|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 8, 2014 16:15:04 GMT 1
All
As you will have seen the SP have been given licence to go away and develop a way forward to undertake a survey of all fans to prove a majority of fans want a new badge.
Now this opens up a LOT of questions, a LOT.
As we have a rep on the SP (me) i want to canvas the whole fan base at this initial stage about what you would and would not want from a survey? How would you see it working, who should we ask
Some of the key initial questions are
Who do we interview/survey - ST holders, everyone at a match day, include exiles, part time fans (how do you define this!), just people on the clubs database?
What kind of interview – Online Survey (with fan numbers), Match day, by post, email…..
What question should be asked – the clarity of the question must be key
Do we include further question about the type of badge that people might want. While we have the opportunity to do a wide ranging survey is it worth asking people what they might prefer instead so an idea can be given as to what we may be moving towards
What is a majority – What do you think is a majority – more than half the home gate, more than half the people surveyed, more than half of the people on the clubs database?
What do you want the club to bring to the survey/interviews.
Who should receive the votes/surveys to count – club/SP/independent body?
Should only fans with a “fan number” be included – this will prove they are fans, but discount lots of our part time fans who’s views are also important.
How should this survey be promoted – Should the message be spread far and wide or focused on the individuals who we want to ask.
Should pressure groups (BBL) be heavily involved – The club would question the base of the survey if they were I would guess. I’m not making a judgement but just trying to promote debate on it.
Should this be one open survey or should existing groups (OSC, Superblues, Trust) be allowed to undertake there own internal surveys to build into the overall results.
Those are just a few questions of the top of my head we are going to need to address.
Once we get these sorted the chat becomes about logistics, something I feel as a group B and A can bring something to, we have many helpers and doers on here, who would be needed. Even at this stage if your interested in helping let me know and I can keep you in mind for when we start to get an idea of who out there is willing to give there time on a match day to help do the survey.
Anything you have to say on the matter, and how you think we should proceed is welcome. This is something trusted to the SP and in my view the Sp utterly represents the fanbase, so this is the starting place (for B and A) to think about what we want from the survey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 16:26:41 GMT 1
I think this should be done based on the club's supporters database. That way, nobody can complain about who is being canvassed, and anyone who wants a say but isn't on the database can sign up to do so. As for the question(s), I think there need to be a few. Do people feel the current badge is a suitable representation of the club? Would they prefer a more traditional crest? What are the three key things a crest should be? etc etc. I think the key question should be simple: Do you want to see a new crest for STFC? Yes, No, Not bothered I do also agree that we should ask for opinions on what they would like to see included on a new crest. Loggerheads, shrew, river loop etc. I don't see why should not be heavily involved, they are all fans afterall. I believe all responses should be collated by an independent body - no idea who, but it would avoid any arguments on results. I would perhaps suggest emailing everyone on the database a survey with the questions on, have some available at turnstiles etc to try and reach as many people as possible. Most important issue is the "majority" for me. What constitutes that majority will take some discussion, I am sure, but that needs to be crystal clear before any survey takes place.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 8, 2014 16:35:02 GMT 1
Great Stuff Sam, just what I was looking for. An email shot is good, but will probs not yield the responses in numbers for it to ever constitute a majority. Hence why it needs to be done on a match day.
The more I think about it, if the club can get St ready for the open day, that might be the first chance to deal with ST holders and people with fans numbers. You have the major database, and each time you speak to a fan on it you cross them off. if that's at open day, match day or email then it does not really matter?
|
|
|
Post by Bring Back The Loggerheads on Apr 8, 2014 16:37:23 GMT 1
A meeting outside of the Supporters Parliament is needed, preferably within the next couple of weeks, where we can thrash out any proposals to take a along to a Supporters Parliment meeting specifically dedicated to the issue of the club badge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 16:43:30 GMT 1
Great Stuff Sam, just what I was looking for. An email shot is good, but will probs not yield the responses in numbers for it to ever constitute a majority. Hence why it needs to be done on a match day. The more I think about it, if the club can get St ready for the open day, that might be the first chance to deal with ST holders and people with fans numbers. You have the major database, and each time you speak to a fan on it you cross them off. if that's at open day, match day or email then it does not really matter? Email wouldn't be the only way of getting it out there, hence them being available at turnstiles and pubs etc. But, each completed form would have to have people's name and supporter number on it.
|
|
|
Post by atcham jack on Apr 8, 2014 17:17:15 GMT 1
i speak as an outsider, but i believe the board should be asked when the next rebrand can be afforded, consideration should be given to replacing the clipart badge with a traditional 3 loggerheads and a floreat salopia badge.
i would put up to 4 designs of shirt out to the fans to choose a favourite. my favourite would be blue and amber stripes or blue and amber quarters. both will sell well with the right badge. other souvenirs and regalia will sell very well too if branded correctly
i want the club to have a succesful shop and plenty of online items available. in short i want Shrewsbury Town fc to be a successful and profitable club. righting the wrongs of the last 7 years will be a step in the right direction. ringing tills should be what the club shop is all about. Floreat Salopia!
as for unusual rebranded items in the shop, items based on my 2 x 30 years old stfc "lucky" Teddy Bears would be a start as well as stfc, crib boards, dart flights, pens, lighters, scarves etc.FS
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Apr 9, 2014 7:17:44 GMT 1
I think this needs to be made fairly simple and done in stages...
First do what the club are questioning, establish that the majority of fans DO want to get rid of Clippy with a straight forward question (to be decided by committee )
once established that they do (hopefully) then move onto the next stage, what do the want to see on the club badge ...
|
|
|
Post by ipswichshrews on Apr 9, 2014 9:24:17 GMT 1
I feel that you need to reach out to as many as possible rather than limiting to the STH database by having an online and paper version of the same questions.
1.) Online version can be shared on message boards, shared between friends not linked to message boards or who are not on the ST database, shared on social media.
2.) Paper version to be used face to face on home and if possible away match days, copies provided with every programme - though this maybe a logistical issue; copies could be sent out to mailing lists connected to supporter groups such as super blues.
I would recommend an independent body (not necessary a football related organisation) to carry out and evaluate the research to avoid the questions being swayed by what we hope to achieve or not hope to achieve. There would also need to be some control to avoid people filling out the survey more than once – how I am not too sure, but an independent body could try to overcome this issue.
I would think by reaching out to more than just the STH database - you should hopefully have enough replies from a broad spectrum and thus a 2/3 majority would suffice in contributing to the re-branding of STFC.
Whatever the final outcome; we don’t want to create an impression that it was a ‘fix’ where no one had the chance to take part in the consultation and / or were pressured into answering in a certain way – and without being judge based on their answers.
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Apr 9, 2014 13:01:38 GMT 1
As we have had 7 seasons of our current badge, why not at the Peterboro game after 7 minutes, have a simple chant of "Stand up to change the badge", and see how many respond to the call?
Simple,cheap, immediate, and very visible way to establish the level of support for badge change.
(Gives folk time to spread the word - wouldn't attempt it for the Crewe game)
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 9, 2014 13:14:35 GMT 1
I like Monty's response. Good points there.
As for the majority, I would deem it to be more 'yes' than 'no' to the following question...
Do you want to see a new crest for STFC? Yes, No, Not bothered
But then I am unsure whether that would be acceptable. Its all about how we see the those who select 'not bothered' and those who aren't bothered to respond.
Regarding the database, is it just season ticket holders or everyone who has ever bought a match ticket? I thought it would be the latter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 15:15:06 GMT 1
I agree with Ipswichshrew.
The challenge is to get maximum outreach and total inclusion.
Just using the Clubs supporter database will not achieve this as it must be assumed that not everybody with a vested interest has a supporter number.
The idea that an independent organisation should facilitate this is a good idea. Maybe the Trust could look to their networks and see if another trust is willing to do this.
That the whole process needs to be transparent goes without saying.
|
|
|
Post by Bring Back The Loggerheads on Apr 9, 2014 15:50:00 GMT 1
If we are going to ask people whether they want change, would it not be better to be clear what exactly that change would be first? A better way of doing things would be to first decide upon an alternative, and then hold a vote as to whether that alternative should be adopted. For example:
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Apr 9, 2014 16:27:21 GMT 1
If we are going to ask people whether they want change, would it not be better to be clear what exactly that change would be first? A better way of doing things would be to first decide upon an alternative, and then hold a vote as to whether that alternative should be adopted. For example: The only problem with this is that you'd have to first decide on new designs for the badge , possibly vote on this, get it passed by STFC before you could then go to the masses to decide on the change..... if the club do re brand I think they'd want to be involved in the design of the new badge (could be fans designs like for shirts or they might ask the fans themselves what they want) the voting process once a selection of designs have been chosen, but they also need to know that there's a desire out their to change so I think that's the starting point because at the moment Martin for the club keeps doubting the desire to change from the majority of supporters.."
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Apr 9, 2014 17:15:11 GMT 1
I definitely think we should NOT have a "Not bovvered" option on the ballot, it should be a straight choice between clippy and a new badge. The reality is that the "Not bovvered" votes would count towards keeping the status quo. Let's keep it a straight fight between 3 Loggerheads versus Clarence the cross eyed lion. I know who I would bet on in a scrap. In terms of the who should participate, I understand the sentiment in wanting to widen the debate beyond the club's supporter database - but as soon as you do that all those options are open to abuse, with people copying entry forms or simply inventing personas(either online or on paper). My view would be to - Limit it to the clubs database (which includes anyone who has bought a ticket) Publicise the vote and encourage anyone who wants to vote to get themselves registered if they aren't already
Use one of the many secure on-line voting systems that are out there today. As I understand it they will send a unique voting code to registered participants, which combined with other unique data (supporters number,name, address etc) mean that it is OSOV (one Salopian, one Vote) in a secure way, without the ability to vote multiple times
Let the SP oversee the process - after all it will include club and supporter so there won't be any shenanigans
|
|
|
Post by atcham jack on Apr 9, 2014 17:23:24 GMT 1
don't suppose the club will put or allow us to put a voting form in the programme? definitely no to not bovvered.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 9, 2014 19:54:00 GMT 1
I definitely think we should NOT have a "Not bovvered" option on the ballot, it should be a straight choice between clippy and a new badge. I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 20:58:56 GMT 1
Limiting it to anyone who has bought a ticket is not inclusive.
There are many reasons why people do not attend football matches, but this doesn’t mean they are not Town fans with an interest in our heritage, identity and community.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 1:42:07 GMT 1
Limiting it to anyone who has bought a ticket is not inclusive. There are many reasons why people do not attend football matches, but this doesn’t mean they are not Town fans with an interest in our heritage, identity and community. Although I agree we have got to be careful . When Man. City asked supporters to come up with a name for a stand there was a great response , a lot of "supporters " came up with the idea of naming it after Colin Bell . City twigged before it was too late , United fans had joined the debate and would have loved it to be known as the Bell End as it surely would have been . Urban myth or not you can see why it is important that we have some idea of who is completing the survey hence it is sensible that those with a fan number are invited to take part . As far as trying to "include " as many as possible we have to make sure we "exclude " certain elements .How we do this is a problem but I do agree with the main point of your post .
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 10, 2014 9:44:24 GMT 1
Limiting it to anyone who has bought a ticket is not inclusive. There are many reasons why people do not attend football matches, but this doesn’t mean they are not Town fans with an interest in our heritage, identity and community. You've got to set parameters though, and there are over 16000 supporters on the data base. No point having a ruck of Telford fans mucking it up for a joke.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 10, 2014 9:46:15 GMT 1
We can't go with badge designs yet, the only important question is should we change. That's the result the cub is looking for.
That said, we could find a way of showing each previous badge and asking them which one the new design should be based on. Make it visual & clear.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 10, 2014 9:49:40 GMT 1
We are looking for a representative sample, not a referendum.
Like an opinion poll rather than an election. Anything more is far too expensive and no more accurate.
The terms of what a successful vote is should be set before the vote, such as 10 percent more than the nearest or whatever.
I think we do need a 'not bothered'option because that's a viewpoint that needs to be represented.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Apr 10, 2014 11:00:50 GMT 1
Limiting it to anyone who has bought a ticket is not inclusive. There are many reasons why people do not attend football matches, but this doesn’t mean they are not Town fans with an interest in our heritage, identity and community. Not sure how many peiople will actually be in that scenario? Maybe a few who are physically incapacitated, the odd exile, maybe a fella trapped down a mineshaft and still waiting for Lassie to bring help. And apart from the last one, the rest CAN register as supporters if they are that bothered. It only takes a phone call.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Apr 10, 2014 11:01:50 GMT 1
I think we do need a 'not bothered'option because that's a viewpoint that needs to be represented. Except that, when you think about it, it isn't...
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 10, 2014 11:30:32 GMT 1
Except that, when you think about it, it isn't... Of course it is. We need to know the level of not being bothered either way. My hunch is, the majority will want to change, then the next group will not be bothered, and only a small number will want to keep it. It was the same with club colours when over 85% of people wanted blue and amber, but then 10% did not care before only 5% wanted blue and white. That's a more representative view than a black and white yes or no situation where people who don't really mind have been forced to express an opinion they don't really have. And if the majority don't really care - then those campaigning for a change need to have a good long hard think. But to not give the option removes a genuine opinion. And if we are then able to identify and account for those who are not bothered we see a true representation of who wants to stay and who wants to change. Scenario one - we force people who don't care to vote and they don't care either way so most of them don't see the point of changing, so vote for no change, although a few vote to change. 60% of fans want to change - 40% of fans want to stay Scenario two - exactly the same people vote, with the same preference, but this time have an option to express that they don't care. 50% of fans want to change, 40% of fans don't care and 10% want to stay. Same people, same preferences, different outcome because you have created a legitimate option not to care. In the first the sample it shows that a small majority want to change. In the second sample 5 people want to change for every one who want to keep it, an overwhelming majority of fans who have a preference. Now those are just numbers plucked out of thin air, but it does show not having that option could radically skew the results in a way that would not be helpful if we want this sample to be representative.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 10, 2014 11:53:51 GMT 1
I dunno. I think I agree with Monkey, I don't think we need a 'not bothered' option. I think 'yes' or 'no' is fine to the question of whether the club should look to change the current badge. If anyone falls into the not bothered then that for me means they will select 'no' as they do not see any need to do so. If its important to them, if its a pressing issue then they will select 'yes'. Plus I honestly think those many people who aren't really concerned won't look to respond anyhows. So no need to include that option at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 12:00:03 GMT 1
Limiting it to anyone who has bought a ticket is not inclusive. There are many reasons why people do not attend football matches, but this doesn’t mean they are not Town fans with an interest in our heritage, identity and community. Not sure how many peiople will actually be in that scenario? Maybe a few who are physically incapacitated, the odd exile, maybe a fella trapped down a mineshaft and still waiting for Lassie to bring help. And apart from the last one, the rest CAN register as supporters if they are that bothered. It only takes a phone call. Like I said that's the challenge. The bloke down the mine shaft is still part of our community and should allowed his say. Like I said another challenge is to outreach to those who aren't on the database through social and printed media. I agree that if they are interested they can register.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 10, 2014 12:25:11 GMT 1
I dunno. I think I agree with Monkey, I don't think we need a 'not bothered' option. I think 'yes' or 'no' is fine to the question of whether the club should look to change the current badge. If anyone falls into the not bothered then that for me means they will select 'no' as they do not see any need to do so. If its important to them, if its a pressing issue then they will select 'yes'. Plus I honestly think those many people who aren't really concerned won't look to respond anyhows. So no need to include that option at all. But that does not distinguish between no change because we like the badge and no change because we don't mind either way. If it is possible to isolate in the count those who actually like the current badge then you can distinguish between apathy and support. The danger is the current badge receives a sense of false support because of apathy, but "not bothered" removes that option.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 10, 2014 12:44:02 GMT 1
Great discussion, and something I can take forward to the next discussion, and please if you have any more let me know.
I don't know what to make of the not bothered... certainly something that needs careful consideration.
One thing is for sure, some people wont be happy with it, as there are a lot of varying opinions on this thread alone.
The focus must be to get a simple clear definitive result in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Apr 10, 2014 12:56:45 GMT 1
Dave My point was largely about the fact that IF people are not bothered, they are hardly likely to go to the trouble of voting just to tell us so. They will simply be No Shows. I hadn't realised we were "forcing" people to vote (as you mention in your scenario 1. Would be quite interested in how we do that. Maybe threaten them that they'll have to sit next to Mallet next season unless they vote ). Maybe you are thinking the vote will be a simple poll on a matchday where canvassers are buttoN-holing people on the Oteley Road for their views? That's the only scenario I can think of where you are likely to "force" people who are not bothered into expressing an opinion - in which case I understand your thinking behind having 3 options. But for reasons outlined elsewhere on the thread, I think that approach is potentially open to abuse so I would prefer to see a controlled poll based on the supporters database and a secure voting process. And if we do that (where by definition only people who have a firm opinion would bother to vote) then I think a clear 2 way choice is cleanest and simplest. Just my views.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Apr 10, 2014 13:04:59 GMT 1
The bloke down the mine shaft is still part of our community and should allowed his say. "Hullo...is that you Lassie....fetch help Lassie...and by the way...tell them...bring back the Loggerheads..heads..heads ..heads...
|
|