first Redskins owner to do this
6. Because you haven't seen Capitals Insider or Wizards Insider doesn't mean you should a) assume they haven't or b) think they have the same contractual obligations to other entities to do so.

This isn't a huge deal, in my opinion. But I get it, we all hate Snyder. He's an evil, awful man no matter what he does because he ruined a team that last won a Super Bowl nearly 10 years before he even bought the team. Whatever, that's fine. I'd bet my membership here that more people here than not would be hated by Skins fans too if they owned the team.

SS, you are right that this is not a huge deal. You are right that there are many aspects of the situation unknown to us. You are right that such acts of brand protection are not uncommon.

However, the problem here is perception. When you
a) sue grandmas in a recession
b) sue very minor newspapers for minor things
c) strong arm a newspaper column which is offering your team free advertising through the use of the name

...then you look like a very petty, small-minded person.

I don't hate Snyder. But I do think he can be a petty person.

[MTK]

It's his brand, he can do whatever he wants with it.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

It's his brand, he can do whatever he wants with it.

I don't disagree with that at all.

But if he chooses to do petty things with his brand then he's going to come across as petty.

And, as Slingin' Sammy said, the timing here is not very good.

[MTK]

I wouldn't call protecting your brand petty but that's just me.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I wouldn't call protecting your brand petty but that's just me.

To me the issue is not whether he protects his brand (anyone in his shoes would do so sometimes), but how he protects his brand. But that's just me.

[MTK]

How else can he do it though?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Lotus

SS, you are right that this is not a huge deal. You are right that there are many aspects of the situation unknown to us. You are right that such acts of brand protection are not uncommon.

However, the problem here is perception. When you
a) sue grandmas in a recession
b) sue very minor newspapers for minor things
c) strong arm a newspaper column which is offering your team free advertising through the use of the name

...then you look like a very petty, small-minded person.

I don't hate Snyder. But I do think he can be a petty person.

Perception seems to be the key word here.

[MTK]

And the perpection will always be that Snyder is evil. I get it, not a big fan of him myself but a lot of these things are blown out of proportion.