Official Pretense?

[milladrive]

I'm not sure I understand why the Angels need to be the lone team in the Majors to define themselves as the One-Place-Team-Name-Of-A-More-Specific-Place. Is it marketing?

I mean, for all those years, I knew them as the California Angels (and I continue to steadfastly regard them by that name), but now, not only have they decided to let it be known that they are located in the Los Angeles area -- I'm glad the Twins, Rangers, Diamondbacks, Marlins, and Rockies can still feel comfortable representing their respective states -- but they also need to attach the Anaheim, too? Is it me, or are the Angels suffering from an insecurity complex?

Not to mention, it's redundant in more ways than one. Let's see... "The City Of Angels Angels Of Anaheim."

Okay, so how long until we see the San Francisco A's of Oakland, the Baltimore Orioles of Camden Yards, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays of St. Petersburg, the New York Yankees of The Bronx, the New York Mets of Flushing, Queens, or even the Dallas/Fort Worth Rangers of Arlington, Texas?

I can just see the trend leaking its way into the NFL. Heh, the New York Giants of East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Just pondering out loud.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by milladrive

I'm not sure I understand why the Angels need to be the lone team in the Majors to define themselves as the One-Place-Team-Name-Of-A-More-Specific-Place. Is it marketing?

I mean, for all those years, I knew them as the California Angels (and I continue to steadfastly regard them by that name), but now, not only have they decided to let it be known that they are located in the Los Angeles area -- I'm glad the Twins, Rangers, Diamondbacks, Marlins, and Rockies can still feel comfortable representing their respective states -- but they also need to attach the Anaheim, too? Is it me, or are the Angels suffering from an insecurity complex?

Not to mention, it's redundant in more ways than one. Let's see... "The City Of Angels Angels Of Anaheim."

Okay, so how long until we see the San Francisco A's of Oakland, the Baltimore Orioles of Camden Yards, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays of St. Petersburg, the New York Yankees of The Bronx, the New York Mets of Flushing, Queens, or even the Dallas/Fort Worth Rangers of Arlington, Texas?

I can just see the trend leaking its way into the NFL. Heh, the New York Giants of East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Just pondering out loud.

Actually the literal translation would be "The Angels Angels of Anaheim".

Moreno would prefer to drop the "of Anaheim" from the name. He's forced to use it for legal reasons. If he had his way it would simply be the Los Angeles Angels.

[milladrive]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If he had his way it would simply be the Los Angeles Angels.

That, despite its redundancy, I would graciously accept, especially since it was the team's original name.

But I guess I understand the legalities of it all. Thanx for explaining that it's not by choice.

[UnderPressure]

Only at Angel Stadium do you see ads that represent two completely different cities (LA Times and San Diego Zoo).

[Ludeboy]

Arte Moreno has been nothing but good to Angels fans. I'm sure they don't give a rats ass what decisions they make as long as they continue to have a winning franchise. He's a pretty smart man.

[drtrix]

I have never understood why Moreno never just chose to rename the team the California Angels. It was a past name and would get over all the mess of OC vs. LA. Plus, since this is a marketing ploy why not market the team to the whole state?

[CaliforniaCajun]

Originally Posted by drtrix

I have never understood why Moreno never just chose to rename the team the California Angels. It was a past name and would get over all the mess of OC vs. LA. Plus, since this is a marketing ploy why not market the team to the whole state?

"Los Angeles" means "the Angels." It fits. That name was first used in 1893, then continuously from 1902-1957 and then 1961-1965. It is the ancestral name of baseball in the area. It doesn't fit with "California" or "Anaheim."

Major league teams represent a region, not a city. A team named after the state is too broad to identify the region it is in.

The Angels have always been at an economic and competitive disadvantage as the "California Angels" and "Anaheim Angels." The perception is that it is an Orange County team, which only makes up a fraction of the total marketplace. This was exacerbated by the fact that previous Angel ownership did not market themselves to all places they were granted permission by MLB to represent. They have to mine the entire market, which is the Los Angeles market in order to attract the sponsors and their share of fans. "Los Angeles Angels" suggests to people from Ventura to San Bernadino that the team represents them, which in reality it always has.

The City of Anaheim wants to compete with Los Angeles rather than accept the fact that both are part of the same marketplace, so they're fighting the name change. The Dodgers liked the economic picture the way it was with twice the broadcast revenue than the Angels, so the owner quietly spent $100,000 behind the scenes to legally block the Los Angeles name change.

The Angels owner, Arte Moreno, came in with a fresh look at the club's history and shortcomings and decided that the Angels' problem has always been functioning as a small market team when in reality they were a really a big market team. This season will be the first time in club history that the Angels will have finished above .500 three years in a row. He's right on, and has already achieved parity in broadcast revenue in just three years on the job.

As an Angel fan who grew up primarily in Orange County, I want the Angels to stay where they are and have the resources to field competitive teams. They can opt out of their lease after 2016 so I hope something can be worked out. But to do that, the City of Anaheim has to accept the L.A. Angels brand name. That means broadening the scope of your operation so that you can attract the necessary resources to do it.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Major league teams represent a region, not a city.

You mean like the Brooklyn Dodgers?

[milladrive]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

"Los Angeles" means "the Angels." It fits. That name was first used in 1893, then continuously from 1902-1957 and then 1961-1965. It is the ancestral name of baseball in the area. It doesn't fit with "California" or "Anaheim."

Like I said, I'm okay with the "Los Angeles Angels," even if it's redundant as hell. It "fitting" never crossed my mind. "Fitting," if you ask me, would be a name completely different from the city, but if they wanna be known as the Angels Angels, that's fine by me. It just so happens that "Los Angeles Angels" worked well as their original name, and I'd accept a return to it.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Major league teams represent a region, not a city. A team named after the state is too broad to identify the region it is in.

This is total bulls**t. Not only that, it contradicts itself. I won't even begin to go into the many ways that assertion of yours is misguided. At least, not right now. Not unless you'd like to pursue the discussion.

My original point was that no other team needs to assert its "region" like the Angels seem to. Thank goodness Oakland doesn't have the same issues. What county are they in? Who cares? Does it matter to Mets fans from the two counties on Long Island that are not part of NYC that their "region" is not better represented by a team that is indeed located on Long Island? No. Of course not. And I mean, if you wanna get into how many different "regions" are not represented by the two teams with New York monikers, we'll get into it.

Incidentally, I think a user named after the state is too broad to identify the region he/she is in.

[CaliforniaCajun]

Originally Posted by milladrive

Like I said, I'm okay with the "Los Angeles Angels," even if it's redundant as hell. It "fitting" never crossed my mind. "Fitting," if you ask me, would be a name completely different from the city, but if they wanna be known as the Angels Angels, that's fine by me. It just so happens that "Los Angeles Angels" worked well as their original name, and I'd accept a return to it.



This is total bulls**t. Not only that, it contradicts itself. I won't even begin to go into the many ways that assertion of yours is misguided. At least, not right now. Not unless you'd like to pursue the discussion.

My original point was that no other team needs to assert its "region" like the Angels seem to. Thank goodness Oakland doesn't have the same issues. What county are they in? Who cares? Does it matter to Mets fans from the two counties on Long Island that are not part of NYC that their "region" is not better represented by a team that is indeed located on Long Island? No. Of course not. And I mean, if you wanna get into how many different "regions" are not represented by the two teams with New York monikers, we'll get into it.

Incidentally, I think a user named after the state is too broad to identify the region he/she is in.

One thing that should be mentioned is that Club President Dennis Kuhl, joined the Angels after a successful career in marketing. Changing your brand name is part of the marketing.

Arte Moreno, the owner who took over in 2003 and changed the name, took a team that lost money for years (even during the World Championship year) and made them profitable within three years. He gained parity with the Dodgers in a television contract. after having had roughly half as much previously. The team has set a record in attendance every year he's been here. He has the third highest payroll in the Majors. In 2005 the Angels had the second lowest price to fans for the "ballpark experience." In 2006 they had the lowest price. In 2005, the club won two consecutive division championships for the first time in history. In 2006 they had a third consecutive winning season for the first time in club history.

Do I think the name change has helped the Angels achieving all of those goals? Yes. Do I think that more people in the region consider themselves Angels fans now that their brand name includes the residents of 16-17 million people rather than 3-4 million? Yes.

My alma mater, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, changed it's name to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette in 1999. An article in the local paper came out 2-3 years ago saying that federal research grants have gone up from about $3 million to $37 million. The consensus opinion was that the name changed the perception of the university as one larger in size and scope, and attracted more federal dollars as a result. The university didn't move, it renamed itself after the entire state of Louisiana rather than one quarter of Louisiana. Same deal for the Angels, changing its name to the entire marketplace it represents rather than one fourth of it.

You're entitled to your opinion. I told you why I don't feel my assertion is misguided.