Could some teams do with a bit of re-branding?

[Balance]

Port Adelaide Power -> Port Adelaide FC

Port Adelaide Football Club is what we are already called now, and have been for a long time. Power is just a nickname.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Western Bulldogs should go back to Footscary.

West coast eagles should be named Perth Eagles

GWS should be called West Sydney Giants

Agree except Giants should just be called Sydney Giants.

Like I explained with the NFL example....New York Giants and New York Jets, or, in the past, Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Raiders.

As in....the city is big enough for two teams, and both teams represent the entire city. It's really bad marketing and branding to think one team is meant to represent a part of the city and the other team another part of the city. It's really stupid and childish. Fans will associate with whichever team they want. There are tons of swans fans in the gws area and Giants fans in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

If you're going to insist on Giants being called GWS or West sydney, then you have to then rename the swans as east sydney. See how stupid that is?

 

[Colonial]

West sydney? Crazy stupid. Worse than supposedly GWS.

 

[Riccardo11]

If you're going to insist on Giants being called GWS or West sydney, then you have to then rename the swans as east sydney. See how stupid that is?

In the A-League, The Wanderers represent Western Sydney and Sydney FC is still Sydney FC, though the former do refer to the latter as "East Sydney" to rile them up.

I don't really like Greater Western Sydney as a name, but ripping away their geographical identity is pointless, it's obvious from talking to Sydneysiders that there is at least some amount of pride in being from the Western Suburbs, it gives them a different area to market to than the Swans, who in no way need to change an identity they've had for nearly 30 years.

 

[Exe Gesis]

In the A-League, The Wanderers represent Western Sydney and Sydney FC is still Sydney FC, though the former do refer to the latter as "East Sydney" to rile them up.

I don't really like Greater Western Sydney as a name, but ripping away their geographical identity is pointless, it's obvious from talking to Sydneysiders that there is at least some amount of pride in being from the Western Suburbs, it gives them a different area to market to than the Swans, who in no way need to change an identity they've had for nearly 30 years.

It's truly an adolescent marketing/branding thought process. Only in Australia. You're instructing or advising people in the West that this is your team. Not people in the north south or east. Likewise swans now become even more of a bigger membership sydney club, telling people not in the West that this is your team.

There'll be a percentage of people who will buy into that advertising. But more people who will support the Giants from non-western sydney. So what's the point?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Let me put it another way....

In the nrl when the team and suburb called North sydney merged with Manly, neighboring areas, they couldn't call themselves northern sydney because it's too similar to north sydney. So they went with northern eagles. Northern what? It's as stupid a name as western Bulldogs.

Imagine essendon and carlton merged they couldn't call themselves northern melbourne blue bombers because it's too similar to north melbourne. So theyd go with northern. Northern what? Already that example in the vfl. Same problem if carlton and north merged.

Gist being any team name with a compass point signifier is problematic and not unique brand....even if it's a suburb name.

no its stupid because the area you're talking about, north of the city is referred to everyone in Sydney as North Sydney. nobody says Northern Sydney.
everyone in Sydney refers to the area west of the city as Western Sydney, Nobody says West Sydney.

the key thing your missing here, Is the term Sydney. that is where you're marketing to, try to understand it or at the very least to try to understand nobody in Sydney cares what other parts of the country do, speak or think. The sooner the rest of this country learn they are irrelevant, Yhe better off everybody will be.

 

[incubi]

Agree except Giants should just be called Sydney Giants.

Like I explained with the NFL example....New York Giants and New York Jets, or, in the past, Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Raiders.

As in....the city is big enough for two teams, and both teams represent the entire city. It's really bad marketing and branding to think one team is meant to represent a part of the city and the other team another part of the city. It's really stupid and childish. Fans will associate with whichever team they want. There are tons of swans fans in the gws area and Giants fans in the eastern suburbs of Sydney.

If you're going to insist on Giants being called GWS or West sydney, then you have to then rename the swans as east sydney. See how stupid that is?

interesting choice to use the Los Angeles team examples because that worked so well....
and if you want to use New York examples we could point out the New York Knicks and the Brooklyn Nets.

 

[Riccardo11]

It's truly an adolescent marketing/branding thought process. Only in Australia. You're instructing or advising people in the West that this is your team. Not people in the north south or east. Likewise swans now become even more of a bigger membership sydney club, telling people not in the West that this is your team.

There'll be a percentage of people who will buy into that advertising. But more people who will support the Giants from non-western sydney. So what's the point?

The point is the club is based in the Western area of Sydney, hence the name. Two teams called "Sydney" is not only confusing, it would seriously affect the newer clubs branding and marketing, not to mention robbing them of a distinct and separate identity from the Swans. For an example, see Melbourne Victory supporters and their "there is only one team in Melbourne" approach.

It's important for the new club to give itself a totally different image to the Swans, and setting themselves up as a Western team does that, even if people from other areas jump on board, maybe they prefer the smaller club with the battler image the West is famous for over the glamor pusses from the top end of town. Just a thought.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Only in Australia. Adolescent marketing practices.

 

[Riccardo11]

Only in Australia. Adolescent marketing practices.

What is the alternative? You would have shoehorned a brand new, secondary club into an already crowded market with a reputation as theatre goers, and expected them to draw any more than a bath? In what reality would this actually work?

The geographical seperation actually appears to be rather intellegant marketing, especially when you consider they didn't go the easy route and just adopt sky blue. I'm not a huge fan of the idea behind a second Sydney club, but the execution isn't that bad. It really could have been so much worse.

 

[Exe Gesis]

What is the alternative? You would have shoehorned a brand new, secondary club into an already crowded market with a reputation as theatre goers, and expected them to draw any more than a bath? In what reality would this actually work?

The geographical seperation actually appears to be rather intellegant marketing, especially when you consider they didn't go the easy route and just adopt sky blue. I'm not a huge fan of the idea behind a second Sydney club, but the execution isn't that bad. It really could have been so much worse.

Already explained that creating/fabricating regional lines is adolescent. It truly is. Now for instance, even more people will support sydney because it now represents even more a team for all non western population...marketing-wise.

Agree tho that a second sydney team was too premature. AFL will prop that club up for decades, pumping hundreds of millions into a lost cause. Swans already AFL owned to keep it afloat. And so many vic teams in the red.

The entire way the AFL was set up originally was fvcked from the outset. Should've been done the A-League way. New franchises set up max two each city in every state

 

[Riccardo11]

Already explained that creating/fabricating regional lines is adolescent. It truly is. Now for instance, even more people will support sydney because it now represents even more a team for all non western population...marketing-wise.

Agree tho that a second sydney team was too premature. AFL will prop that club up for decades, pumping hundreds of millions into a lost cause. Swans already AFL owned to keep it afloat. And so many vic teams in the red.

The entire way the AFL was set up originally was fvcked from the outset. Should've been done the A-League way. New franchises set up max two each city in every state

There is no "fabricating" of geographical lines, unless the AFL has god-like powers to designate compass directions which I am unaware of! The fact that you don't appear to believe West and East are different is rather mind-boggling, honestly.

As I have said, there is obviously a divide, and I bet dollars to donuts the AFL closely looked at the Wanderers and their instant success, as well as the clear geographic divide between NRL clubs. I don't in any way believe people from North or South of Sydney will look at GWS and say "oh, they are only for Westies, I better go for the Swans" THAT is juvenille thinking. Personally, I've never been to St Kilda in my life, but I still go for the Saints.

The AFL do not "own" the Swans, they are set up in a member owned structure like everyone else, and have been for decades. I am aware the AFL is financially supporting the Giants, as they are several Melbourne based clubs, but this has absolutely no influence or bearing on the name or location of the club and is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

I find it ironic you mention the A-League model, as they have set up it's two Sydney based clubs in exactly the way the AFL has, so it actually proves my argument. The original plan was ONE team per city for a minimum of 5 years, not two. And the Wanderers are a resounding success (this seasons results notwithstanding) that has not significantly impacted on Sydney FC in any way, due to the very real geographical divide.

 

[incubi]

There is no "fabricating" of geographical lines, unless the AFL has god-like powers to designate compass directions which I am unaware of! The fact that you don't appear to believe West and East are different is rather mind-boggling, honestly.

As I have said, there is obviously a divide, and I bet dollars to donuts the AFL closely looked at the Wanderers and their instant success, as well as the clear geographic divide between NRL clubs. I don't in any way believe people from North or South of Sydney will look at GWS and say "oh, they are only for Westies, I better go for the Swans" THAT is juvenille thinking. Personally, I've never been to St Kilda in my life, but I still go for the Saints.

The AFL do not "own" the Swans, they are set up in a member owned structure like everyone else, and have been for decades. I am aware the AFL is financially supporting the Giants, as they are several Melbourne based clubs, but this has absolutely no influence or bearing on the name or location of the club and is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

I find it ironic you mention the A-League model, as they have set up it's two Sydney based clubs in exactly the way the AFL has, so it actually proves my argument. The original plan was ONE team per city for a minimum of 5 years, not two. And the Wanderers are a resounding success (this seasons results notwithstanding) that has not significantly impacted on Sydney FC in any way, due to the very real geographical divide.

He uses the A League as an example despite the wanderers as you mention, he uses two Los Angeles sporting teams no longer based out of Los Angeles and two New York football teams despite New York sport having most recently added a team called Brooklyn not New York.

 

[Sub_Zero]

GWS should be rebranded as Western Sydney Giants. 'Greater' should be removed.

 

[Gydafud]

GWS should be rebranded as Western Sydney Giants. 'Greater' should be removed.

Appears to be named after the geographical location

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Western_Sydney

 

[Exe Gesis]

There is no "fabricating" of geographical lines, unless the AFL has god-like powers to designate compass directions which I am unaware of! The fact that you don't appear to believe West and East are different is rather mind-boggling, honestly.

As I have said, there is obviously a divide, and I bet dollars to donuts the AFL closely looked at the Wanderers and their instant success, as well as the clear geographic divide between NRL clubs. I don't in any way believe people from North or South of Sydney will look at GWS and say "oh, they are only for Westies, I better go for the Swans" THAT is juvenille thinking. Personally, I've never been to St Kilda in my life, but I still go for the Saints.

The AFL do not "own" the Swans, they are set up in a member owned structure like everyone else, and have been for decades. I am aware the AFL is financially supporting the Giants, as they are several Melbourne based clubs, but this has absolutely no influence or bearing on the name or location of the club and is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

I find it ironic you mention the A-League model, as they have set up it's two Sydney based clubs in exactly the way the AFL has, so it actually proves my argument. The original plan was ONE team per city for a minimum of 5 years, not two. And the Wanderers are a resounding success (this seasons results notwithstanding) that has not significantly impacted on Sydney FC in any way, due to the very real geographical divide.

Basketball example would be sydney swans and Auburn Giants. It's not new York knicks and greater north eastern new York mets.

btw Auburn being the district where the Giants are based.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Basketball example would be sydney swans and Auburn Giants. It's not new York and greater north eastern new York.

btw Auburn being the district where the Giants are based.

Cumberland would also have been an idea as it is another term that covers the area they are representing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland_Plain

 

[Riccardo11]

Basketball example would be sydney swans and Auburn Giants. It's not new York and greater north eastern new York.

btw Auburn being the district where the Giants are based.

Or it could be Sydney Kings and West Sydney Razorbacks, who had a fine rivalry for some time in the NBL.

Have never heard of either the teams you mentioned.

 

[Exe Gesis]

As for LA.. Still LA Lakers and LA clippers. And nfl will have two LA teams again. Won't be called East LA and West LA and certainly wont be called Los Angeles and Greater Southern Los Angeles

 

[Ice-Wolf]

As for LA.. Still LA Lakers and LA clippers. And nfl will have two LA teams again. Won't be called East LA and West LA and certainly wont be called Los Angeles and Greater Southern Los Angeles

Wouldn't the NFL need to start with 1 LA team first? As far as I'm aware no city in the US has 2 NFL teams.

 

[Exe Gesis]

As for the A-League example....I meant the AFL comp start up should've been new melbourne franchises...

Eg...

Melbourne Knights
Melbourne Rangers
Geelong Cats
Perth Eagles
Fremantle Dockers
Adelaide Crows
Port Adelaide Power
Sydney Swans
Brisbane Bears
Hobart Devils
Canberra Kings
Gold Coast Dolphins


Twelve teams, new franchises like west coast was in the 80s. And in time expand naturally into other regions.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

As for the A-League example....I meant the AFL comp start up should've been new melbourne franchises...

Eg...

Melbourne Knights
Melbourne Rangers
Geelong Cats
Perth Eagles
Fremantle Dockers
Adelaide Crows
Port Adelaide Power
Sydney Swans
Brisbane Bears
Hobart Devils
Canberra Kings
Gold Coast Dolphins


Twelve teams, new franchises like west coast was in the 80s. And in time expand naturally into other regions.

I'd have gone with:

Melbourne Blue Demons
North-East Melbourne Tiger Pies
South-East Melbourne Saint Hawks of Waverley
West Melbourne Kangaroo Dog Bombers
Geelong Cats

 

[JackFlash]

One thing is for certain, GWS are not going to win over anybody in Western Sydney wearing WHITE socks in a game of Aussie Rules, it just isn't right. I still like the Sturt colours and the logo is a "Giant" Now surely some bozo up there at GWS might've suggested that a colour scheme that resonates more with the people of NSW and in particular that of Western Sydney might be the go? All they had to do was either go with the light blue, navy blue with emblem or replace the navy with dark green. They should be at least 90% light blue, ditch the charcoal and orange and throw away those horrible white socks forever....

 

[Colonial]

All these experts of sydney and western sydney. Wouldnt have a clue.

 

[The_Reaper]

West Coast get massive revenue form membership and are probably in the top three clubs in Australian in terms of support.

Why exactly does West Coast need to rebrand?