I raised this point with them a few seasons ago and their view was 'it's too easy to get hijacked' for use of a better term. That other fans could find it hilarious to vote on the worst looking one, which from the look of the last few years has happened anyway.Isaac Hunt wrote:Have RFC ever consulted fans over a kit design? I can't recall it ever happening.
I know that other clubs have sometimes given the fans 3 or 4 options and asked them to choose.
Given the amount of negative comments, pretty much every time we change kits, it might be worth STAR raising this question at some stage.
I don't ever buy any of the replica shirts thanks and certainly wouldn't get this one if I did.Rawlie19 wrote: And, you don't like it, don't buy it! Nobody's forcing anybody else into purchases.
readingfc13 wrote:
They could easily do it with a postal vote card to member card holders, or by emai for those that they've got email addresses for. I wouldn't expect them to go 100% with the response, but it might be an idea to do some consultation on it.Alan Partridge wrote:I raised this point with them a few seasons ago and their view was 'it's too easy to get hijacked' for use of a better term. That other fans could find it hilarious to vote on the worst looking one, which from the look of the last few years has happened anyway.Isaac Hunt wrote:Have RFC ever consulted fans over a kit design? I can't recall it ever happening.
I know that other clubs have sometimes given the fans 3 or 4 options and asked them to choose.
Given the amount of negative comments, pretty much every time we change kits, it might be worth STAR raising this question at some stage.
A fair few clubs do it, then you contact the club via email to decide the favourite. As long as it's not just a tickbox on the website, but email with member numbers and all that jazz, it's really a lot of pointless effort for any wannabe comedians to do to rig the vote.
Kitson12 wrote: You really are an idiot. They give the opportunity for people who can't or don't want to drive/pay through the nose for public transport to go to away games.
YateleyRoyal wrote:Also, no third kit?
Last season's away kit. HTHYateleyRoyal wrote:Also, no third kit?
The orange one from last year and the year before thatKitson12 wrote:Last season's away kit. HTHYateleyRoyal wrote:Also, no third kit?
The problem is that if they put 4 kits up to the vote and they got something like 20%, 20% 20% & 40%, of the votes each, the winning one is the one that 60% of the voters didn't want, so the whole process loses credibility. It's only worth doing if one kit gets over 50%, which is only really likely if you have only two selections - which is hardly real choice.Hoop Blah wrote:They could easily do it with a postal vote card to member card holders, or by emai for those that they've got email addresses for. I wouldn't expect them to go 100% with the response, but it might be an idea to do some consultation on it.Alan Partridge wrote:I raised this point with them a few seasons ago and their view was 'it's too easy to get hijacked' for use of a better term. That other fans could find it hilarious to vote on the worst looking one, which from the look of the last few years has happened anyway.
A fair few clubs do it, then you contact the club via email to decide the favourite. As long as it's not just a tickbox on the website, but email with member numbers and all that jazz, it's really a lot of pointless effort for any wannabe comedians to do to rig the vote.
Has anyone ever heard of them holding a focus group or anything like that on the kit?
I looked so I could get a glimpse of Simon Church's todger in the official photshootSarah Star wrote:How close did you look and why?
New kits are aimed at those who buy a new one for the sake of it regardless of whether it is awful or not.sawyers left arm wrote:Where have all the threads gone, this really is changing for changing sake, the new kit is awful.
Problem is there are plenty of mugs out there that buy the shirts year on year, good luck but I won't be ripped off with this unfinished article.
Users browsing this forum: RG30 and 49 guests