You’re likely aware of the outrage regarding London’s new professional baseball team called the Rippers with a logo that highlights “Jack” the Rippers’ mascot. The team’s president and general manager David Martin claims there is no co-relation between the brutal serial killer and the team’s intended image.
You be the judge. This image was pulled from Wikipedia and made its way around twitterverse last night thanks to Kevin Van Lierop a.k.a. @kvl

@Kvl 's Twitter Picture & Post: "I guess he has a point, they aren't that similar"
From a branding perspective, this is a nightmare – unless David Martin fixes it.
First of all, despite the team’s best intentions to create Jack the Diamond character who left London’s favourite game (hockey) to play at the ball park, anyone in business knows that “intentions” don’t matter. Rarely, if ever, do good intentions out shadow the reality and others perception of your intentions.
In any business if you have to explain your logo, that’s not a good sign. If you have to create a back story so extravagant that people have to pay attention for longer than 140 characters it won’t stick.
What will stick is the public’s gut reaction of your brand. And for the Rippers, the initial gut reaction is not good.
There is so much more to a brand than a logo, name and back story. If you read my recent column on Personal Branding, you’ll be well aware of my passion for how important it is to create and protect your personal brand. It’s the same with companies…or in the case of the new London Rippers with baseball teams.
In the column, I share that a “brand” is the gut reaction that others have about you or your company. You can’t control it, you can only influence it by making good decisions about what people see, hear and feel when they interact with you or your company brand.
The big unveil of the Rippers’ new name and logo left people seeing a significant likeness to the brutal serial killer now holding a baseball bat rather than a knife.
People heard some random backstory about Jack the Diamond that had absolutely no chance of developing traction thanks to the general public’s comments. The written words outshined anything the team could possibly say to create a new association.
Even if it wasn’t announced during a campaign to end violence against woman, it still drums up feelings about chilling murders dating back to 1888 in the other London. Not to mention the stripper connotation to the word which led to one of my favourite tweets:
“If hubby says he’s going to the rippers tonight, should that be a red flag or should you send the kids?” #justchecking”
The most difficult part of this branding strike-out is how people feel. From the comments on social media it’s easy to glean that people are not embracing the whole Jack the Diamond character as one of their own. Rather they generally feel like the owner made a mistake that he won’t admit to. By using this name and logo, people feel like it’s in poor taste, bad judgement, disgraceful, disempowering toward women and counterintuitive to how hard society has worked to end violence against women. This list represents generalizations, but they are all words pulled from the twitterverse.
Bottom line: People don’t like it.
I love the optimists who think this will pass like so many scandals in the past. But this is different. This is not a scandal or a failed promise of yet another politician. There is nowhere to the channel to (a key element of successful scandal spin). The team should be a symbol of the amazing sporting community we have in London, Ontario. Unfortunately, with much of those paying attention being offended, it’ll be tough for the team to overcome these feelings and get traction.
Every time a person sees the jersey the team runs the risk of offending someone. If it’s a new visitor, they’ll deduce the same visceral reaction so many people did last night. When the team plays, I know I’ll be looking down from my office window that overlooks the ball diamond and be disgusted that there are a whole bunch of guys who don’t have enough tact or couth to refuse to wear a jersey that is degrading to women and unintentionally celebrates violence against women.
An overreaction? Perhaps. I think they would have had more support with just Rippers without “Jack” the Ripper’s mascot. I think the public could get over the whole stripper connotation/likeness much easier than getting over the serial killer.
So what’s the solution?
It looks like the team’s leadership wants to dig their heels in as they try to champion their version of Jack the Diamond who can “rip” balls out of the park. Why is this the fight you want to fight?
Why not take the high road? Apologize to the public. Recognize that it was not your attention, and it’s not an admission of guilt, but the team is more focussed on representing our community in a positive way and making them proud. Therefore, you will pull the offensive (to the majority) mascot and create a new image for this new baseball team.
Then, to engage the community, run a naming and logo design contest, with the winner getting prime tickets to the opening game and unveiling. London is such an incredibly creative community. Engage the talent we have here and give them a chance to show their support.
This will go a lot further to engaging the grassroots. The goal at this point is to keep the team focussed on winning games rather than fighting the protestors.
Contrary to popular opinion any exposure, positive or negative, is not good for the team. If it doesn’t result in ticket sales, then the team won’t be around to lurk in the shadows of the ball diamond very long anyhow. (yes that’s a bad Jack the Ripper play on words)
P.S. Hey, isn’t it exciting that London has a new Professional baseball team – regardless of the name! The story that has been lost in all this outrage.