Nets Elevate Secondary Logo to Primary?

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

It really should’ve been a return of the New York Nets and have them keep red and blue and focus on the historical aspect of the team.

They were never going to go back to being the "New York Nets." The move to Brooklyn was celebrated as pro sports' return to the borough. They were always going to lean into that.

[Gothamite]

Absolutely. As they should have.
 

The brand is the one unqualified success they’ve had, the only thing they’ve done right.  The only way they could have improved upon that success was to actually go through with the rumored name change. 

[Satomiblood]

You guys have me thinking of British Knights shoes now.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

In this thread devoted to the Nets, there is no way that I could restrain myself from unleashing a rant which I have presented in various forms before.

 

The use of "Brooklyn" rather than "New York" was supposed to be cool and edgy; but it's also sub-local and exclusionary.

 

A typical team claims its city; some teams claim a whole state (the Timberwolves and Jazz overtly; the Nuggets and Suns in practice; but, oddly, despite their name, not the Warriors). There is one team that claims a region (the Celtics), and one that claims a whole country (the Raptors).

 

And then there are the Nets, who don't even claim their entire home city.

 

The team's purchase by a charismatic and ambitious foreign billionaire and its move into New York City created a chance for the team to be rescued from the obscurity that had been imposed upon it by the NBA and the Knicks (who conspired to cripple the Nets by imposing a bogus "territorial fee" payable to the Knicks at the merger, knowing that this would force the Nets to sell Julius Erving in order to finance it). But the team botched this opportunity for redemption by not reclaiming its former name "New York Nets", instead naming itself after a section of New York.

 

Some will be tempted to argue that Brooklyn has an identity of its own, apart from being a borough of New York City.  This is true.  Nevertheless, the strategy of tying an NBA team to this separate Brooklyn identity rather than to the entirety of New York City is highly questionable.  The team counted on the already-fading "hipster" cachet of the Brooklyn name, not seeming to care that the name would create a siginficant barrier to the construction of any emotional connection with the majority of the City's fans.

 

The harsh truth is that converting existing Knick fans was always going to be impossible. Therefore, the hope lay in future generations. But the use of a sub-local name insured that future generations of kids in the majority of New York City would continue to adopt the Knicks as they had always done, and that those fans would have zero inclination to consider the Nets as their home team.  For a kid growing up in Manhattan or in the Bronx, the Brooklyn Nets are not even on his/her radar; they certainly are not going to feel like his/her hometown team, especially not when compared to the New York Knicks.

 

Another thing that the defenders of the Brooklyn name forget is that, even if some people prefer to imagine that Brooklyn is still a separate city rather than part of New York City, in the real world Brooklyn has no suburbs.  The surrounding areas are suburbs of New York; those areas are full of fans of New York teams (including the Knicks), just as every other city's suburbs are full of fans of the city's teams.  But a team representing Brooklyn means nothing in the suburbs of New York, and has essentially no fans there.

 

Naming was not the Nets' only error upon arriving in New York City.  The Nets could have hit their new home in the City with a marketing campaign emphasising the team's colourful history, which includes two championships in the ABA and two trips to the NBA Finals. They could have plastered their new arena with images of the iconic Dr. J and other memorable players,  They could even have trolled the Knicks by including images Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin, both of whom were playing for the Knicks during the Nets' first season in New York City.

 

But rather than embracing the good within the Nets' history, the marketing foolishly positioned the team as a brand new entity. Instead of playing up the flash and pizzazz that characterised the team's heyday, or retaining the strong and steely look of its more recent run of greatness with Kidd and Martin and eventually Vince Carter, the team adopted a pedestrian and painfully drab aesthetic.  This not only clashed badly with the entire history of the franchise, but it also emitted the stink of what marketers at the time believed the "brand" of Brooklyn represented: hipsters.  It is an aesthetic designed to appeal less to traditional Brooklyn than to the gentrifiers.  The only saving grace of the new uniform and logo package, the primary shield logo which retained some continuity with the previous logo, has been so downplayed that the Nets are the only team that doesn't use its primary logo at centre court.  

 

So we have a team which has detached itself from its look and its history, a team which by virtue of its name will never appeal to people from Manhattan and the Bronx, a team which has totally blown up its support from New Jersey, a team which has no footprint whatsoever in the northern suburbs. The team tries to have a presence on Long Island by virtue of its G-League squad the Long Island Nets, and also by playing pre-season games at the Nassau Coliseum. Pretty weak sauce, as compared to other New York teams.

 

This leaves Brooklyn itself, where the Nets' support is decent, though still well below that of the Knicks. Knick fans overwhelmingly outnumber Net fans in that borough, as they do in every other borough; indeed, Brooklyn probably has more fans of the Celtics and Lakers than fans of the Nets.

 

By taking the Brooklyn name rather than the name of their city, the Nets needlessly imposed a ceiling upon themselves. Even in the fantasy scenario in which every single Knick fan in Brooklyn is converted to a Net fan, this ceiling would limit the team; in the real-world scenario in which virtually no Knick fans in Brooklyn have been converted, this ceiling cripples the team.

 

Despite being located in the country's most populous city, the Nets' attendance has long been amongst the worst in the league, and their television ratings are firmly at the bottom (even though their telecasts are supberb and their announcers are outstanding; Ian Eagle is a national treasure).  Even this season, when the Nets are a solid playoff team with a couple of big stars, and the Knicks are one of the league's worst teams, the Nets still trail the Knicks badly in attendance.  Instead of the New York Nets being a real New York team, with all the big-time implications that that carries with it, the Brooklyn Nets have consigned themselves to the far fringes of the New York City fan culture.  And this time the Nets can't blame the Knicks for their relegation to minor status; this one's entirely on them.  The Nets are a team with big-market expenses and small-market potential.

 

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck and bad breaks; but it also features bad decisions.  The decision to cede the majority of New York City to the Knicks is the worst of all, perhaps the biggest bungle in team history.

[Digby]

13 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

 

They had a mascot for that, didn't they? I don't know if it was official or not but it was a thing.

 

 

I'm not opposed to "Knights" but I'm extremely opposed to that bizarro nightmare-fuel mascot. Thanks but no thanks for the reminder that it ever existed.

[Gothamite]

 

48 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Some will be tempted to argue that Brooklyn has an identity of its own, apart from being a borough of New York City.  This is true.

 

Well, there you go.  You could have saved a whole lotta typing just leaving it at that.   

 

[gosioux76]

54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck and bad breaks; but it also features bad decisions.  The decision to cede the majority of New York City to the Knicks is the worst of all, perhaps the biggest bungle in team history.

 

This is an interesting argument. And I really enjoyed reading it. Lots of good points.

 

I'd argue, though, that the branding is less of an issue than the team's on-court irrelevance. Had that team moved over from New Jersey with a winner, we'd all be talking about what a resounding success this Brooklyn experiment has been, and not about how its parochial brand is limiting the size of its audience. 

I think you're correct in saying a second "New York" team might have a better chance at winning a larger share of the market than a Brooklyn-focused identity. But a  Kevin Durant-led Brooklyn Nets team that finds its way to the NBA Finals will have just as much success siphoning off lukewarm Knicks fans in search of a winner. 

 

 

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I'd argue, though, that the branding is less of an issue than the team's on-court irrelevance. Had that team moved over from New Jersey with a winner, we'd all be talking about what a resounding success this Brooklyn experiment has been, and not about how its parochial brand is limiting the size of its audience. 

 

Bingo.  The only thing limiting the size of their audience is their truly awful play.

 

The Knicks can survive as an awful team because they had the city all to themselves for the better part of seven decades.  Any new team in such a market is at a distinct disadvantage unless they’re good, which the Nets haven’t been. The Nets can’t coast on history, past glory and inertia. But if they ever get good, I definitely see a day when they outdraw the Knicks.

[The_Admiral]

New York Nets sounds better, fits in with the Mets and Jets. I'm so tired of Brooklyn.

[Gothamite]

Aw, but Brooklyn always has such nice things to say about you!

[andrewharrington]

On 12/17/2019 at 8:21 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The team counted on the already-fading "hipster" cachet of the Brooklyn name, not seeming to care that the name would create a siginficant barrier to the construction of any emotional connection with the majority of the City's fans.

“Hipsters” aren’t exactly a target demo for a major sports team.

 

Brooklyn by itself is one of the most populous places in the country and there’s a fair bit of local pride in the simple fact that it’s not Manhattan, which makes their choice more than justifiable. Maybe they alienated some people by going with Brooklyn over New York, but sports fandom is tribal. I’m glad they made the bad decision to commit to something local and distinctive that they can call their own when the easiest thing to do would have been “maximizing the marketing footprint” and pretending that calling themselves New York means they represent the whole city when they clearly do not.

[IceCap]

The Dodgers' move from Brooklyn to LA is the stuff of sports legend. That, combined with the Dodgers' history in Brooklyn, made the return of pro sports to the borough a huge deal. There was no way they weren't going to lean into the "Brooklyn" name. It had a built-in feel good story to it.

 

"New York Nets" sounds better than "Brooklyn Nets," but unlike Mets and Jets? "Nets" kind of sucks. "Brooklyn" was the right call given the circumstances, but they should have gone all the way with "Knights."

 

Still? I cannot wrap my head around the idea that they should have gone with the name "New York." Moving to Brooklyn in a post-Brooklyn Dodgers world and not using the name of the borough sounds like leaving money and publicity on the table.  

[_DietDrPepper_]

18 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Dodgers' move from Brooklyn to LA is the stuff of sports legend. That, combined with the Dodgers' history in Brooklyn, made the return of pro sports to the borough a huge deal. There was no way they weren't going to lean into the "Brooklyn" name. It had a built-in feel good story to it.

 

"New York Nets" sounds better than "Brooklyn Nets," but unlike Mets and Jets? "Nets" kind of sucks. "Brooklyn" was the right call given the circumstances, but they should have gone all the way with "Knights."

 

Still? I cannot wrap my head around the idea that they should have gone with the name "New York." Moving to Brooklyn in a post-Brooklyn Dodgers world and not using the name of the borough sounds like leaving money and publicity on the table.  

The Brooklyn Dodgers were named that because when they were founded Brooklyn was its own city, they’re we’re 14 years ahead of it actually. Now it’s part of New York, why should the Nets be called the Brooklyn Nets, should the Knicks be called the Manhattan Knicks? No. And the Nets history isn’t tied to Brooklyn at all, they were called the New York Nets beforehand, so their return should be a return to the identity of the New York Nets. It shouldn’t be treated as an expansion team. It’s a team that has more history than half the league! They would’ve gotten the Brooklyn fan base as it is anyway because they play in Brooklyn. The name doesn’t make much of a difference

If they had made the change to Knights, Brooklyn could make more sense. Because it disconnects itself from the former eras of the team. But using a borough instead of the city as a location identifier is a bad move. Even if it’s as famous as Brooklyn.

[Gothamite]

 

21 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

It’s a team that has more history than half the league!

 

Very little of that history is good, though.

 

 

[Around the Horn]

On 12/17/2019 at 11:21 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The decision to cede the majority of New York City to the Knicks is the worst of all, perhaps the biggest bungle in team history.

The Nets will always be second fiddle to Knicks. There was nothing to cede when they chose to go with Brooklyn.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, BellaSpurs said:

The Brooklyn Dodgers were named that because when they were founded Brooklyn was its own city

That's true, but it's also irrelevant. First, the Dodgers kept the Brooklyn name even after it became part of New York City. Secondly, the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the story of their move made "Brooklyn" perhaps the only sub-section of a city in North America that was notable enough to stand as part of a professional team name.

Again, the Dodgers leaving became the stuff of legend. I very much remember how much of a big deal it was when the Nets announced their intention to move to Brooklyn. "Pro sports returns to Brooklyn" was everywhere. So I disagree with you, that the name wouldn't have mattered. It very much did.

[Gothamite]

It absolutely did. 
 

I can only think of one other sub-section of a city that iconic enough to stand on its own: Hollywood.  Also originally an independent city, and whose baseball team adopted the old name long after it had become part of the larger city. 

 

 

They started off as an also-ran to the “Los Angeles” club.  But when they managed to get good, they also became very popular and were part of the move to establish the PCL as a third major league, killed only by the westward move of the Dodgers and Giants. 

[andrewharrington]

11 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

...but they should have gone all the way with "Knights."  

This would have been perfect.

 

1. Brooklyn is Kings County.

2. They still could have used black and white, and on top of the vintage subway imagery, they could have used chessboard as a design element somewhere in the identity (public chess in the park is also one of those New York tropes everyone knows, but it’s not as cliché as Empire State, Big Apple, Brooklyn Bridge, etc.

 

11 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

The Brooklyn Dodgers were named that because when they were founded Brooklyn was its own city, they’re we’re 14 years ahead of it actually. Now it’s part of New York, why should the Nets be called the Brooklyn Nets, should the Knicks be called the Manhattan Knicks? No. And the Nets history isn’t tied to Brooklyn at all, they were called the New York Nets beforehand, so their return should be a return to the identity of the New York Nets. It shouldn’t be treated as an expansion team. It’s a team that has more history than half the league! They would’ve gotten the Brooklyn fan base as it is anyway because they play in Brooklyn. The name doesn’t make much of a difference

If they had made the change to Knights, Brooklyn could make more sense. Because it disconnects itself from the former eras of the team. But using a borough instead of the city as a location identifier is a bad move. Even if it’s as famous as Brooklyn.

Brooklyn may not be its own city, but it is its own county. It’s larger and more populous than most cities in the country. As G stated, it’s probably one of just a few sub-cities that can stand on its own in terms of country or even worldwide name recognition, so while it may not be your cup of tea, it makes sense, and it works. At the highest pro level, these are the exceptions, not the rules.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I cannot wrap my head around the idea that they should have gone with the name "New York." Moving to Brooklyn in a post-Brooklyn Dodgers world and not using the name of the borough sounds like leaving money and publicity on the table.

 

Don't disregard what I mentioned about Brooklyn not having any suburbs. A Brooklyn team's entire home market is thus the borough itself only. That is about 2.5 million people, or the size of the Kansas City metropolitan area, which is one of the smallest metropolitan areas in major pro sports. It compares rather unfavourably to the New York City metropolitan area — the home zone of a New York team — which has about 20 million people. The Nets in fact left money on the table by identifying with Brooklyn rather than with New York City.

 

 

On 12/17/2019 at 12:35 PM, Gothamite said:

The only thing limiting the size of their audience is their truly awful play.

 

The Nets could win championship after championship and they'd still never approach the level of support that the Knicks have in the City and throughout the region, simply because they'll always be perceived as merely a Brooklyn team. The Islanders and the Devils both won multiple Stanley Cups, yet remain on the far fringes of New York City fan culture, with negligible support throughout the City (notwithstanding David Putty), and wirh none at all outside each team's little enclave. The Nets are stuck in that same category.

 

Let us note that the Islanders are marginal despite their use the "New York" name; but they explicitly repudiate the City by means of their crest, which shows only Nassau and Suffolk counties (the area which is denoted by the term "Long Island"), and which excludes the parts of geographical Long Island which are within New York City. The Devils are marginal by virtue of being a New Jersey team.

 

When the Nets were a New Jersey team, even in the years when they were amongst the league's best teams and made the Finals in consecutive seasons, they had attendance that was far below that of the Knicks; by trading New Jersey for Brooklyn, the team has simply exchanged one type of marginalised obscurity for another, when it had a chance to shed that handicap and to move into the mainstream of New York City's sporting culture.

 

The valuations of the Islanders and the Devils are a fraction of that of the Rangers. But, because the Nets have been sold twice recently for a great deal of money, their valuation is currently amongst the top four or five in the league. Both times these sales have been to billionaires who are not from New York City or even the U.S., and whose expectations may not have been in line with reality (to put it mildly).

 

The supply of greater fools is probably exhausted; so one can expect the valuation of the Nets to plummet whenever the team's current owner gets tired of being a tiny fish in an enormous pond.

[hawk36]

On 12/15/2019 at 6:40 AM, Gothamite said:

Yes, but in fairness it is a pretty stupid name.
 

They’ve done a great job is creating this street-ball, corner-playground aesthetic, but they’re named after the one piece of equipment that’s superfluous and absent from many urban courts.  Really shoulda changed it when they moved back across the  Hudson. 

Maybe it's because I'm old, and in the 70s we used to yell, "NET" after releasing the ball and knowing (hoping) it would go in. So I always thought of the Nets as the action not the piece of equipment. Probably doesn't make the name any better (could be the Brooklyn Swish) but at least I didn't think it was the actual net.