UNDErmines

Looking at the timing of the meeting and the results, it's clear that the committee did not use the scoring criteria at all. They averaged about 15 seconds per name and just voted for stuff that they liked. The process totally got derailed.

Man, you guys are screwed. What's the board of your biggest rival? I think I'm going to go become a fan of that team.

What the - where's Ermines? Ermines is better than every name on that list. That has to be a mistake. Looking at the list, are we sure that's not the "terrible names" list? Half of those don't even come close to meeting the scoring criteria.

I pondered that nickname against "The University of North Dakota Mass Times Acceleration", but decided that they were about equal.

It never even occurred to me to suggest "Green Ermines".

What the heck? Who writes a story about 38 finalists without listing them? http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3739452-und-committee-starts-cutting-names-flickertails-badlanders-and-aviators I'm assuming that Ermines is on the list, but I'd like proof. Give me facts, newspaper reporter! Facts!

An ermine isn't a rodent. It's a mustelid. It's essentially a more attractive wolverine in a very expensive coat.

I'm going to need you to stand over there [pointing toward food buffet] and let the experts handle this.

I love the concept, but I think it would be impossible to pull off fairly for a variety of reasons. It's way too easy to cheat unless you're literally doing some sort of voter ID checkoff, and you also have issues with how voter turnout affects the power of each constituent group. Now, a fun variant would be something like this: you print 100 "golden tickets" for students, 100 for alums, 100 for season ticket holders, and so on. Different groups might get different numbers of tickets according to their "importance" in the decision. You then randomly select people to receive those tickets, and deliver them with pomp and fanfare. Those tickets have a list of the ten finalists, and they get to vote for one. You could actually pull that off, and it would not only be accurate from a statistical standpoint, but it would be great theater.

I provided a little background in a previous post, but I own a market research company and while we work in several sectors, we've done a variety of research projects for universities. I've been the research consultant for a couple of university name changes (the whole university, not just the mascot), and a coworker did some research for a mascot/logo. I also do a lot of brand research and market research for other types of organizations. My undergrad alma mater also changed names, so I watched that. My background is therefore more changes to the entire university name than picking a mascot, but it's pretty similar. I'll offer up my two name change experiences. Experience 1 - The Easy One It was easy for me, I guess, because I was the researcher. The marketing company that came after me may have had a tougher ride, but I don't think it was bad. I got called in by a large state university in the eastern U.S. that wanted to understand their brand and was also considering a name change. My job was to understand how the school was perceived among many stakeholders. My team did interviews or focus groups with state legislators, major donors, faculty and staff, and current students, and we did surveys of alumni, some specific professional groups, prospective students, and the general public (in the city, not statewide). Our goal was to figure out what the university was in the minds of these audiences, which fed into the discussion of a name change. This process went relatively smoothly because the University's name strongly reflected one particular degree program, which led to misperceptions about the strength of other programs at the school. It was pretty clear that a name change was a good idea, so I think there wasn't a lot of outcry about the concept of doing so. I don't recall details at this point, but I don't think there was even much resistance among alumni and current students, who are almost always going to be the biggest resistance. I can't talk much about how the name change occurred - I do research, not marketing - but they had a pretty strong case for a change, and made a pretty radical name change. There wasn't any public role in the decision, though. It was an internal committee or the Board of Trustees or some similar group (after I left the process). Experience 2 - The Tougher One I came in as the second researcher to a large public school in the western U.S. The university had originally hired a marketing firm to do the research, but they lost credibility at some point. I don't know the details. By the time I arrived, the school had three names in mind and there had been some battles in the state legislature and with another university about them. Somewhere in the process they had gone to the students in a suggestion process, who picked an absolutely terrible name, and when they had to veto it the students were ticked off and active. So they brought my firm in to test some elements of the three finalist names with alumni, and I think that was the only group they vetted. I'm sure there was some behind the scenes stuff with major donors, but it wasn't research if it was done, more just vetting. By the point I arrived, it was such a battle that they determined that it was going to be one of the three names, and so we tested support and opposition to each name and identified one that seemed to have the broadest support and the most narrow opposition. It was a pretty contentious process all around for unavoidable reasons. In the end, the name change was not radical, but it accomplished their goals. I think the Board of Trustees made the final call, and the school handled it well. Again, not a public decision process at all, and I think they only tested it with alumni and VIPs (legislators). Experience 3 - The Mascot Logo I wasn't on this one, but a coworker was. A school had selected a new mascot (don't know how - before we arrived) and they wanted to test some logos that incorporated the mascot. If I remember right, we just did focus groups with students to test the option. I wish I knew how they had picked the mascot, but I think this was a school that didn't previously have a mascot, so there wasn't the trauma of losing an old one. When I think about your process at UND, here are my reactions: 1. I think the suggestion process is great. It seems that some of you find it embarrassing, but I don't think it is at all. I think it's great publicity and fun. It's building goodwill nationally. 2. Playing amateur psychologist, I don't think people are mad about the process. They're mad about losing the old mascot. That's understandable and it's normal. I personally have mixed feeling about removing Native American references and think an argument can be made in both directions. But the truth is that the old mascot has to go, and the NCAA gave it a boost. I think anger at the selection process now is misdirected. 3. Moving forward, I think that this is a wonderful opportunity to create a new tradition (ermine). You have a once in a lifetime chance to give the university (ermine) a new identity, and whether you're mad (ermine) about the old one or not, you should be jumping at the (ermine) chance to participate in the new process. 4. There's zero chance that the final selection goes to a public input process. Zero. If they're saying that, they're going to change their minds pretty quickly. That's a disaster waiting to happen, and surely they understand that. I like the suggestion put up earlier that various stakeholders can "vote", but even that should just be an input, and it should be a controlled process to ensure no ballot stuffing. While there should be input from these groups in a controlled fashion (i.e., not just an unsecured online poll), some leader or leadership group (likely the Board of Trustees) needs to make the final call. There's no way this goes to a public "vote" unless it's literally on the ballot, and I don't see that happening. At the end of the day, it's just a mascot. 5. I'm biased because I'm a researcher, but I would hope that they would do some objective research at some point. You can do ad campaign testing where you go to a different market that's neutral to test, or you can have people sign confidentiality agreements, or you can do scientific surveys (NOT online polls) to vet concepts. I hope they're doing that, but I don't know if they have a researcher on board. As full disclosure, I pondered making a few calls about it, but business is good and I thought it would be more fun to lobby for Ermines (which is a great name). If somehow Ermines get eliminated, maybe I'll make a call. Ermines, ermines, ermines. 6. I've never seen it done, but you know what would be a really cool process? You pick two random students, two random alumni, two random VIPs (donors, etc.), two random faculty or staff, two locals, and two outsiders, and put them on a "jury". Give them the list of ten semifinalists, and sequester them like a jury. Put white smoke out the chimney once they've made a decision. I bet you'd get a good choice and it would be a marketing coup.

If you'll consider ermines, I'm in, but it's not an exciting story. I live on another sports board, and a North Dakota resident posted the story about this. I own a market research firm that does a fair amount of brand research for various organizations and a fair amount of work for universities (maybe 15+% of our client base), so it intrigued me. I've done a couple of projects about names changes for universities, and one of my coworkers did some mascot/logo work for a university, so I've seen some different processes. We were brainstorming mascots and pretty much determined that Ermines would be a great name. So I came here to help plant the seed. I'm not a fan of college sports at all and have no ulterior motive other than to support the UND Ermines, and I'm also interested in watching the process from a professional basis. I'll respond to another post with some observations about that process.

Excellent sleuthing.

I think the publicity is actually really good for UND. I see nothing in the process that makes the university look bad. Publicity is a good thing. If you want to strike back against The Man, though, you should start looking at the domain names that they bought, and then vote en masse for a name that's not on their list. If there's any thought that it's a rigged contest, or even a directed contest, you can blow it out of the water. Public internet votes are a very bad idea, but the p.r. firm doesn't appear to know research. All the better, because it gives us a chance to influence the outcome. You're all welcome to join me as I assemble and mobilize the Ermine Army, the greatest Mulstilidae force ever assembled. We shall UNDermine all opponents!

According to his resume he is also currently a server at Cracker Barrel. Nothing but a parasitic cybersquatter, most likely.

I'm not seeing anything for www.ermines.com yet.

Yeah, I think they did the right thing by presenting all of the suggestions. Sometimes a good policy is to bleep out the obviously vulgar names, but then it becomes a game to try to sneak vulgarities in. I kind of like the complete and total transparency, because I don't think it makes the school look bad, but rather the people who submit bad names. Transparency shows the huge amount of sincere submissions and garbage that the committee needs to sift through. As an aside, I'll say this as a neutral outsider. Whether you loved the old mascot or not, change is exciting and this is a really cool process. The resistance I see is probably less about losing the old name than it is about the tradition of having an old name. One can argue about the reasons for changing it, but that ship has sailed and you're really in an exciting process to start a new tradition. I hope people will start to embrace that and start thinking positively about new names. You're starting a new chapter of school history, and that's a pretty awesome thing. And now I'll offer a quick side story. I did some research on a university name change a few years ago. The name was being changed purely for marketing reasons (and with good cause) and my company was brought in to do some specific research on a set of three potential names that they'd come up with. We did the research and were at the Board of Trustees meeting waiting to present it, in front of a crowd of 400 or 500 people. I was sitting in the audience while the Board was talking and setting the stage. An elderly woman turned around in her seat and looked at me with a friendly smile. "Are you the one doing the research on the names?" she whispered. "Yeah." "They're all crap." Then she turned back around. I couldn't help but laugh.

Reapers is growing on me, and it's pretty much uncontested in ownership.

Yeah, possibly so. They'll have to justify any pick with the criteria, though.

My top ten on the Under Consideration list would be (in descending order): Ermines Frost Giants (but it'll get killed because it'll be shortened to Giants in everyday use) Northern Lights (though it'll get killed because of redundant Norths) Pronghorns Homesteaders Mallards Sodbusters Legends Sundogs (though it'll get killed because it'll be shortened to dogs) Meadowlarks This isn't taking into account ownership stuff since I haven't looked them all up. (I do know that ownership of Ermines would be complete and uncontested, though.)

If I read their scoring criteria correctly, they really don't want a name that's going to be shortened in common use. So from that, I bet we can eliminate most or all 3+ syllable names.

My guess would be that Mallards and maybe Nighthawks or Roughnecks are your best bet for a winner. I think the odds are zero for Stallions, Warriors, and Warhawks. Too many other schools have the first two, and Warhawks is a little too Native American in this day and age. Berzerkers is going to be too Dungeons & Dragons to get significant momentum, and Frackers is a pretty controversial word. Reapers is kind of cool but probably won't have the marketing pull. So among Mallards, Nighthawks, and Roughnecks, let's take a look. Mallards is used by a pro hockey team in Iowa, a handful of high schools, and an amateur baseball team in Wisconsin. You might have an issue with the hockey team. http://www.myqcmallards.net/home/ but I don't know if there's an ownership issue there or not. I don't know how much your markets overlap with Iowa. Nighthawks is used by a whole mess of high schools and some developmental pro soccer teams, but the bigger potential issue is that it's already being used by three colleges: http://ungathletics.com/ and http://tunighthawks.com/ and http://www.newburynighthawks.com/landing/index. You're not really in their markets so maybe it's not an issue (2 are in Georgia, 1 is in Massachusetts). Roughnecks is apparently a pretty common name for semipro football teams, though that's not an issue. There are a handful of high schools with the name, and the biggest competition is likely a pro lacrosse team in Canada and a developmental pro basketball team in Wyoming. Neither are particularly big names, I'm guessing. From a brand ownership perspective, I think Roughnecks would be pretty safe, and probably Mallards. They may not want to become the fourth Nighthawks in college athletics.

I'd love to hear people's top-five or top-ten lists. If you're on the committee and you can only choose from the list of "under consideration" names, which names move on to the semi finals? Remember that the formal scoring criteria are: 1. Be unique, recognizable, inspiring and distinctly UND’s 2. Promote a sense of pride, strength, fierceness, and passion 3. Be representative of the state and region in a way that honors the traditions and heritage of the past but also looks to the future. 4. Be a unifying and rallying symbol 5. Ease of Depicting/Personifying Physical Mascot 6. Cheer/Battle Cry Considerations: "Built-In" Cheer 7. Meaning of Nickname: Must be obvious and clear 8. Linguistic Considerations – Pronunciation: must Be Easy To Pronounce 9. Linguistic Considerations – Likelihood of name being abridged resulting in different name or name similar to existing name: Can't be easy to shorten into an informal name.

I'm guessing they converted an Excel file to a pdf, and some of the longer rationales bled over and created weird page breaks. There are occasional snippets of comments in there. While Flickertails is on the 'under consideration' list, I'd be surprised if it makes the next round. It's not going to have much national cachet.

I'll note another issue that hasn't yet been discussed on this site: women's sports. It's going to be very important that the name work for both men's teams and women's teams, and my hunch is that there aren't a lot of women's voices around here. So when you think about mascots, ponder whether they'll work well for women't sports. I would broach that "Flickertails" might not be a popular choice among women, for example.

I'll volunteer to be your outside market research expert. You're going to need one for testing.