I don't mind the idea of a bear and a ball. And I love the fact that kids came up with it.

What I am shocked about though is that a professional illustrator (I assume he/she was professional...) came up with this as a final draft. It looks very tacky.

The shirt is also awful! There's just too much on it. It's too busy. Screams if trying to please all and failing to please any.

A great concept, but poorly executed.

i'm suprised it was not a creation of Mcnamara

After all he takes his colouring books to every game

Oh dear lord

Its should have been Whippy the whippet.

Couldn't we have saved money and just used Rob Burrow?

This forum never ceases to amaze. The mascots are aimed at 6-12 year olds. Whilst many posters have a mental age somewhere between that figure, the mascots are not aimed at you, ergo you are not expected to like them or feel any emotion towards them whatsoever. Get a grip.

Quote ="headhunter"Did you not read that article? They were designed by children and the final selections were made by Steve McNamara and his kids. www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-wo ... search-for'" they were designed by children, however I would expect that once the initial designs were drafted and chosen by the kids, they would then appoint some sort of professional designer to actually turn them into something that looks vaguely professional and slick. nothing wrong with having a bear and a ball (I guess) but the execution looks amateurish.

Quote ="headhunter"Did you not read that article? They were designed by children and the final selections were made by Steve McNamara and his kids. www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-wo ... search-for'" they were designed by children, however I would expect that once the initial designs were drafted and chosen by the kids, they would then appoint some sort of professional designer to actually turn them into something that looks vaguely professional and slick. nothing wrong with having a bear and a ball (I guess) but the execution looks amateurish.

And his owner ' Flatcap Fred '

Dare I say it, but IMHO, Sir J. Saville would have been more appealing to kids.....what the HELL were they thinking?
It looks like our sport is viewed...amateurish and shoddy.....and I'm sorry if this meets some strange RLFANS demographic, but it's ing true.

That is a disgusting comment. Grow up you bloody moron, its a childrens mascot for gods sake.

Ridiculous. Presumably you are a middle aged man (correct me if I am wrong). I fail to see how you have a better idea of what children will like than the children who designed and selected the mascots. I seem to remember similar views were aired a few years ago regarding the Olympic mascots, however these were a huge success and when I saw my young Godson in the summer he was telling me all about them.

If we are honest, we both know that regardless of the design you were always going to criticise it. Marketing so far for the World Cup has been superb, and people seem unable to cope with that. Pathetic.

Is it fair to say that if people don't turn up next Autumn, it won't be for the lack of effort and ideas from the organisers? I'd say so.

(It's a bear and a ball, what's so bloody wrong with that?)

What is the point of a mascot? I am not sure it is to get 6-12year olds to buy tickets to games! Surely they are used to promote the event, in which case they are amateurish at best.

[url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_10564-world-cup-mascots-unveiled.html"To have young fans involved in the creation of our mascot was important for us. This was to make sure that we really had something that 6-12 year old fans could really engage with.[/url

"Grubber and Steed will be a big part of RLWC2013 and will bring new young fans and families to the tournament and thereby also help with our legacy commitments..."

Designed by children, for children. Stop bloody moaning.

the original criticisms of the Olympic mascots were that they looked like a couple of penises.

the criticisms (well my criticism) of these, are that the actual drawing (not the concept) looks amateurish and unprofessional i.e. it is not very slick, and therefore unlikely to generate much awareness of the mascots (and the RLWC) outside of the RL websites.

How old are you? If you are older than 12 - with respect - it doesn't really matter what you think.

Sod me, it's the taste police.




Iam amiddleaged man and I can see that the RFL and RLWC 2013 have missed yet another opportunity to get it right.

.

Nope...I hadn't given the choice of mascot a second thought until I saw this thread......if they'd designed a decent one,I'd have applauded it...they didn't.

This isn't about the marketing of RLWC 13, it's about the mascots, that are bloody terrible in mine and many others opinions.
If you want to discuss marketing, then please let me know how many of the 590,000 tickets available this superb marketing has seen snapped up to date.....is it still the 50,000....or as some would call it, 8.5%? 50,000 tickets is 20% of the semis/opener/final.....there'salot more superb marketing needed IMO.

Indeed.




You are a middle aged man criticising a children's mascot. Your opinion on this is irrelevant.




It doesn't matter what you think.




Unless the 'many others' you speak of are less than 12 years old, your opinions are irrelevant.




There's still 50 weeks to go before it kicks off, I'm sure they have it all in hand.

As others have said the mascots (any mascot for that matter) are aimed at primary school kids to catch their interest and to add to the matchday experience for children. It doesn't matter what adults think about what they look like. If kids like them then they have worked and fulfilled their purpose.

As far as attracting publicity and spreading awareness of the RLWC goes that has little if anything to do with the mascots. All the mascots will do at events publicising the tournament is be stood at the back at media events and wave at people from within the costume. The only time they would be likely to be the focus would be if a publicity event was at a school or rugby club where the RLWC organisers were concentrating solely on publicising to children.

The vast majority of awareness will come from social media where the like of Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, Bradley Wiggins and RL players will write about the event. Lets hope they are more positive than some forum posters.

Not really aimed at me.

The fact that kids designed them (which i think is a cracking idea) doesn't mean the final design should look so amateurish. Especially having saved cash by getting kids to design it for free.
There seems to be a lot of people now who complain about the pessimism in Rugby league and strut around pretending everything is perfect, its really not, it's not totally down the pan, put its far from perfect.

Really? So all these kids are going to break open their piggy banks to buy tickets are they? The Mascots, regardless of who the "spin" says they are targeted at, are a trojan horse to the wallets of Parents....some of them middle aged no less, so the opinion of those that would bankroll the purchase of ticket, is valid.
They look amateurish.......they reflect that amaturism on our sport.....this is my opinion which in fact does matter...regardless of what the taste police would like to think

If the kid likes it, the parents will fork out for it. Their opinion of it is irrelevant.

Pokémon cartoons look rubbish and amateurish in my opinion and I'm sure some parents will agree, but the kids love them and their gear sells by the truckload...

What they could do, is produce a limited ammount of mascot merchandise and sell it at all the Rugby League grounds, if it goes well produce more. It will get the attention of the younger fans and hopefully get their interest and they are our future in Rugby League.

Just out of interest to those people criticising it, what do YOU think would have been a better design? I see lots of criticism but nothing in the way of alternative suggestions to what the mascot should have consisted of or looked like?