Name Change, discussion papers for & against

For general announcements, and anything which does not fit into one of the categories below.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Tim L
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: Townsville

Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#1 Postby Tim L » Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:03 pm

It seems some info is not getting the wider distribution it warrants.
That being the case here are the NRAA discussion papers regarding the possible change to NRAA name
Paper on Name Change Case Against.pdf

Paper on name change Case For.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Weairy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Location: Seymour, Vic

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#2 Postby Weairy » Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:33 pm

Without taking into account history and tradition and all that sensitive stuff that creates arguments in this sport, I personally reckon this isn’t a bad move.

When Average Joe sees “NRAA”, they seem to make out that it’s just the Australian arm of the USA association. Which in turn conjures up images of hillbilly redneck 2nd amendment cowboys.

Yes, it’s probably an attempt to appease the left, but that’s the PC climate we live in unfortunately.

“Long Range Australia”, “Target Sports Aus”, something completely separate of the NRA, without “guns”, “shooting”, “rifle” etc in the name, could give the image of the sport a boost. Yes, it’s been NRAA for 130-odd years, but just because it’s old and traditional doesn’t necessarily make it correct.
Josh Weaire
Nagambie R.C.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#3 Postby bruce moulds » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:45 am

consideration of this topic must include an understanding of nraa culture, as well as the position we are in now, compared to the one we need to be in.
our culture in general terms tends to be predominantly insular and inward looking.
we look at what we want, failing to prioritize or even recognize what we need.
nraa people tend to have a failing to know much about other disciplines, and also how the rest of the world thinks.
until recently we have focused on what members want based on the above, in the belief that we sail forward unencumbered by any issue other than competition.
this has put us in the position of being left behind in the shooting world and the world in general.
we now have to compete in the shooting world for members, and the world in general for survival.
we live in an apocriphal moment in time when we will live or die.
to survive we must change our culture from one of automatic health and survival, to one of our disciplines, clubs, etc. are products that need to be sold.
there are some amongst us who see no problem with the name nraa in this respect, yet there is ample evidence to prove otherwise.
the paper mentions the governor and other things, and my own experience with parents allowing me to take kids to ssaa and not nraa ranges bears this out.
public perception is not about left wing politics, but it does exist, primarily due to ignorance on the part of the public.
why should they go out and find out about such things when they are not interested in shooting, but rather in ball games.
one parent said "off they go, two oddbods together" when I took her son to the (ssaa) range.
but they are where new members will come from.
how do we get new members?
firstly we do not make it any harder than it needs to be.
by changing the nraa name to say long range target Australia, firstly we present to anyone interested in log range shooting as the place to go.
then the word target disassociates from killing.
Australia appeals to any national feeling.
a move in the direction of reaching out every time this name is spoken or spelled.
then we come to the financial aspect of changing the name.
yes it will cost, but what promotion will not?
it might be the cheapest promotion we can get.
money mostly comes from2 sources, selling products and membership.
without promotion, we will keep losing membership, but if it is done properly and effectively we will gain it.
selling product will cost money in capital outlay, but will return profit.
if the original products are hats , tshirts, etc they can also promote.
some could be printed with the new name and be sold to the limited market of members, and others could have things on them like "I love long range" and be sold to a wider market, bringing in outside cash, and all selling our shooting product.
one of our culture things has always been to return entries at prize shoots in money.
if we could get over this, and return said money for promotion, here is another source of cash.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

Wingnut
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:34 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#4 Postby Wingnut » Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:35 pm

I agree with Bruce. Long Range target Australia does have a certain appeal to it. It also appears to be available, with many of the other names I could think of already registered to other organisations.

Having said this, I don’t believe we need to lose the NRAA identity. We just need a ‘brand’ that is more appealing to the everyday person. We can also sell the sporting aspect of what we do to schools and the general community with a better brand.

RJNEILSEN
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:17 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#5 Postby RJNEILSEN » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:50 pm

I don't have a problem with a name change. My issue is with the expected cost of only $5000. Surely this is the time to engage a professional sports marketing company to re-brand the NRAA (and our sport) correctly. A new name based on research, new logos, new website and a public marketing campaign.

Ryan.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#6 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:20 pm

excellent post ryan.
this is the way to go, as opposed to well meaning individuals "having a try".
we only have to look at the new so called hunter class to see where that might go.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

Weairy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Location: Seymour, Vic

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#7 Postby Weairy » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:54 pm

The phrase “evolve or die” comes to mind.
We need to start to change our public image or we will, unfortunately, perish. And this is a really good first step, if handled the right way. I think you’re bang-on the money Ryan. Spend the money and promote a new brand properly, market it and try get some fresh faces out on the range.
Any move we can make to promote the sport and improve the brand image is a good move.
Josh Weaire
Nagambie R.C.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#8 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:11 pm

Wingnut wrote:I agree with Bruce. Long Range target Australia does have a certain appeal to it. It also appears to be available, with many of the other names I could think of already registered to other organisations.

Having said this, I don’t believe we need to lose the NRAA identity. We just need a ‘brand’ that is more appealing to the everyday person. We can also sell the sporting aspect of what we do to schools and the general community with a better brand.


but will just rebranding change the culture that we have now.
it seems a bit like having 2 bob each way, neither fish nor fowl.
without a culture change, we are dead.
pretending to have one just won't do it.
and when the antigun movements got hold of it they would present it out of context that we are being sneaky, like the nra.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

RJNEILSEN
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:17 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#9 Postby RJNEILSEN » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:47 pm

I think rebranding in a significant way via a professional marketing company would help drive cultural change. It would generate some level of excitement among existing shooters and would bring new faces to many ranges. It's the new faces that will further generate cultural change. Funding is an issue obviously and this is the crossover to the topic on the ammunition levy. Possibly a one-off levy for re-branding is warranted instead of an ongoing increase in membership fees. I have named it the S.O.S levy. (Save Our Sport).

Ryan.

cheech
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Name Change, discussion papers for & against

#10 Postby cheech » Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:29 pm

bruce moulds wrote:
Wingnut wrote:I agree with Bruce. Long Range target Australia does have a certain appeal to it. It also appears to be available, with many of the other names I could think of already registered to other organisations.

Having said this, I don’t believe we need to lose the NRAA identity. We just need a ‘brand’ that is more appealing to the everyday person. We can also sell the sporting aspect of what we do to schools and the general community with a better brand.


but will just rebranding change the culture that we have now.
it seems a bit like having 2 bob each way, neither fish nor fowl.
without a culture change, we are dead.
pretending to have one just won't do it.
and when the antigun movements got hold of it they would present it out of context that we are being sneaky, like the nra.



In a completely different industry, I was involved in a “ Save us “ workshop , we were split up into multiple groups to answer questions , raise concerns and ways to solve those concerns going forward .
The consultant group was very clever , in such the multiple groups weren’t randomly rounded up but instead broken up in age groups of 20 year gaps - obviously generational , long story short it worked , nuff said !


Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests