The governing body of the athletics industry in Australia has decided to ‘boldly’ rebrand their organisation.
From Athletics Australia to Australian Athletics.
Seriously?
They probably wanted a new acronym for the organization—i.e. something other than “AA.” Oh wait… 
If it doesn’t work out, it’ll be easy to switch back.
American Airlines, or Alcoholics Anonymous?
Alcoholics Airlines. “We’re flying before we leave the ground.”
The Australian Sports Syndicate has a better ring to it.
I can’t help wondering just how much was spent on marketing consultants for this. Hope it wasn’t taxpayer funds.
I’m sure it was. I can imagine the focus group being asked to choose between the options, and pissing themselves laughing as they ticked the box and claimed their $100 for their time. 
That would pretty much restrict things to the long jump and high jump. You couldn’t get much further in 12 steps.
Brand Consultant / Designer checking in here.
This sort of reaction is pretty standard when there’s been a slight tweak to one element of an identity, and everyone piles in to wail about $2 million being spent on a stupid name change.
I don’t have any opinion about this rebrand as I haven’t seen it, and wasn’t familiar with the previous iteration, but what I CAN tell you is that a rename is one teeny tiny part of a rebrand. It likely wasn’t even in the brief. Instead, the brief would have said something like ‘athletics is seen as elitist, and young audiences don’t connect with it. How do we attract a wider/younger/different audience at a grass roots level to get involved and maintain our position as a powerful athletic nation long into the future’. I’m making this up BTW. For one thing, briefs are a lot longer than that.
The appointed agency would have conducted in depth research, focus groups, stakeholder interviews etc etc, and formulated a strategy to give AA a stronger message to take to market, adapted for all their different audiences. The creative element would have analysed everything about the existing identity - name, logo, colours, imagery, illustration, graphic language, typography, tone of voice (ie the ‘personality’ of the brand). At some point some part of the research and strategy process would have made a recommendation that a small tweak to the name would maintain brand recognition, they could still be AA, but (and I don’t know this, I wasn’t there) but talking about ‘Australian’ rather than ‘Australia’ it would feel like it was talking directly to the people. A more inclusive name - I appreciate talking about inclusivity isn’t in fashion right now, but it has impact at an unconscious level. They might also have felt that ‘Athletics Australia’ sounded a bit stuffy. Old fashioned. Who knows.
Point is, rebranding is never just a name change. It probably wasn’t even a twinkle in the marketing director’s eye when the project started. And the change won’t be recalled by anyone beyond the twitterati and SDMB precisely because it’s subtle. And if it helps, even a tiny bit, to recruit the next Olympic stars for the team, then good on them.
Don’t forget the triple jump. But you only have 4 attempts.
This.
Don’t forget the hammered throw.
“And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire…”
Now that there is a bold new identity.
Though I’m far more impressed that Australia has a champion sprinter named Gout Gout. Will Novartis become an official team sponsor?
Just wanted to say: great post, SanVito. Ignorance fought.
You’re forgetting the brief, but awkward period when they’ll be called “Austrian Athletics”.
Or “Athtrian Ausletics”
I wonder if anyone suggested Athletey McAthleteface.
Especially if it gets them a somewhat higher caliber of competitor in the sport of breakdancing.
I’m picturing Mugsy from Looney Tunes being in charge.