Red Bull Cosmos?

[Brian in Boston]

There is no question that the shift in naming trends has brought MLS more crediblity... The $150 million Adidas deal, attendance higher than its been in years, higher TV ratings, the league will even be getting its first rights fee next year.

First and foremost, this statement presupposes that the "shift in naming trends" is what led to the $150-million Adidas deal, etc. Such a statement is completely ludicrous.

Do you honestly believe that the deciding factor in whether or not Adidas inked it's deal with MLS was the league's decision to rebrand the Dallas Burn as FC Dallas and name Utah's franchise Real Salt Lake? Ridiculous. Adidas could care less what names are splashed across the front of the uniforms that they're providing to MLS. They only care that their three stripes appear somewhere on the kits. Are you going to tell me that the MetroStars' switch to New York Red Bulls and the promise of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment's club being named Inter Toronto FC fueled next season's TV rights fees? Preposterous. In point of fact, in spite of the FC Dallas and Real Salt Lake brandings, MLS broadcasts won't appear on ESPN or FSN at all this season. Instead, the vast majority of games are relegated to the hinterland that is ESPN2.

Further, last year's average attendance was - in actuality - lower than the 2004, 2002 and 1996 seasons. Last season's median attendance was lower than every MLS season but 1998. And last season's national television ratings were pretty much a wash with what they were at the league's peak performance on TV. So much for "attendance higher than its been in years" and "higher TV ratings".

Whether "the shift in naming trends has brought MLS more credibility" is strictly in the eye of the beholder... and based upon what an individual's preference in sports branding happens to be. The concrete impact that said shift has had upon MLS attendance, television ratings and overall economic health is somewhere between negligible and non-existant.

[zjac7]

First and foremost, this statement presupposes that the "shift in naming trends" is what led to the $150-million Adidas deal, etc. Such a statement is completely ludicrous.

On face value yes, but in the context of my other statements, i.e., MLS' marketing has become much improved and a big part of that is the shift in naming trends, you cannot deny that a better public presentation has had a big part to play in the Adidas deal; otherwise, why wouldn't they have made such a move in years prior?

In point of fact, in spite of the FC Dallas and Real Salt Lake brandings, MLS broadcasts won't appear on ESPN or FSN at all this season. Instead, the vast majority of games are relegated to the hinterland that is ESPN2.

MLS broadcasts won't appear on FSN, in particular, because the league is negotiating its first rights-fee deal. As for ESPN/ESPN2, they have been following MLS trends closely and have been pleased with ratings thus far this year.

Further, last year's average attendance was - in actuality - lower than the 2004, 2002 and 1996 seasons. Last season's median attendance was lower than every MLS season but 1998.

Check this year's attendance against last year's at this time. Attendance is significantly up, and while new stadiums are certainly a big factor, you can't choose to ignore MLS' improved marketing and profile. And once again, not having teams named Dallas Burn do help in that regard.

MLS is improving gradually in every regard, maybe not as fast as some would hope, but they are correcting some of their past mistakes, and team names are a part of that. I stand by everything that I said in that last post.

[Gothamite]

MLS is improving gradually in every regard, maybe not as fast as some would hope, but they are correcting some of their past mistakes, and team names are a part of that. I stand by everything that I said in that last post.

I agree with you.

[Brian in Boston]

On face value yes, but in the context of my other statements, i.e., MLS' marketing has become much improved and a big part of that is the shift in naming trends, you cannot deny that a better public presentation has had a big part to play in the Adidas deal; otherwise, why wouldn't they have made such a move in years prior?

MLS broadcasts won't appear on FSN, in particular, because the league is negotiating its first rights-fee deal. As for ESPN/ESPN2, they have been following MLS trends closely and have been pleased with ratings thus far this year.

Check this year's attendance against last year's at this time. Attendance is significantly up, and while new stadiums are certainly a big factor, you can't choose to ignore MLS' improved marketing and profile. And once again, not having teams named Dallas Burn do help in that regard.

MLS is improving gradually in every regard, maybe not as fast as some would hope, but they are correcting some of their past mistakes, and team names are a part of that. I stand by everything that I said in that last post.

A big part of Major League Soccer's marketing improvement is the "shift in naming trends"? No.

First of all, there are many fans of Major League Soccer - international football die-hards amongst them - who will tell you that the league's marketing plan is still woefully inadequate. The fact that some fans - yourself apparently included - feel that the marketing plan has "improved", is - sadly - a direct result of the league's having been down so long that it has begun to look like up. The truth, in spite of Don Garber's trumpeting otherwise, is that MLS is still a virtual non-entity in terms of registering on the North American sports and marketing radar screens. As a soccer fan, am I happy that several teams have been able to get soccer-specific stadiums built? Absolutely. Unfortunately, that is still the most concrete stride that the league has taken forward in the past ten years. The corporate entities supporting the league as sponsors are, by and large, the same partners the league had five to seven years ago. For instance, Adidas, the league's top corporate partner, has been involved with MLS since the circuit's 1996 launch. It's not as though Adidas signed-on with the league because of a couple of team's changed their names. The league's media presence is still relegated to the back pages of the nation's newspapers in all but a few select markets. In short, the very MLS "marketing improvement" that you cite is largely an illusion. "Gradual" is a word you used to describe it. "Glacial" is more like it.

As for the "shift in naming trends" being a "big part" of the so-called improvement in MLS marketing, how exactly do you define "big"? Fact: Seven MLS teams - the Chicago Fire, Colorado Rapids, Columbus Crew, Kansas City Wizards, Los Angeles Galaxy, New England Revolution and New York Red Bulls - all bear "American-style" team names (i.e. place name followed by a team nickname). That's better than half of the league's teams. A single team - DC United - has always featured an "International-style" name. In reality, the current MLS line-up features just three teams - CD Chivas, FC Dallas and Real Salt Lake - that speak to a "shift" in MLS naming trends (Houston Dynamo is a strange bastardization of American and International). In other words, 25%. Hardly, a "big" shift.

As for ESPN being pleased with broadcast ratings thus far this year, the article you've linked to cites the network's response to the ratings for a single match. While that may rank as a "victory" for MLS and a cable network, it's a paltry number by television standards. It also owes absolutely nothing to the league's shift towards more internationally-traditional names. It was a game that featured the league's defending champion (which just happens to bear an American-style name), as well as one of the league's premier home-bred stars (Landon Donovan). That is what fueled the rating, not the fact that Mr. Vergara's side is named Chivas USA.

As for attendance being up through this point in the season, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned new facilities. FC Dallas is playing their first full season at Pizza Hut Park. There is a palpable excitement building in Chicago over the advent of Bridgeview. Both those factors are playing a role in increased attendance, as is the fact that a new city - Houston - is experiencing the "honeymoon" of it's first season in MLS. Ditto for the New York Red Bulls' home opener, which featured a concert and the appearance of the New York Cosmos alumni. Those are the reasons that attendance is up... not the fact that a handful of the league's teams are now sporting international-style names.

Bottom line? I'm a sports branding "nut". I live for new logos and names to be unveiled. However, crediting Major League Soccer's shift in naming trends for the Adidas deal, the TV rights deal and this season's increased attendance is ludicrous. In point of fact, the machinations that led to the Adidas deal and the new TV deal were in motion long before the idea to change the Dallas Burn to FC Dallas were even a twinkle in either Don Garber or Lamar Hunt's eye.

Oh, by the way... my friends and I are American soccer fans, but we don't like the shift towards international-style names. In fact, I'd say that your assumption that "most American soccer fans prefer the Euro-style names" is wildly speculative. At best, I'd go so far as to say that the sentiment of American soccer fans on the issue is split down the middle, 50-50.

[Gothamite]

I wouldn't say that it is conclusive, but I can tell you that rebranding is part of it.

I know four lifelong soccer fans who have started following MLS since the rebranding started. They decided that since MLS was no longer going to sound minor league, it might be worth a look.

Conversely, out of the people that I know who dislike the new naming trend (both in my circle of acquaintances and on messsage board communities), none of them dislike it so much as to turn away from MLS. This is an extremely limited sampling, fwiw.

Why should it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that branding alone can grow the fanbase?

[zjac7]

Again, what I said was that the naming trends were part of an overall improvement, not the sole reason for MLS' steps in a more successful direction.

And yes, the league's early marketing efforts were horrible, but they have improved, and fans for the most part have embraced the team names (and if Houston Dynamo is an American/Euro hybrid, then why didn't you include Red Bull New York/New York Red Bulls?).

Of course you're a sports branding nut, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Wouldn't you then realize that branding, logos and team names have a part to play in improving the status of a league? Of course it's ludicrous to give these things sole credit, but I haven't done that.

As for the "machinations" leading to the Adidas and TV rights deals, that is such a broad term, it could mean anything (and thanks for talking down to me, too, by the way):

Don Garber, circa 2003: "Hey Mark Shapiro, this is Don Garber from MLS. I'd like to talk about securing a rights deal for MLS this year."

Mark Shapiro: Click.

Don Garber: "We'll try 'em next year."

Yup, machinations...

[Brian in Boston]

I wouldn't say that it is conclusive, but I can tell you that rebranding is part of it.

I know four lifelong soccer fans who have started following MLS since the rebranding started.  They decided that since MLS was no longer going to sound minor league, it might be worth a look.

Why should it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that branding alone can grow the fanbase?

Because, if branding alone grows your fanbase, then I question the knowledge - as well as the long-term support - of said fanbase.

Sports branding is the "packaging" in which a pro sports entity is sold. Can it play a role in the success of said entity? Absolutely. However, at some point the entity had better deliver something more. Otherwise, why not simply sell the packaging? Bright colors, a snazzy logo and a catchy name can sell a box of cornflakes. However, if the cornflakes taste like wet cardboard, the aforementioned packaging is only going to keep customers coming back for so long. In other words, while team branding can be an important component of Major League Soccer's marketing plan, it is still just a component. At some point, no matter how you name and clothe the franchises, the on-field product is either going to resonate with the public or it won't. If it doesn't, it won't matter what you call the teams... the league will fail. Period.

Look, do I recognize that some of Major League Soccer's initial team identities were poorly-conceived? Absolutely. I've often said that the league made a major mistake in handing over logo/branding responsibilities to clothing designers. However, this doesn't mean that the league couldn't have found sports branding firms capable of crafting successful American-style team identity packages that weren't so obviously bent on appealing to "Xtreme sports" afficianados.

Simply because the Dallas Burn identity package sucked, doesn't necessarily mean that FC Dallas was the only successful way to rebrand the franchise. I'm quite sure that an American-style brand could have been settled upon that die-hard soccer fans would have found far superior to Dallas Burn... and equally as good as FC Dallas.

Bottom line? You seem to have the attitude that the only successful way to market Major League Soccer franchises from a team identity standpoint is to re-brand them utilizing the conventions of international-style soccer branding. By contrast, I'm of a mind that there are American-style identity packages that are vastly superior to the worst of Major League Soccer's initial "xtreme" brands... and every bit as good as international-style identities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are American-style identities that are superior to the likes of a Real Salt Lake... a brand which proves that not all things "Euro" or "international" are necessarily good.

As an aside, I know numerous lifelong soccer fans - Americans and internationals, alike - who find Major League Soccer's sudden embrace of international-style branding to smack of nothing more than desperate pandering to a perceived soccer "elite".

[Saturn]

Well said. +1.

[Brian in Boston]

Again, what I said was that the naming trends were part of an overall improvement, not the sole reason for MLS' steps in a more successful direction.

What you said was, and I quote...

There is no question that the shift in naming trends has brought MLS more crediblity... The $150 million Adidas deal, attendance higher that its been in years, higher TV ratings. The league will even be getting its first rights fee next year.

That was your opening statement. It draws a direct correlation between a "shift in naming trends" and Major League Soccer's $150-million deal with Adidas, higher attendance, higher TV ratings and the league's first television rights fees. Which, in point of fact, is absolutely ludicrous. If you believe for one minute that the rebranding of FC Dallas, the branding of Real Salt Lake and Chivas USA and/or the original name of DC United crossed the minds of executives at Adidas or any of Major League Soccer's future television partners, well... you're kidding yourself.

Adidas and the TV broadcast partners wouldn't have cared if the league rebranded it's member teams as the Chicago Sting, Colorado Caribous, Columbus Explorers, Dallas Tornadoes, Houston Hurricane, Kansas City Spurs, Los Angeles Aztecs, Los Angeles Goats, New England Tea Men, New York Cosmos, Salt Lake City Seagulls and Washington Diplomats. In point of fact, they were willing to enter into partnerships with MLS because they're impressed with the league's ability to begin getting soccer-specific stadia built in this country. That points to the league having some staying power on the North American sports landscape.

And the willingness of various government entities to partner with MLS franchises on the construction of said facilities has nothing to whatsoever to do with what the names of the league's teams are. The Columbus Crew and Los Angeles Galaxy - American-style names and all - were the first two franchises to successfully get soccer-specific stadia built. Dallas was the Burn when they arranged their deal to get PHP constructed. The Chicago Fire's facility comes on-line this year. Ground has been broken on the Colrado Rapids' facility. The point being, that government officials didn't buy into partnering with MLS franchises on stadium construction projects because the league was shifting to international-style branding conventions.

Oh, by the way... you're going overboard in perceiving that I was "talking down" to you. I was simply making a point.

[zjac7]

Bottom line? You seem to have the attitude that the only successful way to market Major League Soccer franchises from a team identity standpoint is to re-brand them utilizing the conventions of international-style soccer branding. By contrast, I'm of a mind that there are American-style identity packages that are vastly superior to the worst of Major League Soccer's initial "xtreme" brands... and every bit as good as international-style identities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are American-style identities that are superior to the likes of a Real Salt Lake... a brand which proves that not all things "Euro" or "international" are necessarily good.

As an aside, I know numerous lifelong soccer fans - Americans and internationals, alike - who find Major League Soccer's sudden embrace of international-style branding to smack of nothing more than desperate pandering to a perceived soccer "elite".

Truthfully, I believe that there is room for both methods in the league, and that they have a great opportunity to experiment with their brand in a way that other American sports leagues have not. And while "Real Salt Lake" is definitely a pandering nickname, and "Inter Toronto" just sounds corny to me, that doesn't necessarily mean that Euro style nicknames are bad in and of themselves.

It's funny to me that a name like New York/New Jersey MetroStars is never seen as an indictment of the American style of naming...

Anyway, that's what I think about it, I don't really have any other opinion to add here (got a Yankees game to go to!)...

[Brian in Boston]

It's funny to me that a name like New York/New Jersey MetroStars is never seen as an indictment of the American style of naming...

I'm in complete agreement with you on that. I thought that the New York/New JerseyMetroStars brand was a dud from the get-go.

[schtee]

What's the argument here? The very fact that MLS still exists in the year 2006 is a complete victory. From extremely humble beginnings the league now features several soccer-only stadiums, decent-quality soccer, a decent exposure on national television (espn 2 is certainly not the hinterlands) and the uniform designs, by and large, get better every year. I dare say that it is approaching hockey as the 4th spectator sport in the U.S. of A. (burn me at the stake!)

I look back with only horror at the league's first days, those silly names, those awful kits.

Sure, euro-style names are a little wacky when used here, but they are leaps and bounds better than the singular wave of names like the clash, mutiny, fusion, burn, etc.

Those that hate on MLS are either soccer-haters who won't ever be convinced of the beautiful game or they are soccer-lovers who prefer to watch european or south american club soccer, which is fine, but just let MLS live.

Now just give me a team that actually plays in New York City and I'll be happy.

[hawk36]

In my opinion, these are the main issues that the MLS needs to fix in order to become a successful league:

1. Get a regularly scheduled, TV game of the week on a ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN or Fox Sports. (Sunday or Saturday afternoon)

2. Play in 20,000 seat or less stadiums on grass to generate true crowd excitment. If there is anywhere that actually would support more than 30,000 season tickets, create another team in that city.

3. Have each team train a rabid base of supporters (+/- 5,000 that could initially get discounted tickets and gear) that would sit in their own section of the stadium, know team chants and cheers by heart and spout them off continuously throughout the match.

4. Create true regional divisions with teams close enough for fans to travel to opposing team's stadiums (10 hour max car ride). Have those teams play eachother 2 to 3 times more often than teams from other divisions.

4. Have teams sport a look and identity that looks and sounds like traditional soccer, not American soccer.

[Rampart]

I think the media has to do a better job at promoting the sport. I really don't know what the local news/newspapers do in the respective MLS cities, but at the very least ESPN should pimp the league a little more. After all, they DO broasdcast games.

[hawk36]

I think the media has to do a better job at promoting the sport. I really don't know what the local news/newspapers do in the respective MLS cities, but at the very least ESPN should pimp the league a little more. After all, they DO broasdcast games.

The key, for me, is to not only broadcast games but to do it at the same time, on the same day of the week, each week. Here is the West, we know that every Sunday in football season, we have a 10am game and a 1pm game to watch. Why can't ESPN do that for the MLS?

Sunday at 4pm EST, 1pm PST, there will always be an MLS match during the MLS season. We are creatures of habit.

[-kj]

I can dig that. Next season, with the new TV contract kicking in, they might well work on that.

As for the rest of it? You really can't be serious.

[swilson160]

For Pete's Sake...

Can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE have just one thread about an MLS team's name/logo/uniforms that doesn't turn into an argument on why soccer will/won't/should/shouldn't succeed/fail in the United States? I'm all for healthy debate, and the MLS is a good topic for discussion, but EVERY FREAKIN' THREAD?!?

It's the same pattern every time. Someone starts a new thread about a rumored new logo or name, and within 10-15 posts, someone says, "That's a stupid name, no wonder the MLS sucks!" Then someone else calls that poster ignorant and chastises them for taking a cheap shot, the first guy fires back, and so on, until the thread breaks up into three long-winded debates:

-Why the MLS hasn't been successful and what it should do to fix it

-Whether or not the league's branding strategy is a part of the league's lack of popularity

-Why people who aren't soccer fans, and Americans in general, just don't "get it"

By the time all is said and done, anyone who was interested in the original logo-related topic has long since given up and moved on to debating the evils of side-striping and purple pants, or the ball-in-glove logo.

Now the branding strategy argument is cool. And the other two are perfectly legitimate topics...for a thread about the success or lack thereof of the MLS. But if we're talking about names and logos, can't we just talk about names and logos? While I'll admit to going off-topic occasionally, there are other forums on here (and elsewhere) for topics just like this. This is the Sports Logos forum. Maybe we can discuss Sports Logos.

And for those of you who are getting ready to flame me, let me do it for you:

If you don't like our board, you don't have to keep coming back!

There. Now that we have that out of the way...

...my ex-girlfriend used to drink Red Bull Cosmos all the time.

[Puck]

Since we've moved onto a MLS thread as opposed to just the change in name of the NY team, how hard do you think the MLS will be publicizing their product with the World Cup over a month or so away?

[Gothamite]

Why should it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that branding alone can grow the fanbase?

Because, if branding alone grows your fanbase, then I question the knowledge - as well as the long-term support - of said fanbase.

Let me clarify - I meant branding on its own can help grow a fanbase. Not that branding is the sole thing required to grow a fanbase. It's only one part. It has limited reach - branding can only grow a fanbase so far.

But yes, branding is an important element in the plans MLS has to grow their fanbase. And in the admittedly limited sampling that I have done, it's working well.

The rebranding acrosss the league has, in my opinion, raised the credibility of the League amongst soccer fans. Is that all they should do? Of course not. But it's part of what they're doing.

[Gothamite]

Since we've moved onto a MLS thread as opposed to just the change in name of the NY team, how hard do you think the MLS will be publicizing their product with the World Cup over a month or so away?

In my opinion, they can't push it hard enough at the World Cup. Show off the fact that (some of) the national superstars play in the American league.