Would A Redskin Called By Any Other Name Sound As Sweet?

            Heading into the 2012-13 offseason, the biggest question facing the Washington Redskins appeared to be the health of star quarterback Robert Griffin III’s knee. Washington Post columnist Mike Wise changed the narrative (at least temporarily) when he asked NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell if it were time for the Redskins to change their team name during the commissioner’s annual pre-Super Bowl press conference. This set off a flurry of activity in both the national and local media that included Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio asking Griffin to publicly call for the team to stop using the name.

The most recent controversy had mostly abated until the team posted an article titled “We Are Very Proud To Be Called Redskins” on its site February 11^th. The team states, “Redskins.com found that there are almost as many schools using the name Redskins as Cowboys, as only 75 schools use the name Cowboys, and interestingly just 19 use the name Giants.” The team’s appears to justify keeping its name by citing that more schools use the term Redskins than Giants has not been received well by many different audiences. Deadspin’s Drew Magery summed up a common response by critics when he wrote, “they posted on their official team website a breathtakingly tone-deaf excuse that basically amounts to, ‘Hey, high schools do it, too!’”

  While the post on Redskins.com has seemingly increased the controversy about its names, the Redskins are in a very difficult position. Most definitions of the controversial term describe it as originating “from the bounty-hunting days, when colonies and companies would pay settlers for dead American Indians. Scalps, called ‘redskins,’ were used as trophies and proof because it was too difficult to carry the entire body.” Clearly, it’s easy to see what many people are offended that a sports team would be named after such a horrifying practice.

Yet, that is not the only problem for the team. According to the book Showdown – JFK and the Integration of the Washington Redskins, the late George Preston Marshall, the team’s first owner claimed he “chose the name because he had always been an admirer of the American Indian and because one of the coaches, ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, was himself an American Indian.” Yet Marshall was infamous for his racist views, particularly when it came to minority players. While Marshall’s stated intention may have been to celebrate Native American culture, naming the team after a barbaric practice seems like an odd (and inflammatory) way to do it.

Despite the controversy, the Redskins have never really considered changing the name. In fact, the team has generally taken the opposite approach and has threatened lawsuits against companies or people who use the name without the team’s permission. For example, “The Redskins recently asked The Washington Post to rename the newspaper’s video webcast and blog about the team, which was called “Redskins Insider,” according to people who have knowledge of the circumstances. The team had used the name ‘Redskins Insider’ first, and The Post agreed to switch to ‘Football Insider.’”

There are two main reasons that the Redskins have likely considered keeping the name. The first is the tradition justification. For close to 80 years, the team has been called the Redskins. Why change it now when most fans, media, sponsors, and employees have associated (and many have loved) the team with that name for so long? The second is an economic justification, which argues that the Redskins’ name and brand is one of the most valuable brands in all of sports.

The tradition argument has been discussed by multiple sources so we will not comment on this element for this blog post. The economic justification for the Redskins is more interesting from a B6A perspective. Because the Redskins’ name is so pervasive, it is generally accepted the team would stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue and brand equity by changing it. Yet it is difficult to see analysis as being accurate. The most common way for brands to generate value is in a commoditized market. In this competitive situation, companies cannot compete on the quality of their products because they are generally very similar. Therefore, many focus on building brands and brand loyalty to command price premiums from consumers. The most famous example of a brand generating value is Coca-Cola. Despite the lore around keeping the recipe Coca-Cola a closely held secret, The company’s core product, essentially flavored carbonated water, is something that can be easily replicated. In fact, consumers can now buy machines that allow them to produce their own soda at home for the fraction of the cost of buying a Coca-Cola product. Yet, Coca-Cola will generate billions of dollars of revenue this year because their consumers do not want soda – they want a Coke (or another Coke product). This brand is what ultimately drives much of the company’s value.

The Redskins brand simply does not create this type of value for the team, primarily because the Redskins do not operate in a commoditized market. In fact, the NFL (along with most other major professional leagues) has created almost the exact opposite competitive dynamic by securing special anti-trust exemptions that has effectively granted the league a monopoly over professional football in America. Therefore, the Redskins have little to no competition in the Washington, D.C. market for professional football.

The little competition the Redskins may have comes from other NFL. Yet, “competition” here is a misnomer. While fiercely competing with opponents on the field, the Redskins more often act as friends with the other 31 NFL teams off the field, especially when it comes to revenue sharing from television, merchandise, and league-wide sponsorship revenue. It is unlikely that a name change would impact any of these revenue channels. It is also difficult to envision the Redskins losing any money on its individual revenue streams, such as ticket sales, parking, luxury suites, concessions, and local media rights deals based on a name change. Essentially, the Redskins are the only provider ofa product that is high demand (professional football games) in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Therefore, it would be unlikely for a fan to make a decision on whether to attend a professional football game based on the name of the team.

In fact, the Redskins may actually make more money by changing its name on two fronts. First, a name change would allow the team to market new merchandise to its core audiences (although it would share most of the revenue with other teams in the NFL). Second, there are at least some sponsors who do not want to be associated with a team with a name as controversial as the Redskins. Changing the name would allow the team to target those companies that have been reluctant or unwilling to associate with the Redskins.  

The Washington Redskins are rightfully considered one of the most valuable franchises in all of professional sports. Yet the team’s value has little to do with its name and much more to do with its competitive positioning. The team is set to receive $200 million in national television revenue starting in 2014, while owning one of the largest stadiums in professional sports. In addition, it faces little competition for professional football revenue in the Washington, D.C. market with no other professional football organization in the area. It is difficult to see how changing the team’s name would impact this advantageous competitive environment in any meaningful way. This conclusion does not mean the team should or should not change its name, but it provides little economic justification for keeping it.