Here comes trouble — big trouble — as in, “Come in Houston we have a problem.”
You remember the Sports Indaba in Durban three weeks ago and then the brouhaha about the Springbok and who owns the trademark, which caught SA Rugby napping and which gave rise to such high-pitched shrill screaming from both sides?
The screaming might have died down, but there is a sequel to all of this and it looks like it is going to be a series, a horror series of note, unless there is a rapid intervention.
In the yellow corner I see the government girding their loins, saying “the end of the Bok is nigh” and going for it big time, and in the “my-bloed-is-groen” corner I see a deer caught in the headlights on a highway.
On Friday, the Ministry of Sport pumped out a document of the resolutions taken at the Sports Indaba. (sport_indaba_report_11.pdf.)
The edict embedded in the document that has struck a cord and will be the siren call is:
“A single emblem must be used by all national teams on the left-hand side of the shirt/jersey. This is the King Protea.
“The public and sports people should be educated to do away with anything that symbolises oppression and apartheid.
Sascoc will inform all national federations accordingly within a week.
“The Springbok emblem used by SA Rugby, being a symbol of apartheid and oppression, must be removed with immediate effect.
“Due recognition is given to the allowance made for the period surrounding the 1995 Rugby World Cup. However, it is no longer supported by the South African masses as a unifying symbol.
“Sascoc will engage with SA Rugby to effect the change.
“The national football teams will also abide by the regulation that only the King Protea will be worn on the left-hand side of the shirt/jersey.
“Both Safa and SA Rugby may choose to have their own logo worn on the right-hand side. Sascoc will engage with Safa in this regard”.
You would have thought that SA Rugby would have pre-empted debate and discussion with an initiative and rolled out a scientific research study that would be a publicly transparent participation process. A referendum of sorts, but a research study that would factor out the emotion and hysteria.
They didn’t, so having experience in previously changing the airline of the old South Africa (SAA & SAL), to the flag-carrier of the new South Africa (South African Airways), I called upon Research Surveys — the agency that measured the old airline identity of SAA, to three new South African Airways variations of a new identity against three global competitors — and to respond with a proposal to do this quickly.
Mark Molenaar of TNS Research Surveys responded in two days with a cracker-jack proposal ready to hit the market and have results in a few weeks to once and for all establish the value of, or toxicity of, the Springbok. None of this cacophony of who can shout the loudest or produce the most expensive phalanx of attorneys, just a pure indication of South African sentiment from the people, represented by 1 000 interviews.
What’s the issue?
One of the most newsworthy topics at the moment is the Springbok emblem. It has been proposed to do away with it, causing huge uproar, especially among the rugby fraternity. The 102-year-old Springbok emblem is the symbol of South African rugby and has a lot of heritage, commercial value and emotion attached to it.
While arguments have been put forward that the emblem should be replaced with the Protea in order to have one consistent emblem across all sporting codes, the main question about the emblem is really whether it is divisive, representing our apartheid past, and thus perpetuating anger and resentment among some groups of the population (and hence, an obstacle to the growth and development of rugby in SA according to the vision of SA Rugby) … or whether it is unifying, symbolising our country’s ability to move beyond the challenges of the past in the spirit of a new an “winning” nation (such as demonstrated in the 1995 and 2007 Rugby World Cup victories).
The ANC has indicated that it will first consider the views of the South African public before making a decision on the emblem, and the Research Surveys proposal sets out to provide such a measure.
In considering people’s views, there are a number of stakeholder groups whose views need to be considered:.
Rugby supporters — the views of supporters are very important as this is the stakeholder group who the Springbok emblem will matter to the most. They may have a lot of sentimental value and strong emotional attachment to the emblem.
The broader sports-watching public — it needs to be established whether the Springbok emblem and its connotations with the apartheid era is, in fact, a barrier for support for the game of rugby, especially among black sport followers.
Clubs, main sponsors of the Springboks such as Absa, Vodacom, Sasol, SAB and SuperSport, as well as the 14 rugby unions and their players, the government and SA Rugby’s president’s council — this is a diverse group of stakeholders, but all parties have a commercial or political stake in the Springbok emblem.
In addition to measuring views on the current Springbok emblem, research is required to test perceptions of an alternative, or updated emblem, and the role of the South African flag.
What’s our solution?
Due to the nature of the stakeholder groups of interest, two methodologies are proposed:
1. Quantitative research via face-to-face interviews:
In order to accurately measure sentiment towards the Springbok emblem, a large quantitative study is needed that covers different population and interest groups and is broadly representative of sport supporters in South Africa. It is therefore proposed that 1 000 face-to-face interviews are conducted with rugby supporters and the broader sports-watching public. The sample should be representative of the South African population that support sport by watching it on TV, watching the game live, following it on the radio or participating in sport itself. For purposes of this study it is not necessary to interview people with no interest in sport.
In the interests of costs and time, Research Surveys proposes limiting the study to major metropolitan areas. (This is, however, open to discussion with client.) Interviews will be conducted in the seven major metropolitan areas of South Africa including Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, East London and Port Elizabeth.
Respondents will be selected via random suburb sampling in order to ensure the race and other demographic profiles are representative of the population of interest. They propose an interview duration of a maximum of 20 minutes.
2. Qualitative research via in-depth telephonic interviews:
In order to get the views of the main sporting, commercial and political stakeholders relating to the Springbok emblem, Research Surveys proposes a qualitative approach whereby stakeholders can freely express their views, rather than just completing a questionnaire. Due to the geographical spread of individuals and given the urgency of this study it is proposed that in-depth telephonic interviews are conducted with individuals representing the clubs, 14 unions, players, main sponsors and government.
A discussion outline will be used to explore perceptions of the Springbok emblem and related issues, ensuring all issues of relevance to SA Rugby are covered in the discussion.
SA Rugby would be asked to provide assistance in getting cooperation to participate in the in-depth interviews.
All interviews will be conducted in English. They propose that the duration of the in-depths do not exceed 30 minutes each.
Draft questionnaire and discussion-guide design –proposed flow:
.
You get the gist of how this goes to the market and the information is processed.
Another idea for public participation, is to include a blank rugby jersey as an insert into four main national newspapers like the Mail & Guardian, Rapport, Sunday Times and Sowetan and ask readers to submit their version of a design for a rugby jersey for South Africa.
The submissions received are just incredible and reveal a passion and commitment from the people that count. The fans.
They become school projects, from the poorest of the poor to graduate school of business case studies and one receives thousands upon thousands of them, all willing to showcase their version of the national South African rugby Team. We did this for South African Airways and the response was overwhelming and enabled the people to “speak” out and showcase how they see their version of their team.
There should be a national outpouring and demonstration of South Africans sentiment for their national rugby team and a public submission like this, proves beyond a questionable doubt, of what the country wants.
The best of these submissions from the public can then be set up in a walk through exhibition stand by SA Rugby, that then goes on a road show to say twenty shopping malls around the country, for people to comment, approve or criticize the direction that their National Rugby Team has to go in the future. This is a broad based inclusive and transparent process that SA Rugby are obligated to take if they are serious about positioning themselves for the future.
Now that I have shared all of this, so what? I also shared this with Oregan Hoskins, president of SA Rugby, on Thursday last week. Will he or won’t he launch this study?
What this research survey is is a course of action that makes SA Rugby proactive and scientifically showcases South Africa’s feelings towards rugby, its national team and the Springbok, for whatever it represents.
Whether SA Rugby goes with the suggestion or not, there is a sequel brewing for next week and the week after that, and this time it will be on the international stage.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
