Relocation and Branding

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

20 hours ago, hawk36 said:

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I would be shocked if the San Francisco Giants sold any significant amount of merchandise in New York.  Any more than they would have done naturally. 

 

Everything that every company does is, to some extent, motivated by the desire to sell something.

But these overtures to New York on the part of the Giants are clearly more than that, because the potential market for that team's products here in this city is too small to be worth the effort if that were the only motivation.  It is safe to assume, therefore, that a contributing motivation is one of principle: the Giants' president is a history-minded person; and he is doing the right thing in accordance with his understanding of history.

Also, even though merchandise sales in New York certainly account for a minuscule portion of the Giants' revenue, it's not absolutely nothing.  To see people around town in San Francisco Giants hats is no longer rare; you see them about as much as you see Braves hats.  Every team wants to push its national footprint as much as it can.

About a year ago I posted on this forum about a visit to a Lids store here in New York where I found available for sale more varieties of New York Giants hats than Brooklyn Dodgers hats.  This was pleasantly surprising.

The Giants were in the Dodgers' shadows for the last couple of decades that both teams played here.  They had fewer fans and got much less attention.  Indeed, the Giants' heyday in New York had been from the 1890s through the early 1920s.  That ended after the Yankees acquired Babe Ruth. The Yankees, who were then playing in the Polo Grounds as the Giants' tenants, quickly surpassed their hosts in attendance (and in cultural significance).  This annoyed the Giants so much that they kicked the Yankees out of the ballpark, which eventually led to the construction of Yankee Stadium and to the first of many Yankee dynasties.

The Giants have been in the Dodgers' shadows when it comes to nostalgia, as well.  Their move has never been nearly as strongly lamented as the Dodgers' move.  Myriad books and television shows have been produced about the Brooklyn Dodgers, versus almost none about the New York Giants.

So the appearance of so many New York Giants caps in 2015 on the shelf of a Lids store in New York City -- in the borough of Brooklyn, yet! -- was unprecedented.  I would be willing to bet that nothing like that had ever happened before.  And if places like Lids had existed throughout the early and middle parts of the 20th Century, it wouldn't have happened then, either.  

A retailer carries only those items which it thinks that it can sell.  This was in the summer after the Giants had won the World Series for the third time in recent years, and right after the reopening of the Brush Stairway that is mentioned above.  So awareness of the Giants was at a height.  To see multiple New York Giants hats at Lids just warmed the heart.  Undoubtedly it is is this kind of emotional reaction (in addition to the potential merchandise sales) that drives Baer to keep reminding the world of the Giants' connection to New York.  

Larry Baer is a lifelong Giant fan who has shown himself to have deep reverence for his club's history.  And he has demonstrated that a respect for history is not at all incompatible with business acumen in the modern sports marketplace. 

[hawk36]

4 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

Technically they're not...but I get what you're saying.

Really? OK I see they've had others like the All Stars back in the 20s, etc. Never knew. Well they are still the oldest remaining NFL team that called St. Louis home. Not as catchy I guess.

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

I would be shocked if the San Francisco Giants sold any significant amount of merchandise in New York.  Any more than they would have done naturally. 

I'd think more than SF merchandise, it would be the old NY Giants merchandise. Wouldn't the organization profit from that or is that league controlled?

 

My point is in trying to make the clear tie to the NY Giants, the team gets a boost in the huge "New York is cool" market nationwide by being tied to the city. Too much of a stretch? 

[wildwing64]

On 15/08/2016 at 5:47 AM, ColeJ said:

i'll make the same comments i've made a million times on this topic, since this topic keeps coming up...

 

maybe the san francisco giants should change their name to the san francisco californians or golden gators or bears, and let the mets be the giants... no? that's dumb? okay. change the colts to the indianans or drivers, so the ravens can be the colts? still no?

 

and if the north stars were as beloved in minnesota from 1967-1993 as people claim, they'd probably still be there....

 

it's arguable that the stars are more a part of texas sports history than minnesota sports history at this point, too. 67-93 is 26 years. 93-16 is 23 years. factor in a stanley cup championship, the golden era of the franchise, and the synonymity of the franchise with the sport in this market, and that 3 year difference seems a little negligible.

 

in texas, the stars brand IS hockey. the only game in town, and the only game there's even been. and its been that way for 23 years. for 26 years in minnesota, the stars played second or third fiddle to the gophers, high school, and people's personal rec-leagues...

 

there's no doubt hockey itself is bigger in minnesota. always has been, and always will be. but the stars mean more to dallas than they ever did to minnesota, and people need to just accept that and live in the present.

 

if minnesota cared so much about the stars identity, they should have put a fight in 1993 and tried to talk the league into forcing an identity change... but that didn't happen. the stars identity remained, and become a beloved part of the dallas sports scene. anyone thinking that should be stripped away for manufactured nostalgia's sake, or that it'd be okay for two kelly green teams to play in the same division with star-themed identities is delusional.

 

[takes blood pressure pill and prepares to make the exact same rant in about 3 months.]

 

go stars.

 

Well said.

 

Maybe this is a topic for a whole new thread, but I wonder if we'd still be having this recurring North Stars name discussion if the current Minnesota franchise had gone with something better than the Wild - which for the record I don't hate so much, but it's really down to how you interpret the name, which itself doesn't make it a particularly good name for them.

 

 

On 14/08/2016 at 7:52 PM, Morgo said:

Dallas should add yellow and embrace the true roots of their franchise...  At least have a throwback alternate.

 

Preferably that, but I'm not sure if they even need an alternate. Far as I'm concerned the uniforms they have now are basically perfect. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want them to bring out a North Stars-ish third.

[Morgan33]

13 minutes ago, wildwing64 said:

Preferably that, but I'm not sure if they even need an alternate. Far as I'm concerned the uniforms they have now are basically perfect. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want them to bring out a North Stars-ish third.

 

The Stars uniforms are really really good.  But I still can't help but lament the loss of Gold.  They've been the Green, Gold and Black team for 22 years, excluding Minnesota...  They've also won the cup in those colours.  Adding athletic gold to the current look would have pushed it over the top, with the added bonus of shutting up the people who think the Wild should revert to the Northstars.

[Silver_Star]

On 8/13/2016 at 11:34 AM, Bobster said:

NBA moves -

 

Tri-Cities Hawks --> Milwaukee Hawks

Milwaukee Hawks --> St. Louis Hawks

Fort Wayne Pistons --> Detroit Pistons

Minneapolis Lakers --> Los Angeles Lakers

Philadelphia Warriors --> San Francisco Warriors

Chicago Zephyrs --> Baltimore Bullets

Syracuse Nationals --> Philadelphia 76ers

St. Louis Hawks --> Atlanta Hawks

San Diego Rockets --> Houston Rockets

Cincinnati Royals --> Kansas City-Omaha Kings

Baltimore Bullets --> Washington Bullets

New York Nets --> New Jersey Nets

Buffalo Braves --> San Diego Clippers

New Orleans Jazz --> Utah Jazz

San Diego Clippers --> Los Angeles Clippers

Kansas City Kings --> Sacramento Kings

Vancouver Grizzlies --> Memphis Grizzlies

Charlotte Hornets --> New Orleans Hornets

Seattle SuperSonics --> Oklahoma Thunder

New Jersey Nets --> Brooklyn Nets

 

Only 5 of 21 changed their name (and only 1 of the last 7).

Let me but in. HAHAHAHA! I love being a joker. Let's do this. HAHAHA! Let's see, emmm

Cincinnati Royals
Milwaukee Hawks

Chicago Zephyrs

Philadelphia Warriors

Minnesota Lakers

Dallas Chaparrals

San Diego Rockets

Fort Wayne becomes the Indianapolis Pistons

Syracuse Nationals becomes the New York Nationals

New York Nets

Buffalo Braves

New Orleans Jazz

 

WOW, look at all the New York basketball teams? Knicks, Nationals, Nets, Braves. Damn, three New York state teams.

HAHAHA! I couldn't help myself to seeing these. I am already familiar with the NFL side. But I had to, HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[C-Squared]

On 8/17/2016 at 5:07 PM, hawk36 said:

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

Not that I think SF actually does this, but if a team wastes money making misguided attempts to sell merch to markets that do no want it, that is not smart.

[rams80]

On 8/15/2016 at 7:13 AM, MBurmy said:

Why they had to change it still confuses me...they could just be the Kansas City "basketball" Royals (St. Louis had the "football" Cardinals at the time, after all)

 

You answered  your own question.

 

The "Big Red" had major problems getting acknowledged or forging an identity because of the nickname issue.

[Silver_Star]

On 8/12/2016 at 6:31 PM, the admiral said:

modern-era baseball relocations:

 

Boston Braves --> Milwaukee Braves
St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles
Philadelphia Athletics --> Kansas City Athletics
Brooklyn Dodgers --> Los Angeles Dodgers

New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants
Washington Senators --> Minnesota Twins
Milwaukee Braves --> Atlanta Braves
Kansas City Athletics --> Oakland Athletics
Seattle Pilots --> Milwaukee Brewers
Washington Senators II --> Texas Rangers
Montreal Expos --> Washington Nationals

 

First of all, 11 relocations in over a century is pretty stable. It's 6 to 5 in favor of keeping, so indeed as close as you're gonna get to 50/50, but of the five renamed teams, only two were charter teams, and "Senators" is a tough nickname to make portable, even in a world with Los Angeles Lakers. The Pilots only played one season, so that was an easy mulligan to take.

Boston Braves should of stayed instead of moving to Milwaukee and then Atlanta?!!!
Philadelphia A's  What a nice ring to it!
New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers are still on my mind.
Seattle Pilots. :'( Then the MILWAUKEE BREWERS KEPT THE COLORS!!! :censored:!!! The Mariners brought the royal blue and athletic gold back.
Washington Senators was awesome.  Rangers and Twins should of been expansions with their own colors.

St. Louis Browns. Another one. Once again, the Orioles should of been their own expansion too.

[rams80]

On 8/17/2016 at 3:07 PM, hawk36 said:

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona Cardinals reach out to St. Louis fans now and say, hey, buy our stuff and cheer for us now, we were the original St. Louis NFL team.

 

 

Nobody likes Will Leitch.  That is why.

[hjwii]

I always wondered why the North Stars didn't become the Lone Stars upon their move to Dallas....

[Morgan33]

[dont care]

3 hours ago, hjwii said:

I always wondered why the North Stars didn't become the Lone Stars upon their move to Dallas....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVyjrV9w6I

[ScubaSteve]

One of the interesting choices for me was keeping the Athletics' elephant logo upon moving from Philadelphia. The whole inspiration was the notion that having a team in Philly would be a "white elephant" aka it will never work. So it's city specific, yet you see in on Oakland's jerseys. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Phillies?

 

  

[hawk36]

On 8/18/2016 at 3:39 PM, C-Squared said:

 

Not that I think SF actually does this, but if a team wastes money making misguided attempts to sell merch to markets that do no want it, that is not smart.

Right but like I said previously, I see it as more of a strategic goal to sell fashionable NY merchandise worldwide, not just in New York.

[Echo]

8 hours ago, ScubaSteve said:

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Phillies?

 

 

 

Not at all.  The reason they referred to the team as "White Elephants" is because they were trying to make an AL team work in a market already dominated by the NL Phillies.  The Phillies were literally the competition they were trying to survive against, so it would make no sense for them to adopt the elephant as their logo.

 

That said, the elephant really doesn't make any sense in the context of Oakland either, but they keep it out of tradition.

[Morgan33]

19 hours ago, dont care said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVyjrV9w6I

 

Can't even count how many times I've posted this in response to that asinine idea...

[joekono]

What has always bugged me about teams moving is when the team takes the identity with them and it doesn't make sense. The biggest one is the Los Angeles Lakers. I'm sure there are many of lakes in California but Minnesota is known for its proximity to the great lakes. Another one(it's amazing how historical these franchises are), the Dodgers. When they moved to LA it made no sense because the name "Dodgers" was given because people in Brooklyn were known for having to "dodge" trolley cars speeding down Brooklyn streets. I believe, although I'm not certain, I recall the Utah Jazz asking the Lakers for their name because of course Utah and Salt Lake City makes sense but their was no way that was happening with all of the history the LA Lakers accomplished. I just believe, if a team moves, there are certain situations that scream identity change.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, Echo said:

 

Not at all.  The reason they referred to the team as "White Elephants" is because they were trying to make an AL team work in a market already dominated by the NL Phillies.  The Phillies were literally the competition they were trying to survive against, so it would make no sense for them to adopt the elephant as their logo.

 

That said, the elephant really doesn't make any sense in the context of Oakland either, but they keep it out of tradition.

 

I don't think this is true at all.  By any historical thing I've read, the Phillies did not dominate the market until around 1950 when the A's were starting to pack up anyway.  By all accounts, Philadelphia was an AL town until late in the A's era.

 

I think the story was that John McGraw called them the white elephants - but not for the reason you mentioned.

[Ben in LA]

9 hours ago, joekono said:

What has always bugged me about teams moving is when the team takes the identity with them and it doesn't make sense. The biggest one is the Los Angeles Lakers. I'm sure there are many of lakes in California but Minnesota is known for its proximity to the great lakes. Another one(it's amazing how historical these franchises are), the Dodgers. When they moved to LA it made no sense because the name "Dodgers" was given because people in Brooklyn were known for having to "dodge" trolley cars speeding down Brooklyn streets. I believe, although I'm not certain, I recall the Utah Jazz asking the Lakers for their name because of course Utah and Salt Lake City makes sense but their was no way that was happening with all of the history the LA Lakers accomplished. I just believe, if a team moves, there are certain situations that scream identity change.

We try to dodge traffic here in LA...especially on the 405!