« MLS TV Rights Fee Summary | Main | Don Gagliardi talks Quakes on KLIV »
November 30, 2006
But it's still Texas....
Glenn Davis recently made the following statement in an opinion piece concerning the new Beckham rule:
"The Dynamo's Brian Ching and Dwayne De Rosario are legitimate stars in Houston after only 11 months. They get more media attention here than in all their time in San Jose as members of the Earthquakes."
While there are a lot of problems with such a broad generalization, the obvious question that comes to mind is how Mr. Davis quantifies such a statement. Isn't measuring "media attention" a little subjective? Does spending money on your own team, finally, count as media attention? We know that AEG never spent any money putting Double D or Chinger on billboards here in San Jose, as they did in Houston. We were told that doing so here was a waste of money and that it would not translate into tickets sold. Were Brian Ching and Dwayne DeResario not stars in San Jose because AEG did not put them on billboards and conduct a marketing campaign centered on them?
Putting aside the idea that one can quantify media attention - maybe you can- does the fact that the players feel like they get more attention in Houston suggest that one of several reasons that AEG decided to move the Quakes was because of a lack of media attention? People here have complained that the Mercury News' lack of coverage and the cold reception given AEG at City Hall were to blame for their departure. Can the media generate interest for a team? Or does the team first have to "sell tickets" to generate media interest?
While we know there were no Quakes billboard campaigns here in San Jose under AEG's watch, we also know that the Mercury News never dedicated an entire front page to the Quakes, or did a four page pull out ahead of either of the MLS Cups' which the Quakes won, as the Houston Chronicle did for the Dynamo. Why was it considered important in Texas but not in California? Has the fact that AEG promoted the team there and spent money on them influenced coverage? Maybe. But it comes down to editorial bias. The editors here do not think MLS soccer is newsworthy and the editors in Houston do. The team gets better coverage there, and has a greater "buzz."
Posted by Colin at November 30, 2006 09:17 AM
Comments
Good article Colin, but I disagree that the problem was mainly editorial bias. While that editorial bias was (and still is) there, it's still up to the ownership to advertise, market and promote the team and to sell tickets, and its Public Relations department to constantly keep in contact with the local media. Believe me, there was MUCH more local "buzz" after SVS&E's San Jose Earthquakes won MLS Cup 2001 than there was after AEG's San Jose Earthquakes won MLS Cup 2003 - that was NOT merely a coincidence.
Posted by: Goodsport at November 30, 2006 11:51 AM
A case in point about the difference in ownerships comes from that linked article: after MLS Cup 2003, the Quakes were stuck on a single faux cablecar that was lost among the floats in the San Jose Christmas Parade. That was in complete contrast to the huge celebration thrown in St. James Park right after the MLS Cup 2001 win that was followed a few weeks later by GK Joe Cannon's and CyberRays GK LaKeysia Beene's appearance as grandmarshalls, or at as least honored guests, in the San Jose Christmas Parade that year. Judging by the office-opening event held earlier this month, it fortunately seems like Lew Wolff's treatment of the new San Jose Earthquakes will be much closer to SVS&E's than AEG's.
Posted by: Goodsport at November 30, 2006 11:57 AM
Sounds like typical Glenn Davis hyperbolic BS. He said something similar when the team was started in Houston, to the effect that without AEG there would be no soccer in the U.S. and that San Jose fans are wrong to complain about them.
Posted by: Albany58 at November 30, 2006 08:07 PM
Goodsport - I think we're saying the same thing. It was a combo: AEG didn't do anything for the team and the Mercury News and City didn't care. Even without all that, we still were in the top third of the league in attendance.
Albany58 - Mr. Davis wrote a very gloating article in December 05 when the move was announced, and in haste I wrote him and told him to try not to gloat. He was convinced AEG did everything they could to keep the team in San Jose.
Posted by: Colin at December 1, 2006 09:11 AM
I absolutely agree about the Mercury News coverage. It was a shameful disregard for a great local sports asset in favor of underperforming NFL and baseball teams. Only once did I read a column pointing out our "diamond in the rough" quakes who were the only championship team in San Jose.
It sickened me so much I cancelled my subscription the the Merc.
Posted by: vinnie at December 1, 2006 10:21 AM