The Chargers are going to present their two-year stay at the 30,000-seat StubHub Center as a "unique opportunity to get up close and personal with the players of the NFL," according to ESPN's Jim Trotter. The team will "charge higher ticket prices for that intimacy, and then when they move into the new stadium, they will be able to carry those prices over to the new stadium" (“OTL,” ESPN, 1/12). In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore notes current Chargers season-ticket holders will "maintain priority status and will not be required to make a deposit" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/13). ESPN's Phil Savage said the Chargers initially playing at StubHub Center "probably helps them," as he would not expect the team to "draw huge numbers to the L.A. Coliseum." Savage: "The Chargers trying to go to L.A. and play second fiddle to the Rams is going to be a tough sell" ("NFL Insiders," ESPN, 1/12). Meanwhile, the Galaxy are the main residents of StubHub Center, and a spokesperson for the MLS club indicated to SI.com's Brian Straus that all scheduling and events at the facility "will remain Galaxy priority." The NFL and the Chargers "will work around" the Galaxy's schedule (TWITTER.com, 1/12).
THE NEW ME? In L.A., Jack Wang notes after the Chargers debuted their new L.A. logo on Thursday, the "jokes poured in, originating from snarky fans, media members, and even official accounts run by" pro franchises like the Lightning and Stars, college programs (SMU and Eastern Michigan) and minor-league baseball teams. Wang notes the logo itself is not a "significant issue," as "it’s expected to be used for marketing purposes, which means the Chargers’ jerseys and bolt symbol will be left largely intact." But it may also be a "symptom of a larger problem: Unless the Chargers are very good, very soon, they’ll likely have trouble standing out" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/13). ESPN's Jerome Bettis said "something doesn't work" with the logo. Bettis: "This is an opportunity for them to stick their feet in the waters and say, ‘Okay, you like it? You don't like it? Okay we'll throw that away and go with the next idea.’ But they’ve got to find a way to connect with that L.A. market" ("NFL Live," ESPN, 1/12). Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio asked, “Has there ever been a more poorly received new logo for a team than the new L.A. Chargers logo?" He said it "looks like it's the product of somebody going into the graphics department and saying, ‘Hey, you know what, we decided we're moving to L.A. We need a new logo, you have 10 minutes’” ("PFT," NBCSN, 1/13).
WHAT'S IN A NAME? SI.com's Michael Rosenberg wrote Spanos "should not" keep the Chargers name, as that "belongs to San Diego." If Spanos and NFL owners "care even the smallest fraction as much as they claim about the NFL’s history in San Diego, they will leave the name behind when the moving trucks arrive" (SI.com, 1/12). ESPN's Savage: "I would not be surprised if later on they end up rebranding themselves with a different nickname" ("NFL Insiders," ESPN, 1/12).
SOCIAL REAX: Social media measurement firm MVPindex tweeted, "In the 12 hours since announcing their move, the @chargers have lost over 64,000 followers on social, 2% of their total reach" (TWITTER.com, 1/13). FIVE THIRTY EIGHT's Neil Paine compared Google Trends data for the five years leading up to the Rams’ announced move last year to the Chargers' announcement on Thursday. He found L.A. residents "performed about 11 web searches for the (San Diego) Chargers for every search they conducted about the (St. Louis) Rams." So the Chargers "should start out with more pre-existing interest in their new home than the comparatively far-flung Rams had" (FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.com, 1/12).
