WASHINGTON, DC and SAN JOSE, CA (July 7, 2008) USSoccerPlayers -- J Hutcherson and Tony Edwards discuss the National Basketball Association's move out of Seattle and their particular understanding of club versus city. How does that work in MLS, and, more to the point, how should it?
J Hutcherson: Hey Tony, With the Seattle Supersonics moving to Oklahoma and wanting to start over as what amounts to a new team with a built-in history, the National Basketball Association’s position is interesting. Apparently, they just don’t do that, preferring a club’s history as well as the name to travel with them rather than remaining tied to a city. So the Lakers weren’t in stasis waiting on the NBA’s triumphant return to Minneapolis, and the Timberwolves have nothing to do with the Lakers early history in that city.
Major League Soccer owns the marks, but has opted for the National Football League model of leaving the name and history of a club in a city it vacated. Obviously, it’s only one example for MLS with a multi-time champion. Still, it’s an interesting point for markets where teams might someday return.
The Sunday Mirror linked David Beckham with starting a Miami MLS club if he acts on his option to buy into MLS. One would assume that wouldn’t pick up on the legacy of the Fusion. Should it?
Tony Edwards: The City of Seattle's attorneys said they wanted to keep the name 'Supersonics' and all the memorabilia, etc. While you can make the case that it might have been better if both the NBA and MLB had forced the Dodgers and Lakers to choose 'location-specific' nicknames, when those relocations occurred merchandising and trademark issues were nothing like they are today.
Apparently, the NBA didn't want to have the Oklahoma City franchise to essentially start from scratch; which, seems kind of odd on the face of it, as Oklahoma City is getting Kevin Durant and Seattle is left with a 30 year old championship banner hanging in the Key Arena.
The details of why Team Beckham would choose Miami over someplace closer to LA aside, you can make a case that it didn't cost MLS anything to keep the Earthquakes name here (especially since Lew Wolff was apparently already a possibility).
The Sonics had been a going concern for 40 years. The Earthquakes name has been around for more than 30. As you point out, there were championships involved in both cases. So what is the determining factor?
Last week or so, some investors announced they were bringing a USL-1 team to Tampa and calling it the Rowdies. Does they really think wearing green with striped sleeves is going to bring more customers?
JH: That’s the thing. There’s nothing in the history of American pro sports that suggests otherwise. The A’s move twice and nobody is connecting them with the Connie Mack championship era. The Dodgers and Giants move and forget all about their former lives in the Boroughs. Does anybody think that the Denver faithful give a passing thought to the Nordiques?
I realize we’re in an age where any and all antiquated trademarks should be slapped on a t-shirt, but there has to be some broader value. Staying I Seattle, MLS pushed against keeping the Sounders name and past initial fans they might have had a point. Complete control of an identity has to have value. MLS has gotten criticized for using years (the original Houston concept) or FC, while at the same time still taking shots for the circa ’96 names.
One wonders how much brand awareness any name and logo not among the top four or five in all sports really carries. At least from looking around, the age of throwback jerseys and caps seems to have passed. We’re back to the Yankees, Cowboys, and everybody else. Regardless of claims of shirts sold, it’s a tough point to make that any of the MLS branding exercises are even remotely in that conversation.
You’re right. For a League so smitten with rebranding, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot to suggest it makes a substantial difference. How many color combinations has Colorado tried?
TE: When retro t-shirts are being sold at Saks Fifth Avenue or Nordstrom's for $35, I think their day has passed.
You brought up Beckham earlier and one has to hope that no one in MLS believes it's the front of the jersey that is moving merchandise. In that sense, Beckham, MLS is in the conversation. But I've yet to see anyone wearing a Blanco Fire jersey and this is an area with a lot of Club America fans.
There was a cry from a minority of Metros fans when Red Bull took over, but to the extent that organization hasn't alienated its fan base, that seems to have passed. There supposedly were internal discussions in the A's organization about not taking the Quakes name.
And you can make a case both ways. And while it's not a great idea to give your most passionate fans any reason to turn against you, I'd like to think that for MLS those people would come around at some point. Did anybody in Denver not buy baseball tickets because the team chose Colorado Rockies over Denver Bears?
JH: For that matter, does anybody get upset when the current teams in old Pacific Coast League cities do the retro PCL promotions? It would make about as much sense, considering.
The Beckham thing is interesting because of his connections to successful branding not just of himself but Creative 19 properties in general. Fan or not, they’ve done a marketing job with American Idol as a local franchise of a broader concept. Bringing that kind of process to MLS in whatever market they might end up in should at least be better than what we’ve seen with the MLS rebranding and expansion markets.
If colors and name really were a factor, how much credit does MLS get? Burn to FC, the other FC, Dynamo, Red Bulls, etc?
TE: Absolutely, there should be a level of marketing success and connection that's been elusive throughout the history of American soccer that isn't labelled 'El Tri' or Chivas Guadalajara. Having said that, we know that even a good team in Miami with charismatic personalities doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I think we can agree on DC United having gotten it mostly right from the start (their original logo was too sinister). That leaves, well, none of the other original teams. The Fire clearly did well also. For its initial mistakes, choosing orange for the Dynamo was a good call. Otherwise, less said the better.
JH: Well, we can thank the NBA and their fondness for control of marks and history for the teal craze in the late 80’s. It’s never a trend as long as it remains exploitable. We haven’t mentioned the excesses of European soccer and ice hockey. When a country enforces a fairness to consumers provision to keep a shirt looking the same for at least two seasons?
TE: It isn't just Europe. Some of the Mexican clubs are as bad as NASCAR. At some point, there has to be diminishing returns to the sponsors, but apparently that hasn't been reached yet.
And yet, teams release new shirts each year. In some ways, I guess we're fortunate that MLS/Adidas is finally giving their teams' designs some time to settle in the marketplace, but even then, this isn't the NFL where the 49ers can pick a deeper shade of red and everyone in the stadium is wearing it as of the first game. You look at Colorado and what color are the fans wearing, exactly?
JH: When you have that much change season-to-season, how important is that core brand? Change the color on the Supersonics S over basketball logo, run it alongside a bunch of other logos with an S, and see how many people can spot it. It’s like the rush to see who can be the wackiest in minor and independent league sports.
You’re right, whatever limit there was has already been reached. Pretending that the New Orleans Hornets and the Utah Jazz make sense is just silly. Move on, especially when teams still in their current market have no issues getting as far away from whatever history they might have as possible.
