Mountains of world rugby

by GloriousEmpire Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:20 am

First topic message reminder :

Metaphors for difficult tasks are often constructed around the ascent of a mountain.

"Scotland have a huge mountain to climb here" for example.

On world rugby terms, the rugby World Cup might be likened to Everest. The highest peak in the world (popularly) and most obvious choice. (And notably first scaled by a kiwi, captain David Kirk or Edmund Hillary - take your pick). Some might even suggest the odd team who have reached the summit may have had a certain degree of assistance from the odd Sherpa or two.

Likewise, the Southern Hemisphere's Rugby Championship might be equated to K2. Not as popular a conquest, only open to the worlds elite mountaineers. Technically not as altitudinous at its peak, although a more difficult ascent than Everest.

The World Cup might also be equated with Everest in that whilst the highest peak, a large portion of the mountains height is beneath water and hence nobody actually scales its full height - an analogy for the pool stages - most summit contenders bypass the pool without any thought or much effort expended.

So, in mountain metaphor terms, which peak might the six nations equate to?

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:20 pm

Again, please try to understand what a brand value is, as opposed to a nett value.

It's the additional value of the underlying product, the uplift yielded by applying the brand to the underlying branded product.

Pretty simple to grasp I would've thought.

by rainbow-warrior Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:21 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Again, please try to understand what a brand value is, as opposed to a nett value.

It's the additional value of the underlying product, the uplift yielded by applying the brand to the underlying branded product.

Pretty simple to grasp I would've thought.

Rant on lad, you wrong again.

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:22 pm

rainbow-warrior wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.
yes agree with the first.

but not with the second.

who buys the Haka?

and who, apart from kiwis, buys shirts with the very forgettable black fern logo on?

top14 wins on all financial fronts. although i suspect SA rugby wins on overall attendance (but maybe not gate receipts as i suspect tickets are cheaper on avg in SA?)

anyway, unfortunately for the ABs, national team "brands" dont sell really outside their own countries.

clubs do. Like Saracens and Toulon, albeit on nowhere like the same scale as Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, etc.

It's the silver fern not the black fern. That would be forgettable as you wouldn't see it. I see plenty of AB shirts in Spain and have seen them equally in places where rugby is unknown like China or Brazil. The Springbok shirt is also quite popular. In Spain, the England union shirt is curiously quite popular. I have never seen a Spanish person wear an England football shirt. But I don't see any rugby club shirts so I find your statement difficult to take seriously.

Kiwi tourists no doubt hahaha It's odd that on my world travels I have never seen a AB shirt, hundreds of football shirts i.e. Man Utd, Liverpool, Juve, Barca etc, I mean you only get 30,000 watching you some games.

Rainbow, are you being deliberately obtuse? Or can you really not see the point being made?

Brand value has nothing to do with how many All Blacks shirts you saw on the bus tour your parents took you on when you were 13.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:24 pm

Can someone bring Haskell into this debate please?

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:26 pm

Nice one PSW Laugh

by doctor_grey Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:26 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Quinns Brands have value evaluated on the basis of revenue streams they generate. Nobody has to "buy a Haka" directly.

Maybe you need to read up on it. Suspect you're misunderstanding.

http://m.gbr.sagepub.com/content/11/3/421.abstract

The fact that All Blacks iconography are the most valuable brands in rugby is just a well known and widely understood fact. It's not something you can disagree with.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/world-cup-win-would-lift-all-blacks-brand-past-nz-100-million.html

I'd agree. Hard to dispute the All Blacks brand is probably the only one in Rugby which has awareness outside the sport. Do you have any links to current articles? You have 2011 articles linked here.

by GunsGerms Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:27 pm

ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

Fair enough, plus Walsh has done remarkably well since turning things round. I do rate him as a good ref.

by doctor_grey Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:27 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Can someone bring Haskell into this debate please?

James Haskell wrote:My hair is better than yours. FACT

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:28 pm

Cheers dr for bringing some much needed sanity...

Most of the "brand value calculations" reporting tend to occur at World Cup time when the games profile is highest. Hence the 2011 articles.

The stuff from 2013 is around AIG brand lift following All Blacks sponsorship which is so doctored for econo-political reasons that it makes little sense in my view. For instance the theory that AIG sponsored Man U to gain brand recognition in Asia, so by sponsoring the All Blacks there is a synergy whereby the All Blacks will be more recognisable by their sponsorship.

by blackcanelion Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:32 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
ebop wrote:Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

His were knocked out, you guys just let them rot, it's disgusting.

Actually it's British teeth that have a bad reputation globally.

Large parts of NZ still add fluoride to drinking water, which aids in NZ's generally good state of dental health.

Who the heck is Thomas or Lorde?

Its true that Brits had a reputation for bad teeth. For the generation older than, let's say, the age of 30 dental hygiene was not considered a priority as it is for the under 30 crowd, especially in the schools. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I believe in the UK it is conclusive that reduction in the incidence of serious dental issues is now on par with the rest of the western world.

Interestingly, water flouridation is controversial. Either during, or right after the war, Flouride was proven to reduce/prevent bacteria in the mouth which cause cavities. A direct link to improved dental health. Many countries add flouride to the drinking water at many of their water purification or distribution networks. The US is about 75% covered, for instance. Most of the European continent does not have flouridated water. The counter argument, as far as I can tell, is that people feel it is some form of mass medication, the ingested amounts are unregulated (people drink different amounts of water, so this is true, but the levels are still below negative health thresholds), impacts the environment (haven't seen anything on this, and the US environmental lobby would be all over it if true), or something else. Luddites.
For me, it is one of the great advances in medical history. Ironically, it may be less needed now because of the introduction in the 1970s of flouridated toothpaste.

This was your medical lesson for today. Tomorrow's lesson will be how to remove polyps from your colon.
Go England.

From memory there is no real controversy in the medical world over fluoridation of water supplies. The most recent hubbub is a result of a cochrane style review of background fluoridation related geographical location (e.g. Geochemistry) in China. I'm pretty sure this was simply misinterpreted and understood by the anti fluoridation brigade. Back to uk health. My old man emigrated here in around 1950. His teeth and those of many of his generation of immigrants were awful. He put's it down to poor diet under rationing in the uk. I wonder. I'm not going to disagree with rainbow on this one. Oral hygiene looks worse than my day. I wonder if it's a combination of poverty and the prevelance of cheep sugary drinks.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:34 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

Fair enough, plus Walsh has done remarkably well since turning things round. I do rate him as a good ref.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCXxcSfBC6c

and thats without even going near the last 6 nations.

by kiakahaaotearoa Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:36 pm

Not just drinks bc. There's sugar in everything. Including salads! Goes back to Nixon and high fructose corn syrup. He's not a crook. Not to dentists anyway. Ever wondered why his photo hangs above every dentist's chair?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:36 pm

True BCL, but they don't have sugar in Wales.

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:37 pm

blackcanelion wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
ebop wrote:Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

His were knocked out, you guys just let them rot, it's disgusting.

Actually it's British teeth that have a bad reputation globally.

Large parts of NZ still add fluoride to drinking water, which aids in NZ's generally good state of dental health.

Who the heck is Thomas or Lorde?

Its true that Brits had a reputation for bad teeth. For the generation older than, let's say, the age of 30 dental hygiene was not considered a priority as it is for the under 30 crowd, especially in the schools. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I believe in the UK it is conclusive that reduction in the incidence of serious dental issues is now on par with the rest of the western world.

Interestingly, water flouridation is controversial. Either during, or right after the war, Flouride was proven to reduce/prevent bacteria in the mouth which cause cavities. A direct link to improved dental health. Many countries add flouride to the drinking water at many of their water purification or distribution networks. The US is about 75% covered, for instance. Most of the European continent does not have flouridated water. The counter argument, as far as I can tell, is that people feel it is some form of mass medication, the ingested amounts are unregulated (people drink different amounts of water, so this is true, but the levels are still below negative health thresholds), impacts the environment (haven't seen anything on this, and the US environmental lobby would be all over it if true), or something else. Luddites.
For me, it is one of the great advances in medical history. Ironically, it may be less needed now because of the introduction in the 1970s of flouridated toothpaste.

This was your medical lesson for today. Tomorrow's lesson will be how to remove polyps from your colon.
Go England.

From memory there is no real controversy in the medical world over fluoridation of water supplies. The most recent hubbub is a result of a cochrane style review of background fluoridation related geographical location (e.g. Geochemistry) in China. I'm pretty sure this was simply misinterpreted and understood by the anti fluoridation brigade. Back to uk health. My old man emigrated here in around 1950. His teeth and those of many of his generation of immigrants were awful. He put's it down to poor diet under rationing in the uk. I wonder. I'm not going to disagree with rainbow on this one. Oral hygiene looks worse than my day. I wonder if it's a combination of poverty and the prevelance of cheep sugary drinks.

There is massive controversy of fluoridation of drinking water.

The practise began in the US at the time of the development of the atomic bomb. The synthesis process created fluoride run off that contaminated water tables. So in order to prevent a backlash from citizens the us government funded a report by "respected doctors" to convince the public (conveniently) that fluoride in water was good for you - JUST LOOK AT YOUR LOVELY TEETH!. And in general to use in defense against lawsuits by people poisoned by fluorosis.

The report and findings have been widely debunked since, but are frustrating still in use by misguided councils as a basis from decisions on essentially poisoning their citizens.

http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/fluoridechronology.htm

by kiakahaaotearoa Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:38 pm

Steve Walsh has always fancied himself as a rugby player and in fact he showed that he's not too shabby. He did what nobody else seems to do by pushing past Conrad Smith and breaking the tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifQh80FGum8

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:48 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Steve Walsh has always fancied himself as a rugby player and in fact he showed that he's not too shabby. He did what nobody else seems to do by pushing past Conrad Smith and breaking the tackle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifQh80FGum8

Did Walsh lead with a raised elbow? I've seen SA captains sent off for that sort of thing Smile

by kiakahaaotearoa Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:53 pm

Actually he lead with his ego. Conrad Smith had no chance...

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:58 pm

by blackcanelion Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:59 pm

I didn't say there wasn't a controversy GE. Merely there appears to be a fair consensus in the medical world over general benefits of fluoridation vs risk. My understanding is that issues with fluoride tend to relate to higher background rates of fluoride. This variation is often significantly greater than that added to municipal e supplies. From memory's in areas with naturally high levels in water they don't add fluoride and the US FDA advise using alternative water sources. It's been a while since I read up on it so I'll freely admit I could be wrong.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:02 pm

Yeah that's funny Kia Smile

by rainbow-warrior Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:10 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.
yes agree with the first.

but not with the second.

who buys the Haka?

and who, apart from kiwis, buys shirts with the very forgettable black fern logo on?

top14 wins on all financial fronts. although i suspect SA rugby wins on overall attendance (but maybe not gate receipts as i suspect tickets are cheaper on avg in SA?)

anyway, unfortunately for the ABs, national team "brands" dont sell really outside their own countries.

clubs do. Like Saracens and Toulon, albeit on nowhere like the same scale as Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, etc.

It's the silver fern not the black fern. That would be forgettable as you wouldn't see it. I see plenty of AB shirts in Spain and have seen them equally in places where rugby is unknown like China or Brazil. The Springbok shirt is also quite popular. In Spain, the England union shirt is curiously quite popular. I have never seen a Spanish person wear an England football shirt. But I don't see any rugby club shirts so I find your statement difficult to take seriously.

Kiwi tourists no doubt hahaha It's odd that on my world travels I have never seen a AB shirt, hundreds of football shirts i.e. Man Utd, Liverpool, Juve, Barca etc, I mean you only get 30,000 watching you some games.

Rainbow, are you being deliberately obtuse? Or can you really not see the point being made?

Brand value has nothing to do with how many All Blacks shirts you saw on the bus tour your parents took you on when you were 13.

Dear me lad, is that the best you could come up with? Broke my heart you did Laugh

Go take your medication idiot.

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:12 pm

Sorry rainbow, I have nothing more to use than facts and logic. I don't have your arsenal of petty childish uneducated bickering skills.

by rainbow-warrior Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:29 pm

Hahahaha you scour endlessly through Google finding your psudo facts and as for your logic, really try reading the absolute garbage you write here. I am sure your family is extremely proud of you.

by doctor_grey Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:32 pm

blackcanelion wrote:I didn't say there wasn't a controversy GE. Merely there appears to be a fair consensus in the medical world over general benefits of fluoridation vs risk. My understanding is that issues with fluoride tend to relate to higher background rates of fluoride. This variation is often significantly greater than that added to municipal e supplies. From memory's in areas with naturally high levels in water they don't add fluoride and the US FDA advise using alternative water sources. It's been a while since I read up on it so I'll freely admit I could be wrong.

You are 100% right. This discovery of the impact of flouride on dental health originated from areas with higher than normal background levels of flouride in the water and someone corrleated that to oral health. And those areas still do not add flouride to their water because there is simply no need. I believe about 85%-90% of the US water supply with zero or trace amounts of flouride have additional flouride added. So this is about 65%-70% of the total water supply. These last numbers are from memory and might not be exact. But the order of magnitude is right.

In the UK, the older generations barely bruished their teeth. And coming out of the war diets were unbalanced and poor. Toothpaste was not identified as a major necessity when people were rebuilding a nation. IN fact, many people could not afford toothpaste. Only in the 1970s and 1980s when the economy turned and when access to (mostly) US tv and information became prevalent did oral hygiene become elevated.

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:34 pm

Cheers rainbow!

Good luck for Wales today. Let's hope they lay down a marker and don't get drawn into Italy's slowing and spoiling war.

What's your feeling for eng v France? France by a nose? England's new look Backline to explode or implode? Are you pulling an all nighter?

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:36 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:I didn't say there wasn't a controversy GE. Merely there appears to be a fair consensus in the medical world over general benefits of fluoridation vs risk. My understanding is that issues with fluoride tend to relate to higher background rates of fluoride. This variation is often significantly greater than that added to municipal e supplies. From memory's in areas with naturally high levels in water they don't add fluoride and the US FDA advise using alternative water sources. It's been a while since I read up on it so I'll freely admit I could be wrong.
You are 100% right. This discovery of the impact of flouride on dental health originated from areas with higher than normal background levels of flouride in the water and someone corrleated that to oral health. And those areas still do not add flouride to their water because there is simply no need. I believe about 85%-90% of the US water supply with zero or trace amounts of flouride have additional flouride added. So this is about 65%-70% of the total water supply. These last numbers are from memory and might not be exact. But the order of magnitude is right.

In the UK, the older generations barely bruished their teeth. And coming out of the war diets were unbalanced and poor. Toothpaste was not identified as a major necessity when people were rebuilding a nation. IN fact, many people could not afford toothpaste. Only in the 1970s and 1980s when the economy turned and when access to (mostly) US tv and information became prevalent did oral hygiene become elevated.

my polish grand-relatives brushed their teeth with charcoal, baking powder and boiled citrus fruit. Any comments on the effectiveness of that DG? Something worked they all have perfect teeth.
But then maybe they're preserved in vodka.

by doctor_grey Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:47 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:I didn't say there wasn't a controversy GE. Merely there appears to be a fair consensus in the medical world over general benefits of fluoridation vs risk. My understanding is that issues with fluoride tend to relate to higher background rates of fluoride. This variation is often significantly greater than that added to municipal e supplies. From memory's in areas with naturally high levels in water they don't add fluoride and the US FDA advise using alternative water sources. It's been a while since I read up on it so I'll freely admit I could be wrong.
You are 100% right. This discovery of the impact of flouride on dental health originated from areas with higher than normal background levels of flouride in the water and someone corrleated that to oral health. And those areas still do not add flouride to their water because there is simply no need. I believe about 85%-90% of the US water supply with zero or trace amounts of flouride have additional flouride added. So this is about 65%-70% of the total water supply. These last numbers are from memory and might not be exact. But the order of magnitude is right.

In the UK, the older generations barely bruished their teeth. And coming out of the war diets were unbalanced and poor. Toothpaste was not identified as a major necessity when people were rebuilding a nation. IN fact, many people could not afford toothpaste. Only in the 1970s and 1980s when the economy turned and when access to (mostly) US tv and information became prevalent did oral hygiene become elevated.

By polish grand-relatives brushed their teeth with coal and boiled citrus fruit. Any comments on the effectiveness of that DG? Something worked they all have perfect teeth.
But then maybe they're preserved in vodka.

No idea about your Polish relatives. Or why the Polish girls look so damned good until they turn thirty. Genetics and quirks of diets mate. Just like the French and their wine and dessert. Or Georgia breeding Props or having disproportionally large numbers of people living over 100. There are anomolies everywhere and explanations for everything as long as someone actually funds the research.

With Mum and Dad working for the Foreign Service, I grew up mostly in the less sanitary parts of Africa. It was common to brush teeth with ground charcoal flavoured with sweet fruits. There was also a crushed bone concotion was was quite effective, but I need to ask Dad what it was. Citrus fruits would have been even better than other fruits as the acids would also clean the teeth. The charcoal would then strip the staining properties from the teeth.

by nganboy Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:09 pm

Some people don't believe in fluoride to water
Some people are against vaccination
Some people don't believe in evolution
Some people believe China only makes crappy products
Some people believe wings main or only job is to score tries

These lots of crazy people everywhere

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:11 pm

When climbing Mont Blanc its usually not advised to chuck yourself off cliffs repeatedly

by GloriousEmpire Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:18 pm

nganboy wrote:Some people don't believe in fluoride to water
Some people are against vaccination
Some people don't believe in evolution
Some people believe China only makes crappy products
Some people believe wings main or only job is to score tries

These lots of crazy people everywhere

You see the extent to which you've been brainwashed that you list allowing your government to dump industrial waste products into your drinking water along with scientifically accepted theories like evolution?

by blackcanelion Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:20 am

GE, just wondering what you stance is on swimming in a chlorinated pool.

by GloriousEmpire Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:23 am

I swim, I don't drink it.

by rainbow-warrior Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:58 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
nganboy wrote:Some people don't believe in fluoride to water
Some people are against vaccination
Some people don't believe in evolution
Some people believe China only makes crappy products
Some people believe wings main or only job is to score tries

These lots of crazy people everywhere

You see the extent to which you've been brainwashed that you list allowing your government to dump industrial waste products into your drinking water along with scientifically accepted theories like evolution?

Choice, now when you disagree with him you are brainwashed. Gets more pathetic bless.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:56 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They may know who she is but I bet most won't know where she's from. Even if you say she's from New Zealand they probably won't know where that is. That goes with the territory of coming from a small largely forgotten corner of the earth but therein lies the appeal of Aotearoa to those who hail from there. Sure the odd piece of nasty work slips through the net of obscurity but on the whole we're better off being ignored by the rest of the world.

However, if you mention NZ, invariably people will say the All Blacks as an association. They might not be able to name any of the players but they will associate the brand with the country.

Midnight Youth and Fat Freddie's Drop are prime examples of NZ talent that should have gone further.

Some here can jump up and down and rant all they want, fact is Rugby Union is a poorly supported game on the world stage, music is global. If Lorde was marketed by NZ (or if she wanted to do that) she would bring far more recognition to NZ than the AB's would.

Why would New Zealand market Lorde? Lorde is a very proud black supporter.

by rainbow-warrior Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:16 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They may know who she is but I bet most won't know where she's from. Even if you say she's from New Zealand they probably won't know where that is. That goes with the territory of coming from a small largely forgotten corner of the earth but therein lies the appeal of Aotearoa to those who hail from there. Sure the odd piece of nasty work slips through the net of obscurity but on the whole we're better off being ignored by the rest of the world.

However, if you mention NZ, invariably people will say the All Blacks as an association. They might not be able to name any of the players but they will associate the brand with the country.

Midnight Youth and Fat Freddie's Drop are prime examples of NZ talent that should have gone further.

Some here can jump up and down and rant all they want, fact is Rugby Union is a poorly supported game on the world stage, music is global. If Lorde was marketed by NZ (or if she wanted to do that) she would bring far more recognition to NZ than the AB's would.

Why would New Zealand market Lorde? Lorde is a very proud black supporter.

Yeah you're right maybe Lorde should market New Zealand and the AB's as already said many many more know her.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:34 am

Is that a 'fact'?

Or is it your opinion?

by rainbow-warrior Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:56 am

ebop wrote:Is that a 'fact'?

Or is it your opinion?

She has just won 2 awards and performed at the worlds largest music awards, she was number 1 with Royals in more countries some that have no interest in rugby. Its a fact.

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:11 am

That is a fact true

But I couldn't name the male Grammy award winner or the current #1 song though. Because I don't give a stuff about that crap just like billions of others on the planet.

I've travelled through a few football or cricket crazy places and they all say ABs and now also lord of the rings.

Lorde did great, good on her, but she's just a flash in the pan pop artist. She isn't the Beatles mate.

by nganboy Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:59 pm

Actually Lorde MAY be a flash in the pan or she MAY become the greatest single recording artist of all time and people will be listening to her in 100 years.

World's most valuable brand - Apple
World's most valuable rugby brand - All Blacks
NZ's favourite brand as voted by Kiwis - Whittakers

by GloriousEmpire Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:42 pm

That might be true, but I swear peanut slabs are smaller than they used to be.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:11 am

Yeah, it might be true, but the small sample of kiwis that were asked to give their opinion on it were wrong.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:00 am

Does anyone outside of NZ know what Whittakers is?

by doctor_grey Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:46 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Does anyone outside of NZ know what Whittakers is?

Is that the chain of candy or chocolate shops?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:14 am

To be fair I thought Lorde was the group that won the Eurovision for Finland

by doctor_grey Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:17 am

Up to this thread I never heard of Lorde. My usual connection for all things in new music, my 13 year old daughter, has heard of her but doesn't recall any songs and has no opinion.

by nganboy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:03 pm

Of course people outside NZ don't know Whittakers, why should they? and why would we care?and yes the peanut slabs are smaller and to make it worse most of us are probably a bit bigger

by Sponsored content