A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away – okay, it was Edinburgh, but it really was back in the day – I worked for an organisation which suddenly had an immediate need to provide vast amounts of promotional material.
By sheer coincidence, even as we were discussing how to lay our hands on the required material, in walked a salesman for a printing company that specialised in posters and flyers and other forms of film-flammery.
Less than an hour later he walked out with an order for £10,000 worth of his company’s goods. He was on commission of 15% I think, so he had probably earned his month’s wages inside of an hour. No wonder he was seen by me that evening staggering out of the excellent Jolly Judge pub off the Royal Mile, doing a fair impression of Billy Connolly’s famous rubber man.
My mind was irresistibly drawn back to that fortunate salesman at the weekend when I first glimpsed the new branding for the Guinness Six Nations.
‘Who got lucky here - is this some kind of a joke?’ I thought, before checking the calendar to see that it wasn’t April 1. ‘Who approved this facsimile of a Mars bar?’
I’m not suggesting the designers were themselves drunk when they came up with the brand, but perhaps the people in charge of the Six Nations had been on a long liquid lunch featuring gallons of the tournament sponsors’ delicious product when they approved this utter abomination, this miserable profanity, this detestable defilement of a cherished rugby concept – have I made my feelings clear yet?
Read more:
- SRU hiding behind digital barrier is bad news for our clubs
- Scotland 27 Australia 13: Tuipulotu's heroics highlight autumn success
Nobody is saying how much the design agency How Now Creative were paid for their work but I suspect it wasn’t cheap and they have done some excellent branding for other sports and had worked previously on the branding of the Women’s Six Nations. It’s just that I think the new branding is sending out a mixed message about the Six Nations.
The whole point about the Guinness Six Nations is its history, dating back to the Home International Championship of 1883, and it’s a tournament that attracts many fans and keeps them so that most of us are older people. But according to the blazers in charge of the competition “the launch of the new identity is intended to articulate the evolution of the Championship and modern game of rugby”.
Piffle and balderdash. Then they add: “The electrifying action and experiences that fans look forward to and enjoy every year, is expressed through the versatile new identity that has been informed by feedback from all corners of the game.“
Now I know they’re talking mince for what it is really all about is trying to get ‘yoof’ involved. Forgive my cynicism, but do they really think this change of image will get teenagers off sex and drugs and rock n’ roll and smartphones and onto the Six Nations? I’ve seen it suggested that it might be like the branding for the 2012 London Olympics which people came to appreciate – actually, many didn’t like it at any time.
You interfere in rugby history at your peril and I think this branding exercise is a step in the wrong direction.
Other mixed messages abound in our sport. Many pundits said that after their defeat at Murrayfield, the Wallabies would collapse against mighty Ireland. The men in gold not only didn’t collapse but came mighty close to beating the Irish. But no one’s pointing out how good that makes Scotland – we scored four tires to one, Ireland got three. Let’s keep it that way – we don’t want anybody out there realising that this current Scotland squad could be the real deal.
Likewise there was a lot of nonsense talked about the performances of Edinburgh Rugby and Glasgow Warriors at the weekend. Both sides had to battle, but both won so the message should not be one of disappointment at their play but encouragement for better days ahead.
Read more:
- Scottish football 3pm TV blackout set to be 'scrapped'
- Celtic fans generously support Glasgow food banks at Ross County match
The SRU’s AGM was indeed almost a non-event due to the fact that it was held remotely, and what kind of message did that send about democracy in the Union? Bad reputational damage, I’m afraid, but not as bad as what’s going to happen once Sheriff Mackie’s report into the last few years of financial finagling is published.
In the Autumn Series and in the many games I have watched so far this season there have been many mixed messages sent out by referees about hits to the head, the biggest cause of controversy in our sport and one which I predict will be the scandal of 2025 or 2026 once certain cases hit court.
World Rugby must act now and change the laws to protect players. Ban all tackling above say, the sternum, and enforce it with red cards. That would send a clear message to players, coaches and referees that head hits are simply unaccceptable.
