> The Nottingham building society has dropped its iconic Robin Hood logo for “inclusivity” reasons. The Nottingham has rebranded itself as Nottingham Building Society, with a host of changes.
I’m surprised a financial services organisation would use Robin Hood in the first place, didn’t he represent the opposite of what they do?
TheCrunker on
I’ve read the article and still can’t understand the reasoning. Who was offended by the logo?
FaceMace87 on
Who was feeling attacked by the use of a character from folklore? Maybe Disney need to follow suit, Mickey Mouse isn’t very inclusive to us non mice folk.
xyclic on
Does a company get tax benefits on ‘inclusivity’ spending?
Training-Apple1547 on
What is the “inclusivity” thinking? Who was Robin Hood excluding, other than the Sherriff?
Danimalomorph on
“A third added: “Go woke go broke I will be pulling my money out asap.” ” – there’s no way these are real quotes, come on.
Article doesn’t really explain why the new is more inclusive than the old, which is a shame.
qwerty_1965 on
I’ll be watching Martin “failed head boy” Dubney on GBNews for insights on this.
evolveandprosper on
If they want to be more representative of current UK society then they should adopt the Sherriff of Nottingham as their symbol.
PrometheusIsFree on
What’s next, Coventry Building Society dropping Lady Godiva, because animal rights campaigners and vegans don’t like her exploiting a horse?
rsweb on
In short, they will have got a fancy PR company in who told them it was “old fashioned” and inexplicably limited their audience. They will have dropped it based on this guidance and no one in the company will really know why. No wants to ask in case they are seen as out of touch. Fast forward a few years and everyone will be putting these logos back on because ever brand looks the same generic modern style
Rinse and repeat, all PR bs from consultants with the buzzword of the day thrown in
SigmundRowsell on
A naughty article. The rebrand as a whole emphasised inclusivity and other such things, not the logo change specifically
-Krovos- on
There’s no way in hell people complained about this. Feels like they mentioned the “inclusivity” as a marketing strategy as they know more eyes will be on their company due to culture war BS.
ferrel_hadley on
>“We’ve mixed our rich history with a modern twist. We want to reflect society as it is today. For us, that means championing inclusivity and **celebrating financial diversity**. Consider it a glow-up, but for a building society, changing to make sure we’re fresh and relevant for current and future members.
They have paid money for consultants who have had to manufacture a reason for them to sound like the institution needed to change its image, they chucked in some vacuous buzzwords to a society that is getting very tired of the relentless changes for no reason and buzzwords and are now finding people unhappy with them.
Obviously there is a small number of people who will defend it because it has “their team”s buzzwords like “diversity”. So notice no actual increase in diversity from this but people defending them. Gives you a clue how deep their politics actually is.
Edited: And telling people you have to change an icon of the region for “diversity” is not a win for “diversity”, it makes people feel like their culture is being trashed for reasons no one will explain to them.
Happytallperson on
This headline does not match the story.
They’ve rebranded and identified that their new brand includes a focus on financial inclusivity.
That does not mean they’ve dropped Robin Hood for not being inclusive.
14 Comments
> The Nottingham building society has dropped its iconic Robin Hood logo for “inclusivity” reasons. The Nottingham has rebranded itself as Nottingham Building Society, with a host of changes.
I’m surprised a financial services organisation would use Robin Hood in the first place, didn’t he represent the opposite of what they do?
I’ve read the article and still can’t understand the reasoning. Who was offended by the logo?
Who was feeling attacked by the use of a character from folklore? Maybe Disney need to follow suit, Mickey Mouse isn’t very inclusive to us non mice folk.
Does a company get tax benefits on ‘inclusivity’ spending?
What is the “inclusivity” thinking? Who was Robin Hood excluding, other than the Sherriff?
“A third added: “Go woke go broke I will be pulling my money out asap.” ” – there’s no way these are real quotes, come on.
Article doesn’t really explain why the new is more inclusive than the old, which is a shame.
I’ll be watching Martin “failed head boy” Dubney on GBNews for insights on this.
If they want to be more representative of current UK society then they should adopt the Sherriff of Nottingham as their symbol.
What’s next, Coventry Building Society dropping Lady Godiva, because animal rights campaigners and vegans don’t like her exploiting a horse?
In short, they will have got a fancy PR company in who told them it was “old fashioned” and inexplicably limited their audience. They will have dropped it based on this guidance and no one in the company will really know why. No wants to ask in case they are seen as out of touch. Fast forward a few years and everyone will be putting these logos back on because ever brand looks the same generic modern style
Rinse and repeat, all PR bs from consultants with the buzzword of the day thrown in
A naughty article. The rebrand as a whole emphasised inclusivity and other such things, not the logo change specifically
There’s no way in hell people complained about this. Feels like they mentioned the “inclusivity” as a marketing strategy as they know more eyes will be on their company due to culture war BS.
>“We’ve mixed our rich history with a modern twist. We want to reflect society as it is today. For us, that means championing inclusivity and **celebrating financial diversity**. Consider it a glow-up, but for a building society, changing to make sure we’re fresh and relevant for current and future members.
They have paid money for consultants who have had to manufacture a reason for them to sound like the institution needed to change its image, they chucked in some vacuous buzzwords to a society that is getting very tired of the relentless changes for no reason and buzzwords and are now finding people unhappy with them.
Obviously there is a small number of people who will defend it because it has “their team”s buzzwords like “diversity”. So notice no actual increase in diversity from this but people defending them. Gives you a clue how deep their politics actually is.
Edited: And telling people you have to change an icon of the region for “diversity” is not a win for “diversity”, it makes people feel like their culture is being trashed for reasons no one will explain to them.
This headline does not match the story.
They’ve rebranded and identified that their new brand includes a focus on financial inclusivity.
That does not mean they’ve dropped Robin Hood for not being inclusive.
It’s silly ragebait.