Dreaming of Chicago NASL.

Says guy who acts like an adolescent with regard to the Strikers. Eyeroll this, jagov.

"Oh, they're the same club! I say they're the same club, so they're the same club! I don't have to explain that inconvenient 28 year gap!"

God, you're an idiot fanboy. How's your retro brand working out for you?

Wait, wait, wait....I want to make sure I'm clear on this: There's equity in the brand, but it doesn't matter if you're aware of the brand or not?

Do you know what the concept of brand equity means?

The Sting brand went out of frigging business in 1988. There is almost no one under the age of 40 with any meaningful memories of that old club. I know for old-timers like you, oh, it's a hallowed frigging brand and all. But please don't tell me about basic marketing.

Yeah, in 1981 and 1984. Wow, remember 1984 and that soccer team that averaged 8,300 people a game that year? Amazing, we can work with that! It doesn't matter if the people who actually won those championships are in their fifties and sixties now and you won't actually be seeing those guys playing out there, please, believe us, folks, it's the same exact brand!

It doesn't matter that anyone in their twenties who went to games in 1981 is in their mid-fifties or sixties now, they're going to come flocking back!

You won't even need ticket sales people. Just tell potential fans this team won two championships before they were born! Boom! Sign them up!

Again...you use the brand equity....to attract people....to something they have no memory of? And no awareness of?

Please, God, Anonymous Old Internet Men, you're not the demographic.

And please don't tell me about marketing, especially sports marketing. This whole community is full of people who spout "That's just Marketing 101" without ever having taken Marketing 101 or working a day in marketing. They're the same people who are sure they could coach the national team and referee every game perfectly.

Yes, because they can bring back Chipwich, a soccer team's identity from thirty years ago is completely the same thing.

Please. Just stop. Just stop, old internet people who long for their adolescence. Stop it.

 

Very "interesting" post Kenn,

How familiar are you really with the concept of brand marketing? What works and doesn't work? Ever followed the story of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer? Most people drinking PBR today were not even born when that brand had its heyday. The brand was not purchased and revitalized a few years ago to target 70 and 80 year old men who can still remember drinking that brand. Very few people in their 20s and 30s had ever heard of the brand. What the PBR brand has, is a history that could be built upon and positioned as a relevant alternative to the mainstream brands that have marketing budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. With very few marketing dollars, the folks that own the PBR brand have been pretty successful.

Kenn, do you really believe that it is easier to build a brand from scratch rather than borrow from a brand that at least has story to tell? Old, worn out brands have tapped into the concept of authenticity and story telling to bring them back from the dead. Take a look at brands such as Polaroid, Good Humor and Old Spice. These brands are targeting new consumers, and not, to use your words "Please, God, Anonymous Old Internet Men, you're not the demographic". You seem to be missing the entire argument!

So let's take your approach and pick some random name, such as FC Chicago or Municipal Chicago, two names already suggested in the Chicago NASL website. It's safe to assume that these brand currently have absolutely zero brand awareness. So with very limited dollars, how do you propose to create awareness and any type of brand equity?

Let's take a look at the Chicago Sting name and brand. I know that your perspective is. "There is almost no one under the age of 40 with any meaningful memories of that old club. I know for old-timers like you, oh, it's a hallowed frigging brand and all." A rather ignorant point of view as it relates to brand building. The Chicago Sting name already has an authentic story to tell, and it's not "Wow, remember 1984 and that soccer team that averaged 8,300 people a game that year? Amazing, we can work with that!" The 1981 team achieved remarkable traction as it relates to Chicago sports. Why not relate the brand to the 39,000 people attending a Monday night game at Comisky Park and then storming the field afterwards? Why not relate the brand to the victory parade held in downtown Chicago?

It's a start! At least you have something to work with. A hook to actually get some media coverage of the team.

It's a long shot, I know. But as someone who has been in the business of building brands over the past decade or three, I know something about marketing and PR. I am not just spewing Marketing 101 as you suggest.

As for your comment "Please. Just stop. Just stop, old internet people who long for their adolescence. Stop it." , you do realize that you come across as a real Ass, right? No seriously, you think that you know everything about soccer, but no, you really don't.

Just some thoughts from an old internet guy.

 

Irrelevant, but I'm pretty sure everyone has a cheap uncle who has been drinking PBR for the past 40 years. I knew what it was when I was 5.

 

Personally I don't think the Sting name would have done anything really. All the marketable old NASL names are currently being used. The rest should just be left in the past. Of course this arguing is pointless anyway since the team is going to have a generic name like Chicago FC.

 

I think you just go the route of Chicago FC and let a name fit its way in there. To me, Chicago is a powerful and well known name and doesn't need to be clouted with a doppy name or anything. For example, Orlando City's unofficial name is the Lions. You see it in all marketing and everything. However the team goes by Orlando City. I used to hate this idea at first, but now I love it.

Year 1 - Chicago FC and let the brand and supporters build something to where a name can stick. Orlando City was never really known as the Lions, they just had the picture in their photo. But the theme caught on. I would like to see Chicago do the same thing. And if it's Sting, then so be it. Plus with the advantage of going FC, lots of people know it's a soccer team and not a TV show.

Chicago FC

 

Problem is most fanbases are to lazy to come up with a nickname for a team. One of the many reasons I hate generic soccer names. This is 'Murcia dammit! Use 'Murcian names.

 

mehhh...ya, I use to be that way...I hated the FC's and all that. But soccer is a world sport and naming teams is different than per se baseball or basketball. If a good name can't be implemented, always best to default to FC and let a name organically come on.

 

I'd be a pretty big supporter of adding City to the name somewhere, to differentiate from the Fire and to emphasize the fact that this team is in the city (assuming that's where they end up). I think Chicago City SC sounds good. Has some nice alliteration too.

 

This won't be my team, but I'm in the Chicago City SC camp, with the city flag color scheme similar to the Red Stars.

I generally like retro brands and agree with Sting111 on a lot of what he said regarding brand marketing. History can be an asset.

However, this club's main selling point is that it will be the city's team, playing within city limits. So while "City" may be somewhat tired, it really fits here. The SC gives it a more Americanized finish.

Municipal is interesting but probably a little out there for the general public. Wild Onion would be a fun supporters group name, but not the team name.

Peter Wilt's comments earlier this year indicated they were leaning away from the Sting name and I think that's probably the right call given this club's value proposition of being the city's team as opposed to the suburban Fire.

 

He also repped Kenn's anti-Sting post.

 

That's because the man has some damn sense! The Sting name won't do anything but associate the new club with a failed one. Start fresh and "organic" Chicago FC or Chicago City SC or something along those lines would be great. Now if the league could just not implode by the time this team comes around that would be awesome!

 

Peter personally seems to be anti-Sting. No idea if his group of inverstors share that opinion

 

You bring up a very good point. The city of Chicago is unique in regards to having a recognizable corporate seal, flag and identity. Having been born and raised in the city, I take great pride in these symbols. That is what I thought was so brilliant with the Chicago Fire when they first began. The identity of the team was very closely associated with the city of Chicago. Even the unofficial association with the Chicago Fire Department was clearly demonstrated. People take great pride in that. Inevitably, that connection was lost when the team moved to the burbs. Any kind of connection to the original meaning of the badge and what it stands for has been put aside. That is a real shame as the current team really has lost a lot of meaning as a result. Some of those connections can still be tapped into, but not in an irrelevant manner. The loud siren before the start of every game just doesn't cut it for me.

The main concern that I still have is finding a great location to play in the city of Chicago. I am all for it if one can be found. I lived through the days when the Chicago Fire team was trying to do the exact same thing. It seems like finding that ideal location could be an impossible task. I really wouldn't mind a location close to the city such as Rosemont. Unfortunately, the Chicago connection is no longer relevant if that does happen.

Many ways to go with this. It still comes down to the fundamentals: Location, Location, Location.

 

I hope they go with something a bit more creative than Chicago FC or Chicago City, but I also hope they don't go with Sting.

 

Municipal Chicago sounds like a branch in the government. I like Chicago FC, don't mind Chicago City.

I still feel like FC is the better way to go tho, given that the Fire haven't penetrated into the urban Chicago market, FC is so well-known, even to casual soccer followers. Unless you are a higher profile team, I can see City confusing people. When I talk to my casual sports friends (that follow soccer a bit), they seem very confused by the City thing. Only Manchester City fans understand it, but FC is known by everyone. It's a safe bet.

On a different note: SF Deltas released some proposed ticket prices:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NASLSoccer/comments/53au5x/san_francisco_deltas_proposed_ticket_prices_are/

 

Appears like there was some progress on the investor side of things based on their Twitter. Really hoping that they can get on board. Wonder what the hiccups with the stadium are.

 

an awesome place would be UIC at the soccer stadium, great location.
901 W Roosevelt Rd, Chicago, IL 60608

except the darn thing only holds 1,000 people. Maybe they can do something similar like FC Edmonton did and bring in more stands. But even that, they are limited. Not much space.

 

Probably price. It isn't cheap to rent out an NFL stadium.

 

Wilt said it wasn't the price (maybe on here)

 

I forget if it was here or Twitter but I remember reading that. He usually lurks on these forums, so maybe he can chime in or someone can Tweet at him.

 

Blatz was what my cheap uncle would drink. Since we're using throwback names in the NASL, maybe we should drink throwback beer at the games.

If and when Chicago NASL kicks-off their first game, and especially if the Sting moniker wins out as team name, I say they serve $1.99 Old Style drafts. How's that for retro?

 

More news about the team from Wilt's podcast appearance here

https://www.reddit.com/r/NASLSoccer...glost_podcast/d7un95t?st=itblzwnh&sh=0198b66f