Relocation and Branding

[Ben in LA]

20 hours ago, ScubaSteve said:

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?

 

  

I love that logo...sure glad Oaktown decided to keep it.

[The_Admiral]

I like it too, but why not make the elephant and the baseball white? That's not an unreasonable tweak.

[BBTV]

White elephant / ball.  Yellow tusks.  Green towel with yellow A's logo.  Yellow bat.  Done.

 

Athletics was one of those names that should never have moved with the team.  I think the window for Phila to get a second team passed in the 60s (may have briefly re-opened in the late '90s) so it's not like the name would ever be used again, but it really sounds silly attached to any other local.

[guest23]

On August 18, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

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. 

 

News flash. Any cap with a NY monogram or a B will sell in the 5 boroughs. You're talking about the epicenter of baseball hat fashion. When you combine that factor with city pride you can sell just about anything.

[RickAZ]

On August 18, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

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. 

Wonder how many people buying "New York Giants" hats are thinking they are buying "New York Mets" hats in black. The "NY" logo is identical and both are in orange, and the Mets for years now have included black into their color palette. And even if black wasn't part of the Mets colors now, it's not unusual to see a team's hat being done in black for sale to the public. By the way, the reason the Mets colors are royal blue and orange was because they incorporated these colors from both teams that left New York. 

[joekono]

On 8/27/2016 at 8:28 AM, Ben in LA said:

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

HAHA. Touche.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

Let me say that I realise that I am bumping an old thread.  But not unjustifiably.

 

I stumbled upon a shot of a fan wearing a New York Giants cap at a Giant game in San Francisco.   Look at the fan who faces the camera right before and after high-fiving someone behind him.  He is wearing a grey shirt with "Champions" written on it, most likely one of the Giants' World Championship t-shirts; he is seen immediately after the shot of Hunter Pence standing at second base.

 

 

 

I realise that this is just one guy in a crowd of 50,000, and that he could just be a guy wearing a hat that he knows nothing about.  But I think that it's more likely that this is the type of Giant fan who as a kid read about Willie Mays, Mel Ott, and John McGraw, and thought of them as part of his team, just as I was a Yankee fan who as a kid read about Mickey Mantle, Joe D., and the Babe, and thought of those people from before my time as part of my team.   I wish I could buy this guy a beer.

 

Anyway, I was very pleased to find, without looking for it, a presumably historically-minded fan sporting a New York Giants hat; and I thought that I might share it here with other historically-minded fans who would appreciate it. 

I have often countered the notion that one wears sports team apparrel to "support the team".  I say that one is supporting oneself.  The wearer expresses himself/herself by displaying that which he/she finds meaningful.  And this guy's act of wearing a New York Giants hat at a Giant game is how a historically-minded fan expresses himself.

 

 

[bosrs1]

Back to the main topic, I'd say it's really is a case by case thing. If the brand being moved is relatively new for example, like say the Clippers were when they left San Diego, it makes sense that it goes. If the brand is a long time, beloved, brand of the local team, it makes more sense for it to stay behind, for example the Browns or SuperSonics. If the brand is generic or makes sense in the new market, ala the Giants, it makes more sense for it to go with the team. If the brand is not generic and/or makes no sense in the new market, like say "Earthquakes" in Houston, then yeah it makes sense to leave it behind. I honestly don't think with the branding that there is a hard and fast rule. It all depends.

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

Back to the main topic, I'd say it's really is a case by case thing. If the brand being moved is relatively new for example, like say the Clippers were when they left San Diego, it makes sense that it goes. If the brand is a long time, beloved, brand of the local team, it makes more sense for it to stay behind, for example the Browns or SuperSonics. If the brand is generic or makes sense in the new market, ala the Giants, it makes more sense for it to go with the team. If the brand is not generic and/or makes no sense in the new market, like say "Earthquakes" in Houston, then yeah it makes sense to leave it behind. I honestly don't think with the branding that there is a hard and fast rule. It all depends.

I disagree, back when the Clippers and Giants moved, it was the norm to keep the identity, even when it didn't make a ton of sense. Sure, rebrands happened, but they were typically the exception, rather than the rule. The Browns move to Baltimore was really the turning point.

 

From seasons beginning in 1952, until the Browns/Ravens fiasco, there were 39 franchise relocations, between the MLB, NBA NFL, and NHL. Of those, only twelve tebranded. It is worth noting that two-thirds of the NHL's relocations were rebrands, but the vast majority of the other three were simple moves.

 

From the Cleveland/Baltimore move to now, eleven franchises have moved out of their metro areas. Only four have retained the team identity: the Oilers, the Grizzlies, the Rams, and the Hornets. Since the Oilers and Hornets eventually rebranded, really only two (the Oilers always planned to rename the team, but took more time to decide on a new name). The Rams actually made a lot of sense, based on the fact that the franchise had actually spent more seasons in LA than St. Louis.

 

Overall, rebranding has relatively little to do with franchise history, and more to do with the era of the relocation.

 

 

[hawk36]

2 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

I disagree, back when the Clippers and Giants moved, it was the norm to keep the identity, even when it didn't make a ton of sense. Sure, rebrands happened, but they were typically the exception, rather than the rule. The Browns move to Baltimore was really the turning point.

But the San Diego Clippers had moved from Buffalo a few years prior and changed the name from the Braves to the Clippers. 

 

I think it is a case by case thing. In the Browns case, I totally agreed with leaving the name in Cleveland since the city and its fan base supported the team amazingly and earned and deserved a kind of ownership in that name. Same with the SuperSonics.

 

On the other hand, if a team is not widely supported year after year, then I don't feel the city has earned or deserve to have the privilege of keeping the name.   

[BeerGuyJordan]

5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

But the San Diego Clippers had moved from Buffalo a few years prior and changed the name from the Braves to the Clippers. 

 

I think it is a case by case thing. In the Browns case, I totally agreed with leaving the name in Cleveland since the city and its fan base supported the team amazingly and earned and deserved a kind of ownership in that name. Same with the SuperSonics.

 

On the other hand, if a team is not widely supported year after year, then I don't feel the city has earned or deserve to have the privilege of keeping the name.   

Again, I disagree. If overall support and success dictated keeping a name in a city, the Dodgers, Lakers and North Stars would have left their identities behind. The Dodgers and Lakers moved primarily because the west coast was seen as too profitable to pass up, for many franchises. The North Stars attendance numbers had bounced back, and it was primarily arena issues, coupled with Green's wife giving him an ultimatum to move the team or face divorce, that led to Dallas getting a team.

[hawk36]

2 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Again, I disagree. If overall support and success dictated keeping a name in a city, the Dodgers, Lakers and North Stars would have left their identities behind. The Dodgers and Lakers moved primarily because the west coast was seen as too profitable to pass up, for many franchises. The North Stars attendance numbers had bounced back, and it was primarily arena issues, coupled with Green's wife giving him an ultimatum to move the team or face divorce, that led to Dallas getting a team.

My point is we can generally tell how important a team is to a city. The Browns I think were the most passionate example of that. You couldn't take the Browns name away.

 

It's not easy since it's not a clear black/white thing but I think if there is a general, consistent apathy surrounding the team, then it's fine for an owner to up and move and take the name. If, on the other hand, the team has a long history of being a loved and vital part of the city, then it should be a consideration for the owner to leave the name with the city when the team moves.  

[OnWis97]

40 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

I disagree, back when the Clippers and Giants moved, it was the norm to keep the identity, even when it didn't make a ton of sense. Sure, rebrands happened, but they were typically the exception, rather than the rule. The Browns move to Baltimore was really the turning point.

 

From seasons beginning in 1952, until the Browns/Ravens fiasco, there were 39 franchise relocations, between the MLB, NBA NFL, and NHL. Of those, only twelve tebranded. It is worth noting that two-thirds of the NHL's relocations were rebrands, but the vast majority of the other three were simple moves.

 

From the Cleveland/Baltimore move to now, eleven franchises have moved out of their metro areas. Only four have retained the team identity: the Oilers, the Grizzlies, the Rams, and the Hornets. Since the Oilers and Hornets eventually rebranded, really only two (the Oilers always planned to rename the team, but took more time to decide on a new name). The Rams actually made a lot of sense, based on the fact that the franchise had actually spent more seasons in LA than St. Louis.

 

Overall, rebranding has relatively little to do with franchise history, and more to do with the era of the relocation.

 

 

This really was a huge turning point any way you look at it.  

 

Yeah, some teams did rebrand; usually because the name did not make sense in the next town (the two Senators teams as an example).  But even then, a lot of nonsensical names remained: Dodgers, Lakers, and the poster child, the Jazz.  Most "universal" names like Colts, Rams, and Cardinals stayed, the Buffalo Braves being an exception.  

 

In any case, the Browns were obviously the first team to go through with a history transfer.  And I'd argue that the Deal also led North American sports fans/media toward the default that the name needs to change (i.e. "be left behind").  

 

According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy) the Twins stadium deal includes "Cleveland Deal" provisions should the Twins move.  Obviously, I don't want the Twins to move.  But this makes the idea even worse; the most history-oriented sport would leave a franchise dormant until some other franchise comes to town.  MLB would become the NBA.  Anyway, that would never have happened without the Cleveland Deal.  

 

I recall someone on another thread saying that the Colts keeping the name/uniforms/history when they left Baltimore was a slap in the face to those fans.  Well not really; because it probably did not occur to anyone to do anything else in 1984 or whatever year it was.  Even if a name change was considered, it was not for the purpose of having a future team assume the old team's identity.  But now, I don't really think it's too likely that anyone will bring a name to a different city with few exceptions.  I'd say the Raiders will probably be an exception given that brand and the likelihood of Oakland getting a team.  But it's going to be rare and I think the Cleveland Deal was the turning point.

[BeerGuyJordan]

Just now, hawk36 said:

My point is we can generally tell how important a team is to a city. The Browns I think were the most passionate example of that. You couldn't take the Browns name away.

 

It's not easy since it's not a clear black/white thing but I think if there is a general, consistent apathy surrounding the team, then it's fine for an owner to up and move and take the name. If, on the other hand, the team has a long history of being a loved and vital part of the city, then it should be a consideration for the owner to leave the name with the city when the team moves.  

I think two factors come into play, more than that. 

 

1. Agreements between all parties involved. These days, it's relatively common for agreements between owners and the league/city that the identity will stay behind. This is a precedent that the Browns/Ravens fiasco gave us. Some owners don't even have the option of keeping the nickname, regardless of serviceablility, in the new locale.

 

2. Merchandise. Back in the 50's to 70's team merchandising wasn't the lucrative endeavor it is, today. Back then, the costs of rebranding, registering and labeling everything with the new info would have been a break-even experience, at best. Today, changing logos, in place, is basically a license to print money, for most teams. Doing it as a part of a move, even more so. You remove the ability for a secondhand merch market to undermine your new stuff, and the opportunity to create an identity that connects with your new fanbase spurs that along

 

This is why LA kept the Rams identity, it already had deep ties with the city, and would be the more lucrative option, compared to rebranding.

[OnWis97]

11 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy) 

This link says some stuff I did not know about the Avalanche.  I am guessing if Quebec gets a team, the Avs will be considered an expansion team.

 

(Expansion team wins cup in first year!)

[leopard88]

58 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I recall someone on another thread saying that the Colts keeping the name/uniforms/history when they left Baltimore was a slap in the face to those fans.  Well not really; because it probably did not occur to anyone to do anything else in 1984 or whatever year it was.  Even if a name change was considered, it was not for the purpose of having a future team assume the old team's identity.  But now, I don't really think it's too likely that anyone will bring a name to a different city with few exceptions.  I'd say the Raiders will probably be an exception given that brand and the likelihood of Oakland getting a team.  But it's going to be rare and I think the Cleveland Deal was the turning point.

 

It was definitely a slap in the face to see a team wearing the Colts uniform playing in another city.  I'm guessing (not from personal experience, thankfully) that it was a bit like seeing your ex on the arm of the guy she had an affair with and married after your divorce.

 

As for returning the name, my recollection is that it was thought of then.  If memory serves me, Irsay agreed to return the name and colors to Baltimore if the city obtained another team within five years (though I can't find anything confirming this).  I don't know if the team history would also have returned, but at least the name was in play.

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

This link says some stuff I did not know about the Avalanche.  I am guessing if Quebec gets a team, the Avs will be considered an expansion team.

 

(Expansion team wins cup in first year!)

 

I don't know. It says "the franchise's retired numbers, name, logos, and historical stats remained in Quebec City" but I think the team has always been considered a continuation of the Nordiques, even though the retired numbers were reinstated and they didn't do anything with the intellectual property. As a matter of fact, catch an Avalanche opening night ceremony from the past few years when they rattle off all the franchise personnel you never think of -- skating coach, sports psychologist, assistant to the traveling secretary -- and a lot of the names are clearly Quebecois, suggesting that the same people who ran the Nordiques day-to-day have been running the Avalanche all these years, too, not just Pierre Lacroix. Maybe there's finally been turnover in recent years but you still have to love the idea of the team sports psychologist having hung around after Quebec City for all these years. Now hwenn de player oose lockerrrrr his next to hyourse sayssss, ee slept widd your hwyyyfe, ow does dat make you feeeeeeel hinside?

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 8/11/2016 at 8:47 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

A team's logo and colours staying the same upon relocation is the norm. The idea that the new city is getting a real team with a history (as opposed to a cheesy expansion team) is part of the allure. Examples are the Dodgers, Giants, Braves in baseball and the Raiders and Cardinals in football.

 

We even sometimes see this in smaller sports, where the prestige of landing an existing team is not nearly as great as it is in the bigger leagues. We've had the Firebirds (Albany to Indiana) and the Gladiators (New Jersey to Las Vegas to Cleveland) in Arena Football, and the Titans (New York to Orlando) and the Stealth (San Jose to Washington (state) to Vancouver) in indoor lacrosse. Though in these cases, the retention of the uniform might just have been the less expensive option.

 

(The exception might be the Firebirds. The Albany Firebirds were a prestige team in the little world of Arena Football. So the retention of that identity might have had a little bit in common withe the retentions in the bigger sports.)

I think it's more about the advances in marketing, most fans in the new city could care less about what happened in the old city unless they happened to relocate from there. In retrospect, it should have been something like the LA Stars, San Francisco Seals, Atlanta Defenders, and Phoenix Scorpions. We don't know yet what will happen with the Raiders.

 

I love sports history as much as anyone, but the overwhelming majority of fans in the new city know the history begins with the first play in their location. That's precisely why the city names are included in the team name, including the uniform. I've been to the McDonald's in Washington state and Virginia, and the city name isn't involved because both restaurants are virtually identical.  

[Gold Pinstripes]

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Let me say that I realise that I am bumping an old thread.  But not unjustifiably.

 

I stumbled upon a shot of a fan wearing a New York Giants cap at a Giant game in San Francisco.   Look at the fan who faces the camera right before and after high-fiving someone behind him.  He is wearing a grey shirt with "Champions" written on it, most likely one of the Giants' World Championship t-shirts; he is seen immediately after the shot of Hunter Pence standing at second base.

 

 

 

I realise that this is just one guy in a crowd of 50,000, and that he could just be a guy wearing a hat that he knows nothing about.  But I think that it's more likely that this is the type of Giant fan who as a kid read about Willie Mays, Mel Ott, and John McGraw, and thought of them as part of his team, just as I was a Yankee fan who as a kid read about Mickey Mantle, Joe D., and the Babe, and thought of those people from before my time as part of my team.   I wish I could buy this guy a beer.

 

Anyway, I was very pleased to find, without looking for it, a presumably historically-minded fan sporting a New York Giants hat; and I thought that I might share it here with other historically-minded fans who would appreciate it. 

I have often countered the notion that one wears sports team apparrel to "support the team".  I say that one is supporting oneself.  The wearer expresses himself/herself by displaying that which he/she finds meaningful.  And this guy's act of wearing a New York Giants hat at a Giant game is how a historically-minded fan expresses himself.

 

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

Some people wear throwback gear just because they think it looks "cool", and since we live in a free country, more power to a SF Giants fan if they want to pay tribute to Willie Mays with that hat. And even if we assume he knows something about those NY Giants, that's one in 50,000. Watching games on TV of relocated teams confirms my view of how rare it is to see the old throwback gear around. Extremely rare to see Johnny Unitas stuff in Indianapolis, I've seen more at Ravens games.     

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

It's sort of a grey area. I think if it's a foregone conclusion/confirmation that the vacated city will be getting a new team in the future, the name/history should stay. Look at the cluster-F that is the Charlotte/ New Orleans Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans. Charlotte got a new team 2 years later that was doomed from the start with an identity like the Bobcats. The city couldn't get behind them because they didn't feel like Charlotte's team.