It's been a lot of years, 16 to be exact, but the Winnipeg Jets are back in the National Hockey League (NHL).
The name was announced yesterday at the Xcel Energy Center during the NHL Draft. It's funny, because there were a ton of people saying that the Jets' name would not be resurrected. The original Jets moved to Phoenix and became the Coyotes in the 1996-97 season.
Which means, that all the history, color schemes, uniforms, logos and everything attached to the Jets in some fashion moved with the team to Phoenix in 1996. Even the mayor of Winnipeg said that the Jets name wouldn't come back.
Unless they had been smart, like Cleveland was. When Art Modell took the Cleveland Browns (NFL) to Baltimore, the city of Cleveland retained the rights to everything: history, logos, team colors, uniforms, etc. Essentially, Modell was bringing an expansion team to Baltimore. Two years later when Cleveland was awarded another NFL franchise, it was as if the team never left.
But, the newest installment of the Jets won't have too much history. Eleven years, all of which were in Atlanta. The Thrashers weren't the best team, winning only a handful of games every season. So, the short history the Jets will have once they make it up to Winnipeg won't be looked upon fondly, if at all.
Some teams don't really even acknowledge the history of the team once they've moved. Case in point, the Minnesota Twins. Relocated to the Twin Cities from Washington DC in 1960, the Twins technically have been a franchise since the early 1900s. Incidentally, the Twins technically have won three World Series, their first coming in 1924, but as the Washington Senators.
As for the Jets, they'll somewhat be starting all over again: a new logo, color scheme, corporate identity, etc. will be chosen in the months ahead. As for the folks in Atlanta, they might be scratching their heads trying to figure out how they've lost two NHL franchises, both to Canada. Atlanta lost the Flames to Calgary in 1980.
It will be nice to see "Winnipeg Jets" back in the standings next season.
Subscribe To comPRehend
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Clever tactic, or invasion of privacy?
I'm sure it's been written about online before, but I saw an article in my email edition of Advertising Age today that caught me a bit off-guard. The article (linked to the title of this post) talked about how, just in a search engine, Google can target consumers with ads, based on what they search.
On one hand, that's all well and good. We all hate pop-up ads, and most of us probably have pop-up blockers on our computers. However, if those pop-up ads appeal to us, would we be more likely to turn off the blocker and actually pay attention to what they're trying to sell us?
Say I'm doing a search on Google for a synopsis on a movie. All of a sudden, an ad pops up for Netflix; or a small little advertisement for Red Dot. That's actually clever. Of course, I already subscribe to Netflix; so the ad would have fallen subject to being "x'd out." I was just looking for a synopsis on a movie.
Or, I could be doing some sort of product research. An ad pops up for just that product and maybe a "click to save 50 cents" sort of thing. That probably appeals to consumers.
But, on the other hand, what about the unusual searches? Sometimes, people search for the oddest things on Google. Price even said in the interview that the internet was becoming more "personalized," so he's trying to adapt ads to meet that personalization. Might that approach become too personal in some cases? Almost like a case of Big Brother knowing what we're doing on the internet?
If that's the case, will it turn consumers off?
On one hand, that's all well and good. We all hate pop-up ads, and most of us probably have pop-up blockers on our computers. However, if those pop-up ads appeal to us, would we be more likely to turn off the blocker and actually pay attention to what they're trying to sell us?
Say I'm doing a search on Google for a synopsis on a movie. All of a sudden, an ad pops up for Netflix; or a small little advertisement for Red Dot. That's actually clever. Of course, I already subscribe to Netflix; so the ad would have fallen subject to being "x'd out." I was just looking for a synopsis on a movie.
Or, I could be doing some sort of product research. An ad pops up for just that product and maybe a "click to save 50 cents" sort of thing. That probably appeals to consumers.
But, on the other hand, what about the unusual searches? Sometimes, people search for the oddest things on Google. Price even said in the interview that the internet was becoming more "personalized," so he's trying to adapt ads to meet that personalization. Might that approach become too personal in some cases? Almost like a case of Big Brother knowing what we're doing on the internet?
If that's the case, will it turn consumers off?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Atlanta Thrashers relocation approved
The National Hockey League (NHL) unanimously approved the sale and relocation of the Atlanta Thrashers. The Thrashers will be moving to Winnipeg, Manitoba next season. Atlanta has now lost two NHL teams; and both have been to Canada. Atlanta lost the Flames in 1980 to Calgary.
Winnipeg has been without NHL hockey for 15 years. Their previous team, the Jets, moved to Phoenix in 1995. Now, with a new arena, Winnipeg is ready to re-enter the league. But, a few snags exist that will require, in my opinion, a great deal of good PR and marketing strategy.
The arena in Winnipeg, the MTS Centre, only seats 15,000. It will be the smallest arena in the NHL. The NHL required the group that purchased the team, True North, to sell 13,000 season tickets, which they have done. The Thrashers were in the bottom 5 in attendance last season. There are 30 teams overall in the NHL. The Thrashers were bringing in, on average, about 13,200.
Here's a problem: that number won't change. The only difference is, 13,200 is closer to a sellout in a 15,000-seat arena. That same number equated to an arena that was about 60% full in Atlanta. My thinking is that the critics will say, "What's changed? They're still getting the same attendance, just in a different city."
Then, there's the issue of how to brand the team. Should they bring the Jets back? The mayor of Winnipeg says that won't happen. Problem there is that the Winnipeg Jets' team history, colors, logos and such moved with the team in 1995 to Phoenix. Just like what happened with the North Stars when they moved in 1993 to Dallas. For lack of a better phrase, it stinks to see Bill Goldsworthy's retired number hanging in the rafters at American Airlines Center in Dallas. He wasn't a Dallas Star, he was a Minnesota North Star. But, the franchise and its long history moved.
The Jets (we'll call them that for now) have a great deal of work ahead of them in the months ahead. A new name, logo and color scheme have to be decided upon. That's just the start. And, re-entering a market that has been without hockey for so long will be a difficult PR challenge as well.
Winnipeg has been without NHL hockey for 15 years. Their previous team, the Jets, moved to Phoenix in 1995. Now, with a new arena, Winnipeg is ready to re-enter the league. But, a few snags exist that will require, in my opinion, a great deal of good PR and marketing strategy.
The arena in Winnipeg, the MTS Centre, only seats 15,000. It will be the smallest arena in the NHL. The NHL required the group that purchased the team, True North, to sell 13,000 season tickets, which they have done. The Thrashers were in the bottom 5 in attendance last season. There are 30 teams overall in the NHL. The Thrashers were bringing in, on average, about 13,200.
Here's a problem: that number won't change. The only difference is, 13,200 is closer to a sellout in a 15,000-seat arena. That same number equated to an arena that was about 60% full in Atlanta. My thinking is that the critics will say, "What's changed? They're still getting the same attendance, just in a different city."
Then, there's the issue of how to brand the team. Should they bring the Jets back? The mayor of Winnipeg says that won't happen. Problem there is that the Winnipeg Jets' team history, colors, logos and such moved with the team in 1995 to Phoenix. Just like what happened with the North Stars when they moved in 1993 to Dallas. For lack of a better phrase, it stinks to see Bill Goldsworthy's retired number hanging in the rafters at American Airlines Center in Dallas. He wasn't a Dallas Star, he was a Minnesota North Star. But, the franchise and its long history moved.
The Jets (we'll call them that for now) have a great deal of work ahead of them in the months ahead. A new name, logo and color scheme have to be decided upon. That's just the start. And, re-entering a market that has been without hockey for so long will be a difficult PR challenge as well.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
StarTribune.com Gets a Makeover
You may have already seen it: the Star Tribune did a massive renovation on its Web site. I have to say, it was long overdue.
You will almost be surprised when you first get to the site, it's like reading the E-edition of the Tribune. The interface very much has the look of the actual paper; and, at least for me, the site is much more user-friendly.
The site has a much cleaner look. The other site seemed so cluttered, lots of information, just on the homepage. Also, I think what really helped is they took the green color out of the Web site. Just my opinion, but there was a great deal of color on the old site which added to the clutter.
It's a great re-design, and you'll very likely be impressed when you first see it. It's something the Pioneer Press (aka twincities.com) should definitely look into doing.
You will almost be surprised when you first get to the site, it's like reading the E-edition of the Tribune. The interface very much has the look of the actual paper; and, at least for me, the site is much more user-friendly.
The site has a much cleaner look. The other site seemed so cluttered, lots of information, just on the homepage. Also, I think what really helped is they took the green color out of the Web site. Just my opinion, but there was a great deal of color on the old site which added to the clutter.
It's a great re-design, and you'll very likely be impressed when you first see it. It's something the Pioneer Press (aka twincities.com) should definitely look into doing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The NCAA Tournament - Opinion
I do like this time of year - especially with the NCAA basketball tournament. But, I was thinking the other day: it's certainly not the same tournament that it was 20 years ago.
Hang with me on this one. First, 20 years ago, there were no "play-in" games. It was 64 teams, period. The NCAA selection committee chose the field of 64, and that was it. Now, it's up to 68 or 69. According to Wikipedia, there are 346 member Division I schools.
Twenty years ago, regional games were frequently played, although not always, in college arenas. Not so much anymore. Most of the regional matchups are in large, downtown arenas that house professional teams. I remember days when regionals were played at college arenas like The Pit at the University of New Mexico; or Thomson-Boling Arena at the University of Tennessee. It's been quite some time since I've seen either of those venues on the tournament lineup.
And, how about the Final Four itself? The 1985 Final Four, for instance, was at Rupp Arena at the University of Kentucky. The 1983 Final Four, which had one of the best game endings I've ever seen (who can forget the last-second NC State dunk by Lorenzo Charles to win the game) was at University of New Mexico's University Arena (aka "The Pit").
Several years ago, after the ticket debacle at the 1996 Final Four in East Rutherford, NJ, the NCAA made a decision that traditional arenas could no longer accomodate the Final Four. The 1996 Final Four was at the Meadowlands Arena (gone through several names over the years) which sat about 18,000.
After all the other tickets were handed out, there were only about 1,100 tickets for general public sale.
Since 1997, Final Fours have been played exclusively in domed stadiums. Back then, the "minimum" seating capacity to host a Final Four was 33,000. Which essentially rules out any traditional basketball arena.
Now, the NCAA requires a minimum seating capacity of 70,000. That pretty much rules the Metrodome out for future Final Fours. Click "The NCAA Tournament - Opinon" for a link to a Flickr photo I found for last year's Final Four, and what the setup looks like.
It seems to me the whole NCAA tournament is becoming more about TV dollars and selling tickets. Hence, the bigger arenas, more teams, etc. Take a look at this year: now we have games on four TV networks. That's great for people who want to see every game; but the entire tournament used to be on just one TV station: CBS.
The NCAA tournament is falling victim to neutralization all around. If you watch the games this year, all the floors in all the cities look exactly the same. The NCAA must have spent a fortune having a hardwood floor made for every city that hosted a game. The NCAA is plastering it's black and blue color scheme everywhere, from the floors to the banners to almost anything and everything that says "NCAA Tournament". About 20 years ago, all the NCAA would do was put a few decals over the home court logos. That was it.
And, advertising. If you go to an NCAA tournament game, you'll notice that blue tarps are placed over arena and stadium advertising. They probably don't do that as much anymore, since the advent of the LED digital "ribbon board" that can change advertisements. But, some of the older arenas that have permanent ads, are still covered up. One good thing is that it covers up beer ads - and alcohol is not sold at NCAA tournament events. But, this one really got to me, I had read about this in the Detroit Free-Press back in 2009. The 2009 Final Four was held at the new home of the Detroit Lions, which seats somewhere in the neigborhood of 66,000.
As with many new stadiums, the seats all have cupholders on them. At Ford Field, Aquafina "sponsored" all the cupholders. During the preparation for the Final Four, crews went to EVERY seat and put a blue sticker over the Aquafina logos. I guess Aquafina isn't an "official" NCAA sponsor. But, are TV cameras really going to pick up a little sticker? Seemed a little odd and a colossal waste of time to me.
People love college basketball because you don't have collective-bargaining agreements, or player contracts, owner lockouts or endorsement deals. College basketball wasn't supposed to be about the money. But, the way the NCAA is running the tournament these days, money seems to be the number one priority. I miss the old days.
Hang with me on this one. First, 20 years ago, there were no "play-in" games. It was 64 teams, period. The NCAA selection committee chose the field of 64, and that was it. Now, it's up to 68 or 69. According to Wikipedia, there are 346 member Division I schools.
Twenty years ago, regional games were frequently played, although not always, in college arenas. Not so much anymore. Most of the regional matchups are in large, downtown arenas that house professional teams. I remember days when regionals were played at college arenas like The Pit at the University of New Mexico; or Thomson-Boling Arena at the University of Tennessee. It's been quite some time since I've seen either of those venues on the tournament lineup.
And, how about the Final Four itself? The 1985 Final Four, for instance, was at Rupp Arena at the University of Kentucky. The 1983 Final Four, which had one of the best game endings I've ever seen (who can forget the last-second NC State dunk by Lorenzo Charles to win the game) was at University of New Mexico's University Arena (aka "The Pit").
Several years ago, after the ticket debacle at the 1996 Final Four in East Rutherford, NJ, the NCAA made a decision that traditional arenas could no longer accomodate the Final Four. The 1996 Final Four was at the Meadowlands Arena (gone through several names over the years) which sat about 18,000.
After all the other tickets were handed out, there were only about 1,100 tickets for general public sale.
Since 1997, Final Fours have been played exclusively in domed stadiums. Back then, the "minimum" seating capacity to host a Final Four was 33,000. Which essentially rules out any traditional basketball arena.
Now, the NCAA requires a minimum seating capacity of 70,000. That pretty much rules the Metrodome out for future Final Fours. Click "The NCAA Tournament - Opinon" for a link to a Flickr photo I found for last year's Final Four, and what the setup looks like.
It seems to me the whole NCAA tournament is becoming more about TV dollars and selling tickets. Hence, the bigger arenas, more teams, etc. Take a look at this year: now we have games on four TV networks. That's great for people who want to see every game; but the entire tournament used to be on just one TV station: CBS.
The NCAA tournament is falling victim to neutralization all around. If you watch the games this year, all the floors in all the cities look exactly the same. The NCAA must have spent a fortune having a hardwood floor made for every city that hosted a game. The NCAA is plastering it's black and blue color scheme everywhere, from the floors to the banners to almost anything and everything that says "NCAA Tournament". About 20 years ago, all the NCAA would do was put a few decals over the home court logos. That was it.
And, advertising. If you go to an NCAA tournament game, you'll notice that blue tarps are placed over arena and stadium advertising. They probably don't do that as much anymore, since the advent of the LED digital "ribbon board" that can change advertisements. But, some of the older arenas that have permanent ads, are still covered up. One good thing is that it covers up beer ads - and alcohol is not sold at NCAA tournament events. But, this one really got to me, I had read about this in the Detroit Free-Press back in 2009. The 2009 Final Four was held at the new home of the Detroit Lions, which seats somewhere in the neigborhood of 66,000.
As with many new stadiums, the seats all have cupholders on them. At Ford Field, Aquafina "sponsored" all the cupholders. During the preparation for the Final Four, crews went to EVERY seat and put a blue sticker over the Aquafina logos. I guess Aquafina isn't an "official" NCAA sponsor. But, are TV cameras really going to pick up a little sticker? Seemed a little odd and a colossal waste of time to me.
People love college basketball because you don't have collective-bargaining agreements, or player contracts, owner lockouts or endorsement deals. College basketball wasn't supposed to be about the money. But, the way the NCAA is running the tournament these days, money seems to be the number one priority. I miss the old days.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
'CCO Radio loses the Gophers
WCCO Radio, which has broadcast Minnesota Gophers football, basketball and hockey games since World War II, lost it's broadcast rights to Gophers sports today. The Gophs can now be heard on 1500 AM, ESPN Radio; and also KTLK 100.3 FM, according to news reports today.
'CCO Radio has lost its hold on many of the Twin Cities sports teams: The Twins left several years ago for 1500 AM. The Vikings moved several years ago to Clear Channel-owned KFAN. And now, the Gophers.
Part of it was in order to move the Gophers to an all-sports radio format, which WCCO is not. But, WCCO has been pretty popular in the Twin Cities. It is funny though, 'CCO Radio seems to be on a downturn; yet WCCO TV is pushing up in the ratings. Matter of fact, just a few days ago, I had heard that WCCO's newscasts now rank higher in the ratings than KARE 11.
I remember back in the 80s, WCCO Radio seemed to be so popular. I can remember many a time driving up to the cabin on the weekends, listening to the Cannon Mess; or the on-the-hour sounder for the news report. It was a fun station to listen to. Now, it's not even on my car presets.
Funny story about the Cannon Mess: I never actually knew the name of the show until I was at Brown Institute for broadcasting. When I was a kid, I always thought the show was called the "Cannon Nest." Never dawned on me - I just thought that's what the show was called. Until my best friend emailed me one day when I was at Brown Institute, and told me about how his radio show in college was called the JD Mess, patterned of course, after the Cannon Mess.
I thought - oh, that was it! The Cannon Mess....
'CCO Radio has lost its hold on many of the Twin Cities sports teams: The Twins left several years ago for 1500 AM. The Vikings moved several years ago to Clear Channel-owned KFAN. And now, the Gophers.
Part of it was in order to move the Gophers to an all-sports radio format, which WCCO is not. But, WCCO has been pretty popular in the Twin Cities. It is funny though, 'CCO Radio seems to be on a downturn; yet WCCO TV is pushing up in the ratings. Matter of fact, just a few days ago, I had heard that WCCO's newscasts now rank higher in the ratings than KARE 11.
I remember back in the 80s, WCCO Radio seemed to be so popular. I can remember many a time driving up to the cabin on the weekends, listening to the Cannon Mess; or the on-the-hour sounder for the news report. It was a fun station to listen to. Now, it's not even on my car presets.
Funny story about the Cannon Mess: I never actually knew the name of the show until I was at Brown Institute for broadcasting. When I was a kid, I always thought the show was called the "Cannon Nest." Never dawned on me - I just thought that's what the show was called. Until my best friend emailed me one day when I was at Brown Institute, and told me about how his radio show in college was called the JD Mess, patterned of course, after the Cannon Mess.
I thought - oh, that was it! The Cannon Mess....
Monday, March 7, 2011
Might Target Stadium be next?
I'm still rather undecided about the possibilities for a new Vikings stadium. Honestly, I don't like the idea of my taxes going up; which of course they will regardless of where it's built (unless of course, the Vikes come up with a county partnership like the Twins did).
Lately, there has been more and more chatter about the possibility of building a new Vikings stadium just west of Target Field. If you know where Mary's Place is, just off of 7th Street, that's where the Vikings are looking to set up camp. I don't like the idea of making Mary Jo Copeland relocate. I so appreciate the work she does for the community; and making her move to make way for a new sports palace, in my mind, is wrong.
Then, there would be the issue of naming rights for the new place. Should it be Target Stadium? You'd have Target Field, Target Center and Target Stadium. In all likelihood, that will not happen.
Here's what I think will play out: as much as I don't like it, the Vikings end up with the Mary's Place property. Target Corp. will back out of the Target Center naming rights deal, which is set to expire in June. Target Corp. having its name on a shiny, new, 72,000-seat stadium is more appealing than a renewing on a 21-year-old basketball arena.
If in fact, the Vikings do end up with that property, the new naming rights deal with Target will occur almost overnight. It's much easier for the Vikings to sell season tickets, suites, advertising and so forth to "Target Stadium" than it is to "New Minneapolis Stadium, future home of the Minnesota Vikings, title sponsor pending."
Think about what Farmers Insurance did. They inked a naming-rights deal with the yet-to-be-built, yet-to-be-groundbroken stadium in LA. LA doesn't even have a team yet, but they have a name for the new stadium. It's really a marketing thing.
Rumors are also circulating that the Vikings are soon to announce their plan to the state Legislature. We shall see what happens over the next few months.
Lately, there has been more and more chatter about the possibility of building a new Vikings stadium just west of Target Field. If you know where Mary's Place is, just off of 7th Street, that's where the Vikings are looking to set up camp. I don't like the idea of making Mary Jo Copeland relocate. I so appreciate the work she does for the community; and making her move to make way for a new sports palace, in my mind, is wrong.
Then, there would be the issue of naming rights for the new place. Should it be Target Stadium? You'd have Target Field, Target Center and Target Stadium. In all likelihood, that will not happen.
Here's what I think will play out: as much as I don't like it, the Vikings end up with the Mary's Place property. Target Corp. will back out of the Target Center naming rights deal, which is set to expire in June. Target Corp. having its name on a shiny, new, 72,000-seat stadium is more appealing than a renewing on a 21-year-old basketball arena.
If in fact, the Vikings do end up with that property, the new naming rights deal with Target will occur almost overnight. It's much easier for the Vikings to sell season tickets, suites, advertising and so forth to "Target Stadium" than it is to "New Minneapolis Stadium, future home of the Minnesota Vikings, title sponsor pending."
Think about what Farmers Insurance did. They inked a naming-rights deal with the yet-to-be-built, yet-to-be-groundbroken stadium in LA. LA doesn't even have a team yet, but they have a name for the new stadium. It's really a marketing thing.
Rumors are also circulating that the Vikings are soon to announce their plan to the state Legislature. We shall see what happens over the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)