I like the Since 96 tagline too. Some fans may not identify with it if they adopted LAG later on but those fans can still say that they support a team that is one of the original starters in 1996. Damn, it's been that long? EDIT: I can't wait for the season to start!
I'm fine with the "Since 96" part. But the writer in me doesn't like "True to then, true to now." Grammatically bad and doesn't make much sense when you really break it down...
They used the English version of that video for both the English and Spanish Twitter accounts. Seems they could have made a Spanish audio version, too. I like the video, though.
Put this in the other thread, but I love that montage video. MUCH better campaign to start the season. I don't mind the tagline either even though @TrickHog makes a great point. It's a direct swat at LAFC, and I like it! Bring on the derby!
I was perusing LAFC’s ticket sales and fair play to them, they seem to have sold out more than half of their stadium of season tickets. Now, I don’t know what exactly that means, how many season tickets were made available for those sections, if only half of available seats are open to tickets then it’s not as impressive, if it’s all then well done LAFC. What I’m getting at is this should be a make-it or break-it year for the Galaxy marketing department. Up until now the Galaxy has largely succeeded in spite of the marketing efforts, they’ve had the luxury of global superstars, an attractive style of play and an almost unprecedented half decade of success 90% of their job was done for them and there’s been no in-market direct competitor for at least 5 years (I forget exactly when Chivas USA stopped caring). So now along comes LAFC; without any of those advantages they have to rely solely on marketing for ticket sales, and if they’ve been as successful as their ticket site suggests they’ve done a good job of it. It’s also possible, based on last season’s attendance figures LA will have a plurality of games where LAFC outdraws LA. If I’m Chris Klein or Dan Beckerman I’d be asking a lot of hard questions. In truth I should have been asking those questions years ago, but absent an external success metric they’ve been able to sustain ignoring, not knowing or not caring about the problem. Will we see changes? Who knows, maybe signing Zlatan will paper over the cracks for another season, maybe LAFC doesn’t have the numbers their ticket site suggests or maybe they don’t sustain that level of interest. Maybe AEG doesn’t care, the Galaxy is a rounding error in their overall spreadsheet, as long as the team hovers around the break even mark AEG are happy. Goodness knows there have been warning signs for years now that LA’s marketing department has fallen well behind the rest of the league. Despite winning awards, marketing success isn’t measured in baubles and back slapping, it’s cold hard numbers in spreadsheet.
LAFC will play in a smaller stadium than StubHub Center, which will be easier to fill up and will be better optics for TV. But keep in mind -- during the worst season in Galaxy history (2017) this team still managed an average attendance that is higher than BoC Stadium's total capacity: 22,000+. Still good enough for 6th in MLS.
I think the big question with LAFC will come in year two. It is so much easier to be a fan of a team via television or a fan of a concept. I think that a lot of these fans are going to be experiencing the reality of being a season ticket holder for the first time. It takes actual commitment. 17 home games is no joke. Now, if the team is not as good as you expected (right now they certainly don't look like 2017 Atlanta) and the actual experience of being a fan of a real MLS team is not what they expect, they may have a hard time of carrying that forward. They APPEAR (not a lot of hard facts available) to be well positioned and have done everything right business wise.
(Warning: This post is from an MLS fan perspective rather than a rival team perspective.) I agree their business side, branding and PR seems strong so far. The partnership with Youtube could be brilliant. Unfortunately for the league they haven't done a very good job of building a first year roster -- barring a lot of last minute additions they are going to suck on the field this year. I think this is a big mistake for for MLS. Just like I think MLS blew it when they brought Beckham in but failed to put decent teammates around him, no matter how much rule "bending" that required. MLS had national buzz and media saturation but the product on the field was so, so bad that interest dropped off quickly. It was in the leagues interest to make sure that Becks wasn't passing the ball to Josh Toledo or whoever it was. The game were borderline unwatchable unless you were a die hard LAG fan like we are. This launch is yet another chance for MLS to get media exposure, improve their branding and increase their fan base by scooping up a bunch of new millennial fans. The Youtube sponsorship and broadcasts will be perfect for that. But how many of these potential new MLS fans will drop off if the team loses repeatedly? A lot. The shiny will wear off quickly. And MLS will have blown another chance to impress potential new fans with a major new product launch. This will be more like an iPhone X launch rather than say a Steve Jobs era product launch. Great presentation but the product, meh. tldr version: You get one chance to make a first impression. LAFC is in risk of blowing theirs. Good news as a rival, not good news as an MLS fan.
See the LAFC thread. We've learned today that the total value of their shirt sponsorship and local TV broadcast contract is approximately $4m. We know the Galaxy get $5.5m for local tv and I forget what Herbapyramidscheme pays for shirt sponsorship but $5m is in the ballpark. So they are starting way behind the Galaxy in these crucial revenue streams. I'm surprised and I'm now less confident in my assessment earlier today that they've seemingly done everything right business wise. If they are more Minnesota than Atlanta on the field this year, then next year gets real interesting.
They will be so much more like Minnesota. They have several weak spots in their roster -- players who probably shouldn't start in MLS -- and no depth. Much like us last year. Atlanta's initial roster ranged from solid to brilliant, plus they had depth.
I saw somewhere that the YouTube streams will require a monthly subscription charge ($28/month and $35/month were the numbers on Twitter.) I guess if you are already a paying YouTube subscriber this is a good deal. But I have the impression that Netflix, Amazon Prime and some other services have a larger subscriber base. If you had to pay per month to see LAFC on top of being a STH this becomes a pretty pricey proposition. Face it, with Time Warner (or whatever its called now) we have a pretty sweet deal and following the road games is easy.