Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Cosmic]

If they want some people in LA to notice them... a silver and black Chargers would look pretty cool.  Maybe with a tiny bit of yellow added.

[bleuet]

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

8 hours ago, Fjm said:

From what I've heard, San Diego sports fans hate LA.

 

An analogy would be if the Eagles moved to NY, would Philly fans root for the NY Eagles because they are only 2 hrs away?

 

While the distance between Los Angeles and San Diego is similar to the distance between New York and Philadelphia, we should keep in mind that the whole concept of distance in the West is radically different to that in the East. A trip of 100+ miles just means less in the West.

The more pertinent comparison to the Chargers' move from San Diego to Los Angeles would be the New Jersey Nets' move to the New York City borough of Brooklyn.

That team changed locality identifiers and crossed a cultural boundary; nevertheless, it remains available to any of its old fans who choose to follow it, as the television coverage is the same; and the radio coverage is actually improved.  And, yes, to attend a game in Brooklyn, the trip can take two hours if you drive, like a New Jersey goofball, instead of taking the train like a normal person.

Surveys have shown that New Jersey people make up but a small percentage of the fans attending Brooklyn Nets games. But the point is that they do exist, despite the fact that the Nets make no effort to reach out to them.

The Chargers strategy, by contrast, should be to continue to position themselves as the team for San Diego's fans even after their (relatively short, by local standards) move to Los Angeles.

As I suggested earlier, the L.A. Chargers' positioning should be as a Southern California regional team (though without adopting the locality name "Southern California").

 

[Ben in LA]

I adopted the Chargers when the Rams moved (and I still root for them as my AFC team of choice).  While down in SD this weekend I had on a throwback Mitchell & Ness Chargers jacket.  Needless to say LOTS of folks commented on that thing in the affirmative.

 

Bad move to leave that market; bad move to change the name.  Go with permanent powder blues though and I'm cool.

[Ben in LA]

23 hours ago, kroywen said:

From a TV perspective, it's easier to have one team in each conference, so that CBS and FOX can both share equally in the LA market. It would also allow the possibility for some people to be fans of both teams, since they wouldn't be divisional rivals. Not that I think that would happen much, but I would guess that you would see some fans follow both teams to some degree, even if they're only a fan of one. That certainly seems to be the case with some New Yorkers.

That's EXACTLY how it is with me when it comes to the Dodgers/Angels and Rams/Chargers.  When they play I root for them all...but when they play EACH OTHER it's all about the Dodgers and Rams.  Same goes for the Kings and Lakers.

 

And I'm no bandwagon fan either.  Even though the Clippers are doing MUCH better than the Lakers right now, I still rock a lot more purple and gold than red, white, and blue.

[Ben in LA]

21 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Interesting Rams blue-white logo on the NFL Shop of all things... is it possible they're changing next year in the wake of the Chargers/whatever name they'll call themselves coming to town, to differentiate from them? I personally dislike the bland blue-white look, but I know the majority here are fans of the look. 

They're downplaying the St. Louis colors without a full rebrand.  I get WHY they're waiting for 2019 for new unis, but I still feel they could've gone with the classic jerseys at home and the Color Rush jerseys (with blue or white pants) on the road.

[Esco]

21 hours ago, Chawls said:

 

 Your thread title says 'when'; the article says 'if'. There's a significant difference in implication there. 

---

 I like UCLA's colors.  Powder blue and old gold. 

Because it's going to happen. San Diego doesn't stand a chance.

[leopard88]

21 minutes ago, Ben in LA said:

I adopted the Chargers when the Rams moved (and I still root for them as my AFC team of choice).  While down in SD this weekend I had on a throwback Mitchell & Ness Chargers jacket.  Needless to say LOTS of folks commented on that thing in the affirmative.

 

Bad move to leave that market; bad move to change the name.  Go with permanent powder blues though and I'm cool.

 

That is a great looking jacket, but there is one quirk . . .

 

It seems odd to me that it would have an NFL patch on the sleeve when the Chargers were an AFL team and the jacket clearly references the AFL era (especially the All-American City patch).

_____________________________________________

 

As for the main topic, I think it would be a mistake to completely rebrand and ditch the Chargers name.  I think the lightning bolt on the helmet is iconic and has almost 60 years of history behind it.  I agree with @Ferdinand Cesarano that the Chargers would be wise to try to market themselves as a SoCal regional team.  They will obviously alienate many San Diego fans just by making the move to LA, but I think it would be a bad idea to alienate the rest of the San Diego fans by abandoning their history.  Meanwhile, I believe prospective new fans in LA will not be swayed that much by the adoption of a completely new identity.

[Proc]

They can be a regional team - the California Chargers.  

[omnivore]

I think on the whole rebrand idea, I bet the idea here is much like minor league sports. I guess they figure they've never won with this name, treat it almost like an expansion team and it gives you a chance to sell new gear and inject that expansion excitement into the fray. It's silly, but I guess half the teams that moved back in the day would change their name and so this isn't different. Plus, this is an odd situation in that, you have a team moving back to a market that it used to inhabit within the same region when a team did the same thing last year.

 

Except you can't dredge up old LA Chargers fans in any significant number to make it warm and/or nostalgic. So I can see their conundrum from a generating interest perspective and to make people talk about the team and essentially exorcise the demons of "we're taking San Diego's team" but this is a strange move. Will be interesting to see if they go through with it. 

[kroywen]

Remember when we all said that the bizarre transitional identity of the Tennessee Oilers would never happen today, thanks to how much emphasis is now put on branding?

 

Frankly, this isn't far off. A team playing in an old stadium that's not close to modern NFL standards, using a strange transitional identity in part carried over from their old location, while waiting out the opening of their new stadium before rolling out an actual identity.

 

Luckily the LA Coliseum is in, well, LA, and not an entirely different portion of the state. At least the NFL didn't repeat that mistake.

[daveindc]

On 12/19/2016 at 9:01 AM, bosrs1 said:

 

Nothing logical about fandom my friend. Two buddies of mine are San Diego native lifelong diehard Chargers fans since they knew what football was (35 and 47 years respectively). The former is planning to become a Las Vegas Raiders fan if that team moves to Vegas (his rationale being they'll be the closest non-LA team). The latter has already started following the Seahawks and will burn his Bolts gear and become a neon junkie once the move is complete (as he lived a few years in Seattle and has tenuous ties to that town). I've only met a handful of non-San Diego based Chargers fans who plan on sticking with the team if they move north to another market in LA.

 

A preview of this move is to look at how many San Diegans remained Clippers fans when they moved north. Yes the Clippers were only here a handful of years but the principle is the same (the length of time the Bolts were in SD might get them a few fans from San Diego where the Clippers got none, but it won't be a significant amount). San Diego has never had a very friendly relationship with Los Angeles when sports are involved.

 

Attracting football fans in LA who still root for the Raiders would probably be a little easier if they rebranded away from a Raiders rival.

[rams80]

22 minutes ago, daveindc said:

 

Attracting football fans in LA who still root for the Raiders would probably be a little easier if they rebranded away from a Raiders rival.

 

Regardless of the brand, they are going to be a Raiders rival, so that's a fool's errand.

[kroywen]

24 minutes ago, daveindc said:

 

Attracting football fans in LA who still root for the Raiders would probably be a little easier if they rebranded away from a Raiders rival.

I think we just hit upon one of their primary motivations. There are still a ton of Raiders fans in LA. A team named the "Chargers" is never going to attract them. Granted, I don't think a rebranded team that's still a divisional rival of the Raiders will attract them either. Any AFC West team is probably a lost cause among LA Raider fans, so rebranding to try and capture them seems to be a silly exercise.

[daveindc]

3 hours ago, kroywen said:

I think we just hit upon one of their primary motivations. There are still a ton of Raiders fans in LA. A team named the "Chargers" is never going to attract them. Granted, I don't think a rebranded team that's still a divisional rival of the Raiders will attract them either. Any AFC West team is probably a lost cause among LA Raider fans, so rebranding to try and capture them seems to be a silly exercise.

 

3 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

Regardless of the brand, they are going to be a Raiders rival, so that's a fool's errand.

 

They'll have a tough time switching over the most diehard Raiders fans regardless, but changing the "Chargers" brand to something new and unique to LA just might make it easier for some to switch over. LA football fans already have a negative attitude towards the Chargers, and a fresh identity that belongs to them might make it a little easier to convert. 

[AnPheitseog]

No way this is happening.

 

There are, to my knowledge, two instance of a team name change in the post Super Bowl NFL

 

Houston to Tennessee. In this case, the name Oilers was killed forever.

 

Cleveland to Baltimore: In this case, the franchise(technically) never moved, just the team did.

 

the year in la for this chargers franchise means, to be honest, nothing.

 

Chargers best bet, in my opinion, is to buck North American naming traditions, and just be the Chargers. No location name, just the Chargers. 

[TBGKon]

I'd say keep the Chargers name but rebrand the imagery and colors.

 

Horse imagery is out with the Broncos in division.  Maybe a knight icon with new colors and the name Chargers could work.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

LA Lakers FC. Done.

[Sport]

I don't get this at all. What's the logic in dropping the Chargers brand to be the LA Blanks? You'll lose the pocket of Chargers fans you do have in LA, you lose the drive ups from San Diego, the Raiders fans left in LA won't be tricked into fandom by your name and uniform change plus you're a division rival anyways, and no matter what you call yourselves you'll always be second banana to the Rams. It's a solution that pleases nobody for a problem that doesn't exist. 

 

Just stay in San Diego, keep the name, and find a way to pay for your own damn stadium. 

[JayMac]

12 hours ago, Jungle Jim said:

 

Always loved when the Seahawks were the 4:00pm NBC game on a Sunday afternoon.  The sight of the Kingdome lights bouncing off those awesome helmets was enough to make me watch.  To me, the NFC on CBS, the AFC on NBC and MNF on ABC will always be what's "normal".

I cannot agree any more with everything you said.