CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[dd]

Comparing the CFL changes to New Coke is really, really stretching it.

It would be more akin to Coke going from 24 can cases to 20 can cases.  I really like the 20 can cases as they are a little smaller, and fill one shelf of my barfridge perfectly.  But a lot of people think the 20 can pack is a cash grab "shrinkflation", but I usually buy them at $9.99, which is a good price.

But it is like the new coke comparison, in that nobody was conplain8ng about the old version or asking for a new version and it will turn out that the new version of the cfl won't be as good as the old one.

 The cfl needs to put people in seats in Toronto and Edmonton, seems to me that's a localized. Marketing issue with 2 distinctly different fan bases, one will come back with a competitive team, one never has been there to support the team in any great numbers and never will. Complete waste of time and money and a case of the cfl trying to move forward in reverse

[theaardvark]

But it is like the new coke comparison, in that nobody was conplain8ng about the old version or asking for a new version and it will turn out that the new version of the cfl won't be as good as the old one.

 The cfl needs to put people in seats in Toronto and Edmonton, seems to me that's a localized. Marketing issue with 2 distinctly different fan bases, one will come back with a competitive team, one never has been there to support the team in any great numbers and never will. Complete waste of time and money and a case of the cfl trying to move forward in reverse

If they had changed EVERYTHING about the league, the rules, the field, everything but the names and the team colours, then sure, it would be like New Coke, where they completely changed everything except the name and the colours.

This was minor tweaks to the field size, like the change from 24 to 20 can cases.  No one asked for the change, but I think its better (20 cans).  But traditionalist that love getting 24 cans in a case, and have been getting 24 cans to a case for 50 years, are suddenly confronted with a change they never asked for.  So they look for reasons to hate it... 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

But it is like the new coke comparison, in that nobody was conplain8ng about the old version or asking for a new version and it will turn out that the new version of the cfl won't be as good as the old one.

 The cfl needs to put people in seats in Toronto and Edmonton, seems to me that's a localized. Marketing issue with 2 distinctly different fan bases, one will come back with a competitive team, one never has been there to support the team in any great numbers and never will. Complete waste of time and money and a case of the cfl trying to move forward in reverse

Disagree about TO they just need to hire a president that's willing to step out of the glass tower and get his hands dirty at the community level instead of schmoozing the corporate level.  Look at Wade, he's more of a carnie promoter like Col. Tom Parker than a stuffed shirt, he's down on the ground talking to his customers.

[bomber beetle]

Coca Cola spent years and millions of dollars in developing New Coke. Nearly 200,000 blind taste tests showed that the new coke was preferred over both the original coke and Pepsi. It was a winner. That is, until it was released. That is when the irrationality exploded amongst the public. The media couldn't resist, throwing more fuel on the fire.
At the end of the day,the biggest loser in this scenario is the consumer. A better product was available but they chose familiarity instead.

[jets4life]

Coca Cola spent years and millions of dollars in developing New Coke. Nearly 200,000 blind taste tests showed that the new coke was preferred over both the original coke and Pepsi. It was a winner. That is, until it was released. That is when the irrationality exploded amongst the public. The media couldn't resist, throwing more fuel on the fire.
At the end of the day,the biggest loser in this scenario is the consumer. A better product was available but they chose familiarity instead.

This is only half the story  though.  With the "New" Coke, the blind taste test revealed that the product did well, but that was in very small doses. When Coke drinkers would consume larger quantities, like they were accustomed to with the original Coke, they found that consumers would get sick of it. That was one of the main problems with the new formula.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

This is nothing like new Coke.

From the data:

11% of Canadians self report as engaged with the CFL.

29% watch occasionally.

60% of Canadians do not follow the CFL at all.

Of the Canadians who are engaged or watch occasionally, only 20% are opposed to the rules changes. 42% support the changes (at least somewhat) and the rest are neutral or undecided.

59% of fans think the changes will make the game more exciting.

It's not a good day for the traditionalists. Yes, some die hards might watch less but I doubt it. And if they do, and they're primarily from the prairies where it's exceptionally well attended, I think the league lives with that in the name of growth elsewhere. I would.

[TBURGESS]

It's not data, it's an unscientific poll of 580ish people.

The first 3 stats were known before the changes. If you believe the changes will somehow fix those numbers, then I can't help you understand why they won't. 

42% somewhat support the changes means that 58% don't even somewhat support them. That's called the majority. BTW: I could live with it isn't the same as I like it, or I agree with it. 

59% of the fans polled believe what the media has told them. As most aren't even watching the games, they likely haven't even thought about what the changes actually mean. For example moving the uprights to the back of the end-zone. Media says that means more scoring. When you actually think about it, it means 1% more room in the middle of the field to throw to & it eliminates missed FG run backs, which is one of the most exciting plays in the CFL. In short, it sounds like it could work, but in reality, it does more harm than good. 

The crux of the matter is, are the rules or the field size the reasons people aren't watching the CFL? 42% of the few people polled say they won't even watch as much as they used to. That's a damning stat. If the change results in less eyes on the CFL, then the changes will have the exact opposite effect that the league is going for. 

[dd]

Disagree about TO they just need to hire a president that's willing to step out of the glass tower and get his hands dirty at the community level instead of schmoozing the corporate level.  Look at Wade, he's more of a carnie promoter like Col. Tom Parker than a stuffed shirt, he's down on the ground talking to his customers.

To me, fan support is a direct reflection of community engagement. If the community is engaged with the team, they will support it, if not they won't. You're right about Toronto, they live in the glass tower and aren't about to get out of if anytime soon.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's not data, it's an unscientific poll of 580ish people.

The first 3 stats were known before the changes. If you believe the changes will somehow fix those numbers, then I can't help you understand why they won't.

42% somewhat support the changes means that 58% don't even somewhat support them. That's called the majority. BTW: I could live with it isn't the same as I like it, or I agree with it.

59% of the fans polled believe what the media has told them. As most aren't even watching the games, they likely haven't even thought about what the changes actually mean. For example moving the uprights to the back of the end-zone. Media says that means more scoring. When you actually think about it, it means 1% more room in the middle of the field to throw to & it eliminates missed FG run backs, which is one of the most exciting plays in the CFL. In short, it sounds like it could work, but in reality, it does more harm than good.

The crux of the matter is, are the rules or the field size the reasons people aren't watching the CFL? 42% of the few people polled say they won't even watch as much as they used to. That's a damning stat. If the change results in less eyes on the CFL, then the changes will have the exact opposite effect that the league is going for.

Total BS. You're talking out your butt.

It's a representative sample of Canadians (with an oversampling of Manitobans) and after diving into it more the margin of error it's under 4%. Probe and Leger are the two major Canadian based market research companies.

Nearly ALL market sentiment / research is done this way and much of it by one of the two of them.

I should know. I'm attending an event with one of Leger's VP later this month.  In this case, I can enthusiastically and emphatically state you're 100% wrong with the bolded.

[bomber beetle]

This is only half the story  though.  With the "New" Coke, the blind taste test revealed that the product did well, but that was in very small doses. When Coke drinkers would consume larger quantities, like they were accustomed to with the original Coke, they found that consumers would get sick of it. That was one of the main problems with the new formula.

I noticed that was mentioned in one article that I came across. The author speclated that due to the large scale negativity surrounding the launch, it was difficult to measure whether that was real or perceived. It was definitely not the main message coming from coke drinkers though. The emotional connection to the product was yanked out from under their feet and they were angry.

Similarly, the CFL definitely has fans that are very emotionally attached to the product.
I believe the CFL knew a backlash would result, and they seem OK with that. Probably because they don't have much choice. The biggest difference is that Coke did not have to change but the CFL absolutely does and this is the path that has been chosen.

[jets4life]

I noticed that was mentioned in one article that I came across. The author speclated that due to the large scale negativity surrounding the launch, it was difficult to measure whether that was real or perceived. It was definitely not the main message coming from coke drinkers though. The emotional connection to the product was yanked out from under their feet and they were angry.
 

From personal experience when I was a young kid, my family and I did not like the new Coke, and actually switched to Pepsi for a couple of months. It had little to do with brand loyalty or public perception. 

In regards to the CFL, I guess we will have to see how things unfold.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Coca Cola spent years and millions of dollars in developing New Coke. Nearly 200,000 blind taste tests showed that the new coke was preferred over both the original coke and Pepsi. It was a winner. That is, until it was released. That is when the irrationality exploded amongst the public. The media couldn't resist, throwing more fuel on the fire.
At the end of the day,the biggest loser in this scenario is the consumer. A better product was available but they chose familiarity instead.

Stop pretending humans are completely rational beings.  What Coke didn't take into consideration is every human uses prejudice for most repeatable decisions they make, Coke drinkers prefer Coke over Pepsi, thus given the choice they buy Coke without expending extra energy thinking about that decision each time it comes up. They already like Coke, and they're not going to switch to New Coke unless they have a very good reason to, because it introduces the unknown factor, which is worry.

Most decisions are already predetermined, the brain economizes energy using recognition, preference and normality so it doesn't have to re-evaluate a million repeating decisions made every day. Prejudice is a human security blanket.

[TBURGESS]

Total BS. You're talking out your butt.

It's a representative sample of Canadians (with an oversampling of Manitobans) and after diving into it more the margin of error it's under 4%. Probe and Leger are the two major Canadian based market research companies.

Nearly ALL market sentiment / research is done this way and much of it by one of the two of them.

I should know. I'm attending an event with one of Leger's VP later this month.  In this case, I can enthusiastically and emphatically state you're 100% wrong with the bolded.

570 out of 40 million is enough? No wonder marketing gets it wrong so often. 

How randomly were the group selected? (Not actually random = not actually accurate)

What exactly were the questions? (Most polls ask questions specifically to get the answers they are looking for, then trot out the within 4% margin of error pretending they got the results they wanted.) 

Funny that you only disagree with the one part of my post that means almost nothing and ignore the rest of it. Typical. 

[Blueforlife]

These new changes are like diet Coke, bad for you but a necessary evil as the sugar high isn't sustainable.

[wpg#1]

Friday nights game, a season ticket holder and long time fan ( who was not at the last game) who sits in front of me, asked ME what do think of the changes proposed. ALL of the people that were around this fan chimed in and were not in favour of most of the changes. They agreed the opposite side bench, were on the fence about the 35 second rule, but NO ONE... NO ONE liked the smaller field and moving the goal posts. Not a single person. It's a small sample, but these are long time, very dedicated fans.