But she properly points out that (a) weather concerns could have held the gate down...if TV had been an alternative, less passionate fans might have opted for the couch potato route, reducing attenance, and (b) against the Sunday night NFL fixture (dull as Rams/Ravens could be), "who'd be watching anyway"? Would run-of-the-mill sports fans in this area have tuned away from Rams/Ravens simply because the Earthquakes were an option? Remove your own passion for the game from the answers to those questions...
Its the old "chicken and the egg" thing, people aren't going to come out to Quakes matches until they get better media coverage, but they won't get the media coverage until people start showing up. Last weekend and the 2001 Cup final are prime examples of this, by the time the media gets round to noticing this team, its too late. Last weekends game really should have been front page, biggest headline with front page photo. its been a good week for media coverage, however things could be better. Killions, article wasn't bad, but it seemed like a rather weak effort, most of us will take that over nothing at all.
In my view this thread says more about us than about Ann or SJMN. In my view, there was a positive, timely article in the home town paper. That's a good thing!
Yes, exactly what I was thinking. In writing, wording is everything. None of us are perfect. I'm horrible about getting my meaning across in writing. Horrible! But I'm not getting paid for it either. The word could holds negative conotations in my book. Or, maybe not negative, but certainly not positive. "I could walk down to the cafeteria...but I'm too tired...." "I could wash my car, but I'd rather take it to the carwash...." "I could, but...." It would have been better if it said, "You should buy a ticket, because...." Don't get me wrong peeps. I'm glad she covered the game. And it was a "good" article. But it could have been better (there's that word again). I'll keep demanding better....one day I just might get it.
Yeah I am listeningJ In Scotland we would have called this article a “kick in the arse compliment”. I am happy for front-page coverage and happy at some of the points Ann made but I am soooo fed up with the negative slant that the Mercury has become famous for. The end of the article correctly points out that the SAN JOSE Earthquakes have had bigger crowds that the Sharks or the Warriors but why was this hidden at the end of the article. As a SAN JOSE Team we deserve to be covered as much as these teams but the SAN JOSE Mercury does not feel that this is the case. The Mercury’s sports section is the exactly the same as it was 30 years ago (with the exception of ice hockey) regardless of the fact that San Jose has changed dramatically during the last 30 years. The San Jose Mercury does not care that thousands of their readers are interested enough to buy tickets to see us play. They don’t care that we now have over 300,000 people playing the game of soccer in the area as opposed to a few thousand 30 years ago. They don’t care that San Jose has become a bigger city that San Francisco or Oakland during that time. By refusing to give fair coverage to San Jose teams we have watched as San Jose franchises have gone broke. They insist on giving prime coverage to San Francisco and Oakland Sports teams, which basically amounts to free publicity while ignoring a San Jose team who continues to fight for and deserves coverage. The San Jose Mercury only gave the San Jose CyberRays front page coverage when the CyberRays announced that they were folding and then the Mercury ask the question “why were the CyberRays not supported?” I sometime think they should change the name of the paper to the San Francisco Mercury or the Oakland Mercury or better still the Golden State Mercury. Keep the Faith. Johnny
Yep, that line right there sums up exactly where my thoughts are coming from. Bless you Johnny. You are a brilliant man. I hope you're with this organization for many, many, many years!
Spot on, John! About 10 or 15 years ago the Mercury made the decision to compete head-on with the San Francisco Chronicle to become a "major metropolitan daily". At that time they ceased being a "local" paper and became a "regional" paper...with as much or more attention paid to the 9-county area than their own back yard. What we've failed to recognize (or credit) all season long is how the coverage in the Mercury News has improved over years past. And we fail to credit improvement because we still don't have their coverage exactly where we want it. If we fail to praise when credit is due, how do we expect to get the coverage we "deserve", through righteous indignation?
Don't get me wrong, just because I'm not overjoyed with that article. I am happy that it was done at all. And I do agree, it has most definitely improved. But if we just accept what we get without thinking that it could be better, it may never get better. And though I am appreciative for that article, I still think it could have been better.
Yeah, but how do you really feel, Johnny? All Quakes fans share the frustration with the Merc's amount of coverage. This was one of the better articles, but they are way too few and far between. Usually, we don't even get an article on match day but rather a couple of short notes on the upcoming game. So if the Merc isn't our hometown paper, what is? Seriously, if they don't give San Jose teams real coverage, what is their role?
True...her point got bogged down in the details. I mean, what exactly was her point? There should have been TV coverage? There should be more people buying tickets? That Sunday night's game was a trancendant event that could shift the paradigm of American soccer for ever and ever, amen? I've read it twice now and I'm not quite sure.
Wouldn't Golden State Mercury be a good name for an indoor lacrosse team? Oh wait, I guess I didn't notice... Tony
Newspapers do not exist as publicity adjuncts of local businesses. The job of Ann Killion isn't to get people to Spartan Stadium, although I think she did a good job in this piece of making it seem like a place you'd want to be. Her job isn't to promote the San Jose Earthquakes, although again, it seemed clear in her article that the Earthquakes were well worth your attention. Fans of all sports seem to have a basic misunderstand of the purpose of mass media in our democracy. Oakland A's fans think their team doesn't get enough attention from the local press ... as do Quakes fans, and CyberRays fans when there was a CyberRays ... I imagine hockey fans and indoor football fans and fans of San Jose State football think the same thing. Fans of major sports from anywhere east of Philadelphia think the national media favors New York teams. Blah blah blah. If you want to read p.r. puffery on the Quakes, go to their website. If you want to read news, read the Mercury-News, or whatever is your favorite. But don't expect the media to do public relations for business, because that's not their job, and whenever they do that kind of p.r., they are failing in their mission. Or perhaps you'd rather that local sports franchises just assigned their own publicity people to the various local papers and wrote nothing except what their bosses wanted to them to say? That's what this kind of whining sounds like ... "waaa waaa, I opened my paper and they didn't tell everyone to go watch the Quakes!"
That's the point...there is no "hometown" paper anymore. The Bay Area as a whole doesn't recognize "hometown"... only "regional"...only "big"...only "world class". Hometown stuff is cute and quaint, but this area is not cute and quaint. Look beyond our own situation for a moment...what other "hometown" coverage is there? For example, local high schools. Community college sports in this area are of exceptionally high quality. And folks at SJSU have been making the same arguments about the Merc for at least the last 15 years. What is the Merc's role? To sell as many newspapers to as many readers as possible in their 9-county regional coverage area. They want it all. Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, San Mateo, San Francisco County. They're not content with being cast as only a Santa Clara County paper...they want to be "big".
Spartacus you are correct, the coverage is getting better over the last two years but I continue to be frustrated that our team does not get the coverage or respect that they deserve. We brought a National championship to San Jose and are in contention for another one. Fans are supporting the team in ever-larger numbers but all we get is an article on Wednesday and maybe another article on Friday if we are at home. If we are on the road we get no more that information box in the sports section. Compare our coverage to the Warriors or the Sharks and tell me we get a fair shake. I realize that my comments are not politically correct but I don’t care. If I don’t complain who will? It is not the newspapers job to promote one team over another but that is what they are doing. They are making the choices for their readers without measuring the real level of interest. It is the newpapers job to report and keep readers informed and I think the Mercury does a bad job of keeping soccer fans informed. The question might be "how many soccer fans are there?" and I don't think the Mecury has a clue. In reference to all those other Bay Area Counties, what sport are most of the readers in those counties playing or involved in? and why are some of those local papers giving the Earthquakes better coverage than the Mercury? Johnny
As someone who once worked as a journalist and understands the newspaper business and its limitations and how a newsroom works, I certainly agree with the above. However, I do feel that for a paper the size of the Mercury News, I believe they can afford have Dylan Hernandez be solely a soccer writer during the MLS season (covering Quakes and other soccer, like local colleges), instead of stretching him out to do high school football and other preps. IMO, for local teams such as the Quakes and Sabercats with only weekly schedules, the Merc should be able to send the beat reporter to cover games home and away. If there's a Merc writer in St. Louis when the SF Giants play the Cardinals during the regular season, why couldn't Hernandez have been at the Home Depot Center in L.A. during the next-to-last game of the regular season? Because I see (having checked the bayarea.com archives) he was covering the James Lick-Willow Glen high school football game back here in the Bay Area that Saturday. Granted, he was in L.A. when the Quakes returned for the first playoff leg. But perhaps the Quakes coverage would be even better if he went on the road more often? I'm not going to say prep coverage isn't important. But IMO, it's not great when a major daily like the Merc relies on AP wire stories for covering a San Jose pro sports franchise when they go on the road.
Again, spot on. This is where your power as GM can be seen as the power to schmooze the media and win them into our corner. Beyond that, as we grow, a proper marketing "machine" to keep our name and image in their faces. I realize we don't have the manpower to do that now, but over time... I think we misconstrue "reporting" as "promotion". The newspapers decide what to report based on their perception of the greatest amount of public interest. The only gauges they use as to whether potential readers are there are (a) attendance, and (b) TV ratings. Those are the only barometers they can use to gauge interest (unfortunately, you can't quantify passion...if you could, we'd be well and truly ahead of the field). Our attendance is building, slowly but surely. Our coverage is building along with it, slowly but surely. Neither aspect is moving or building as fast as we'd all like, but it's building just the same.
I know this is comparing apples to oranges here but I was in Germany the month of August and I was so tickled by the media coverage their local soccer matches received. After every one there was an article covering half the front page of the city's paper plus 2 full pages inside with huge pictures accompanying them. Plus coverage on other Bundesliga teams, etc. Btw, while I was there I asked one of my German colleagues for help in getting a ticket to a match. His reply: "You Americans don't know how to attend a soccer match. You just sit there". Ha! I wish he could have seen us last Sunday!
IIRC, the Merc has always "packaged" that beat...when Dave Payne was with them he covered both soccer and prep sports. The Merc undoubtedly has just carried on "tradition". BTW, Dave at times expressed his frustration over how the Merc covered soccer...he would attend some events independently, told that he could not "officially" cover the match for the Merc because the Merc wasn't interested.
Ideally, they would serve the public interest, which is kinda my point. But they are driven instead by advertising dollars ... "potential readers" equals "potential markets for our advertisers." (Demographics enter into the equation, of course.) I doubt the Merc cares about attendance or TV ratings ... I suspect they judge how they're doing by subscription rates and advertising "pressure" (I don't necessarily mean in a censorious way). If the Merc had advertisers trying to reach the "soccer fan" market, that would encourage the Merc to increase soccer coverage. If a business said "we want to buy a half-page ad in the Sports section every day there's an Earthquakes match," the Merc might increase soccer coverage. If their advertisers are mainly interested in reaching Raider fans or Sharks fans or whatever, there is no impetus (beyond serving the public interest) for the Merc to increase soccer coverage. I'd say the best way to influence the Merc would be 1) to make sure they know we are out here, and 2) to make sure advertisers know we are out here.
The "public interest" has never entered into the print media. However, the grant of broadcast licenses in the "public airwaves" has always been granted based on an FCC ideal of "public interest, convenience, and necessity", though it's rare that licenses are challenged on any of those bases...and the free market has been allowed to run rampant there as well. On the contrary...that's the only measuring stick they can use to gauge perceived interest in a particular event. I think the SaberCats model has been shown to refute that argument. The Fry's organization buys full page full color ads all through the season. Later last season they started buying 2-page spreads...basically buying space to create their own coverage. But did the Merc cover them better because they bought so much space? I don't think so. I think we already get better coverage than the SaberCats with out "buying coverage".
Might I also add that not enough people complain to the media (i.e. the Merc, and the TV stations), about their lack of coverage. That has been mentioned to me on numorous occassions. This proves to the media that there isn't the support there to write more, or give it more coverage. Basically, it's the same few who continue to complain on a regular basis. Think about it for a minute. We had just over 14K there on Sunday. What if half of those people complained to the Merc, or the TV stations? They would take notice then. Unfortunately, only a few complain to them directly, while others have given up on trying to complain because it doesn't get anywhere. I think we all need to come together and make a group effort to show them that people are upset at the lack of coverage for their local team, even if they are a "regional" paper. Perhaps this is something we can try and do during the offseason. It obviously should come from the fans, and not the FO. It would send a stronger message that way. And yes, I happen to be one who complains on a regular basis. I also have talked with Dave Payne on a few occassions, and as mentioned before, he didn't have much support from the Merc because they weren't intersted. In his articles, as well as some of the recent ones by Hernandez, you can see how badly they are chopped up in order to squeeze them in some place.
This supports what I was trying to say the other day. I know Wee Man will back me up on this, but maybe not publicly. Anyway...as I said the other day, I've been a season ticekt holder with my father since '75 - '76. Back in they day when Milan Mandrich (SP?) ran the team, thousands of tickets were given away. I mean....THOUSANDS. It was more important for him to make sure that stadium was packed. I also remember that there was a lot more coverage back then because of it. And who cares if you are giving away 5,000 + tickets a game. You're getting more attention because the stadium is filled, including the upper deck. You create excitement, concession revenue, etc.... This also translates into more media, because then they won't be able to ignore you when you have 20,000 + per game. Who cares if 5,000 + are getting in free. You'll still make money off of them. Like I said before....look at the business model for the cosmetic industry. Oh yeah....and when does this damn "Newbie" tag get taken off?
This has been discussed at length for years. What happens when you give away that bulk of tickets just to paper the house is that you devalue your ticket, and your season ticket base. Why should people pay for tickets when they can get tickets for free? This model really only works if you have complete control of the stadium (parking, concessions, etc...). Take the model of the SJ Giants. They constantly give away tickets through major sponsors such as OSH. On OSH nights, they've got between 2-3K (capacity 4500) paying for parking, paying for food, buying beer and souvenirs...and it all goes into their operating fund because the SJ Giants control the venue. However, when there's not a corporate buyout package, attendance lags because people will wait for free tickets, rather than come buy a ticket on a particular night. What would the Earthquakes gain (at this point) from papering the house? Only a larger number for media to point to cynically...accusing us of papering the house. Since the Earthquakes don't control stadium operations, they would see no benefit directly from parking and concessions...and eventually, by creating the perception in the public's mind that Earthquakes tickets can always be had for free, what do you create as far as ticket buyers? For example, you wouldn't want to give away tickets to a playoff fixture. But you've created a public mindset that "if it ain't free, I ain't goin'". It's a false loyalty. I'd much prefer to see us grow in the more slow and painful way we're growing now, because it's much more sustainable. It's real growth based on allegiance to the club, not allegiance to free tickets. All in good time, youngster...now run and get me a banger with onions.