A bit of bok, protea doesn't solve anything!  My immediate
response is that this has to be an interim solution and not a
long-term one, because it doesn't address the real problem, the
issue of the negative connotations of the Springbok emblem. How
do you rationalise introducing the protea as a way of fixing
this mess?  Where is the logic?  Let me speculate that this is
an interim solution (as I can't see it to be any other way). In
a classical branding scenario, brand change needs to take into
consideration how we transfer the positive equity from one brand
to another. In transition stages (take, for example, when HSBC
Bank took over Midland bank), it renamed itself HSBC Midland for
a couple of months (just so consumers could understand the
merger) and then reverted back to HSBC, with the knowledge that
consumers would understand the joining of these two companies.
So my question here, is the same being done with the springbok
and protea?  It's not an impossible situation  Some fanatics may
feel nauseous at