Its weird seeing people get offended by people being offended of a team nickname. Plus, Simms does AFC games.

(08-21-2014 11:33 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Its weird seeing people get offended by people being offended of a team nickname. Plus, Simms does AFC games.

This post just made my day.

(08-19-2014 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 08:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 07:08 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh and don't forget the Dolphins, Bears, oh and the Texans!!! That racist Houston Texans organization! How dare they use me as a mascot?!?! (sarcasm)

I do think that Texans was a bad name choice. Narrowed the merchandise market.

It was actually a merchandising decision. Narrowed the target market, but made it damned popular within that target market.

This is a point I've tried to make before about people like Chick-Fil-A. They may make public stands that put off certain potential markets (although my lesbian friends are always stopping there), but if doing so increases brand loyalty among their best customers (evangelical Christians, make no mistake) it is still a good marketing decision.

By the way, latest Forbes listing of most valuable NFL franchises has Texans fifth, behind only Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots, by far the youngest team that high on the list. So I'd say the market research is working. One thing I remember about their marketing research was that Texas Rangers were much more popular statewide than Houston Astros, even though younger and at the time far less successful, because of the Texas name instead of the city name. Texans really do think of Texas as a whole 'nuther country. I remember being in San Antonio about that time and going into a place in Rivercenter that sold jerseys and other logo merchandise, and Rangers had probably 5-7 times as much shelf space as Astros.

(08-21-2014 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 08:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 07:08 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh and don't forget the Dolphins, Bears, oh and the Texans!!! That racist Houston Texans organization! How dare they use me as a mascot?!?! (sarcasm)

I do think that Texans was a bad name choice. Narrowed the merchandise market.

It was actually a merchandising decision. Narrowed the target market, but made it damned popular within that target market.

This is a point I've tried to make before about people like Chick-Fil-A. They may make public stands that put off certain potential markets (although my lesbian friends are always stopping there), but if doing so increases brand loyalty among their best customers (evangelical Christians, make no mistake) it is still a good marketing decision.

By the way, latest Forbes listing of most valuable NFL franchises has Texans fifth, behind only Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots, by far the youngest team that high on the list. So I'd say the market research is working. One thing I remember about their marketing research was that Texas Rangers were much more popular statewide than Houston Astros, even though younger and at the time far less successful, because of the Texas name instead of the city name. Texans really do think of Texas as a whole 'nuther country. I remember being in San Antonio about that time and going into a place in Rivercenter that sold jerseys and other logo merchandise, and Rangers had probably 5-7 times as much shelf space as Astros.

My point is that the Houston Texans have narrowed their market to people in or from Texas. I'm from Arkansas. Why would I ever buy a jersey that states I'm a Texan?

(08-21-2014 04:01 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 08:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 07:08 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh and don't forget the Dolphins, Bears, oh and the Texans!!! That racist Houston Texans organization! How dare they use me as a mascot?!?! (sarcasm)

I do think that Texans was a bad name choice. Narrowed the merchandise market.

It was actually a merchandising decision. Narrowed the target market, but made it damned popular within that target market.

This is a point I've tried to make before about people like Chick-Fil-A. They may make public stands that put off certain potential markets (although my lesbian friends are always stopping there), but if doing so increases brand loyalty among their best customers (evangelical Christians, make no mistake) it is still a good marketing decision.

By the way, latest Forbes listing of most valuable NFL franchises has Texans fifth, behind only Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots, by far the youngest team that high on the list. So I'd say the market research is working. One thing I remember about their marketing research was that Texas Rangers were much more popular statewide than Houston Astros, even though younger and at the time far less successful, because of the Texas name instead of the city name. Texans really do think of Texas as a whole 'nuther country. I remember being in San Antonio about that time and going into a place in Rivercenter that sold jerseys and other logo merchandise, and Rangers had probably 5-7 times as much shelf space as Astros.

My point is that the Houston Texans have narrowed their market to people in or from Texas. I'm from Arkansas. Why would I ever buy a jersey that states I'm a Texan?

For the same reason that people that aren't from DC buy jerseys that states they are Redskins

(08-21-2014 04:01 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 08:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 07:08 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh and don't forget the Dolphins, Bears, oh and the Texans!!! That racist Houston Texans organization! How dare they use me as a mascot?!?! (sarcasm)

I do think that Texans was a bad name choice. Narrowed the merchandise market.

It was actually a merchandising decision. Narrowed the target market, but made it damned popular within that target market.

This is a point I've tried to make before about people like Chick-Fil-A. They may make public stands that put off certain potential markets (although my lesbian friends are always stopping there), but if doing so increases brand loyalty among their best customers (evangelical Christians, make no mistake) it is still a good marketing decision.

By the way, latest Forbes listing of most valuable NFL franchises has Texans fifth, behind only Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots, by far the youngest team that high on the list. So I'd say the market research is working. One thing I remember about their marketing research was that Texas Rangers were much more popular statewide than Houston Astros, even though younger and at the time far less successful, because of the Texas name instead of the city name. Texans really do think of Texas as a whole 'nuther country. I remember being in San Antonio about that time and going into a place in Rivercenter that sold jerseys and other logo merchandise, and Rangers had probably 5-7 times as much shelf space as Astros.

My point is that the Houston Texans have narrowed their market to people in or from Texas. I'm from Arkansas. Why would I ever buy a jersey that states I'm a Texan?

Because you want a big blue and red Bull on your chest?

(08-21-2014 04:01 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 08:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-19-2014 07:08 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh and don't forget the Dolphins, Bears, oh and the Texans!!! That racist Houston Texans organization! How dare they use me as a mascot?!?! (sarcasm)

I do think that Texans was a bad name choice. Narrowed the merchandise market.

It was actually a merchandising decision. Narrowed the target market, but made it damned popular within that target market.

This is a point I've tried to make before about people like Chick-Fil-A. They may make public stands that put off certain potential markets (although my lesbian friends are always stopping there), but if doing so increases brand loyalty among their best customers (evangelical Christians, make no mistake) it is still a good marketing decision.

By the way, latest Forbes listing of most valuable NFL franchises has Texans fifth, behind only Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots, by far the youngest team that high on the list. So I'd say the market research is working. One thing I remember about their marketing research was that Texas Rangers were much more popular statewide than Houston Astros, even though younger and at the time far less successful, because of the Texas name instead of the city name. Texans really do think of Texas as a whole 'nuther country. I remember being in San Antonio about that time and going into a place in Rivercenter that sold jerseys and other logo merchandise, and Rangers had probably 5-7 times as much shelf space as Astros.

My point is that the Houston Texans have narrowed their market to people in or from Texas. I'm from Arkansas. Why would I ever buy a jersey that states I'm a Texan?

Yes, they have. And their market research told them they could do just fine doing that. They are basically the favorite team of every Texan who doesn't like the Cowboys. And that's a huge market. And they are obviously doing just fine with it.

Was watching Olbermann tonight, and he claims that the momentum to a name change is growing. He listed all the media personalities and outlets who refuse to call the team the Redskins. He convieniently omitted Coach Ditka from that list, I wonder why?

As I've said before NOBODY will be saying the word "Redskin" come playoff time.

(08-23-2014 11:55 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  As I've said before NOBODY will be saying the word "Redskin" come playoff time.

It's that damned White Guilt!!!!!!! Gets ya everytime!!!!!!!