The Official NBA Thread: Mavs v Celtics in the NBA Finals

Like others said, the name of a professional sports team is years in the making. Millions of dollars spent on R&D.

Ethan Strauss going on a podcast & acting like this is some new idea that will bring the league to new heights is an insane level of hubris. :lol:
 


I don't know if this has been posted, but NBA on TNT has Draymond and Vince Carter as fill-ins for today's coverage because Shaq and Chuck are meeting with other networks in NY according to Ernie (apparently as a yearly meeting anyway). I'm in denial; I love watching their pre-/post-game and halftime/game break coverage.


ESPN got that bag ready for Shaq
 
Well, I guess since it is about following the men if Seattle and Vegas get expansion NBA teams, the long established WNBA teams will simply change their names and branding to match the newly created NBA team.

I'm sure the World Champion Las Vegas Aces who have tons of local fan support will not mind wiping out their brand identity to match a team that will probably be horrible for at minimum a few years

Again, no way something like this doesn't cause a PR nightmare. No way



to be clear this was about what they should have originally done. im not saying change all the names now.
 
It's weird how the WNBA declined over time. I remember watching them Comets games with Cynthia Cooper and Sherl Swoops with my stepfather back in the day. Them games was packed. **** is dead in there now. Until more women watch and support it's not gonna change.

It’s crazy I went to Mohegan Sun Casino last year to play poker. The Connecticut Sun arena is right there next to the Casino. Place was dead.

But they sure do fill out those a UConn Women’s games.

I don’t want to get in a NCAA rant tho rn. Knicks are about to start.
 
Brand alignment doesn’t mean anything if the public doesn’t care for the sport.

i don't understand the black and white thinking.

I didn't say, if they aligned the branding the wnba would be make 100x the money.

good branding isn't going to save a bad business.
but good branding worth 0 either.
 
it's "hard" to launch new brands. this is just the reality of marketing, 100% factual.



you are just arguing a strawman version of the take.

it's hard to launch new brands, it's especially hard in sports where your competing with 50+ year old brands.

you're in a league with existing brands that have tons of equity built up, why torch that and start over? what is the upside?

there is a reason film and tv is obsessed with pre existing IP, because launching new brands is really really hard.



if Ohtani spoke english he'd be a way bigger star.

Speaking the language of the people you are marketing towards is obviously helpful.

it's such an obviously correct take, people just wanted a reason to be mad at SAS.
Apologies. Agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
to be clear this was about what they should have originally done. im not saying change all the names now.
The original eight WNBA teams were:

Charlotte Sting
Cleveland Rockers
Houston Comets
Utah Starzz
LA Sparks
NY Liberty
Phoenix Mercury
Sacramento Monarchs

The Sting, Comets, Mercury and Monarchs names are all similar themes to the NBA franchise

All the team's colors except with the Liberty matched the local NBA team.

They even tried to keep that going with the first four expansion teams. Detroit Shock, Orlando Miracle, Washinton Mystics, Minnesota Lynx

Like what tangible benefit are you arguing the WNBA would have had if they went with gendered version of NBA team names?
 
i don't understand the black and white thinking.

I didn't say, if they aligned the branding the wnba would be make 100x the money.

good branding isn't going to save a bad business.
but good branding worth 0 either.
How much is it worth?

Is your argument just that with different branding the WNBA would be slightly less in the red?
 
I learned the name LA Sparks upon hearing it once. What's hard about that?

And all that other BS about marketing and branding you raised is the real staw-man argument here. Just you exercising your penchant for making apples-to-organges comparisions that just obscure the original point in question.

again you keep wanting to retreat to the strawman "iTs nOt tHaT hArD tO lEaRn a nAmE"

that's not the point, it is really hard to launch new brands this is just a fact. in film and tv making new shows we look for existing IP because IT'S HARD TO LAUNCH new brands.

sports teams have existing IP, you should leverage that.


And please explain how Shohei Ohtani could be a bigger star if he spoke English? He's the biggest star in the MLB already, in American and internationally.
again if you flipped the countries no one would argue this.

John Cena spent years doing chinese lessons because WWE wanted to expand their reach into china.

he's learned some chinese, now he has 600k followers on weibo, is one of the more popular americans in china, his posts go viral their all the time. fans even given him a chinese name.

Why did John Cena do this?

because speaking the language of the people your marketing to is really helpful.

it's just obvious but people wanna debate because SAS said it.
 
Wait that meme of John Cena speaking Chinese is because he went out there and learned Chinese for real? Thought that was a one time bit.

The more you know.
 
The original eight WNBA teams were:

Charlotte Sting
Cleveland Rockers
Houston Comets
Utah Starzz
LA Sparks
NY Liberty
Phoenix Mercury
Sacramento Monarchs

The Sting, Comets, Mercury and Monarchs names are all similar themes to the NBA franchise

All the team's colors except with the Liberty matched the local NBA team.

They even tried to keep that going with the first four expansion teams. Detroit Shock, Orlando Miracle, Washinton Mystics, Minnesota Lynx

Like what tangible benefit are you arguing the WNBA would have had if they went with gendered version of NBA team names?

going the same colours and but new names is splitting the baby.

you still launching a new brand, but you ghettoize it the brand by essentially making a diluted version of the existing main brand, rather than an expansion of an existing brand.
 
osh kosh bosh osh kosh bosh

Jéssica Silva > the Spaniard you posted btw

Our future captain.

1715731799417.jpeg


1715731924805.jpeg


1715731975508.jpeg
 
How much is it worth?

Is your argument just that with different branding the WNBA would be slightly less in the red?

I think they'd be less in the red and more poised to take advantage of the new crop of stars.

we see it in women's college basketball

its more popular than men's because they play for schools that have built in fan bases from the popular mens programs. they wear the same school colors, they change the names only slightly if its gendered.
 
going the same colours and but new names is splitting the baby.

you still launching a new brand, but you ghettoize it the brand by essentially making a diluted version of the existing main brand, rather than an expansion of an existing brand.
This is a bit silly to me

Fundamentally your argument is: that nearly 30 years ago, when the market was different, the growth forecasts were different, when there was tons of third-party marketing support; the NBA and other parties involved should have made a slightly different branding calculation that in turn would have made zero real impact on the fortunes of the league/business.

Oh, and that would complicate future sales of WNBA franchises, and add a wrinkle to NBA CBA negotiations.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't strike me as a compelling argument at all.

Seems more like a petty grievance
 
I think they'd be less in the red and more poised to take advantage of the new crop of stars.

we see it in women's college basketball

its more popular than men's because they play for schools that have built in fan bases from the popular mens programs. they wear the same school colors, they change the names only slightly if its gendered.
I think this is a reach

Franchises folded, different branding wasn't saving them from that.

WNBA is different enough business than college basketball that I don't think cobranding makes a difference
 
This is a bit silly to me

Fundamentally your argument is: that nearly 30 years ago, when the market was different, the growth forecasts were different, when there was tons of third-party marketing support; the NBA and other parties involved should have made a slightly different branding calculation that in turn would have made zero real impact on the fortunes of the league/business.

Oh, and that would complicate future sales of WNBA franchises, and add a wrinkle to NBA CBA negotiations.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't strike me as a compelling argument at all.

Seems more like a petty grievance
1. it's not slightly different. its very different.

2. i don't think it would have made zero real impact.
 
Back
Top Bottom