Game #9: Chicago Bulls 100 - Toronto Raptors 93

[chico]

The Raptors marketing machine is trying to build a fanbase, just a tad beyond the few hundred people at RR I might add, and up against hockeyville culture. What do you want them to do? Of course they're going to promote any player angle at their disposal. Or would y'all prefer they didn't do everything they can to expand the fanbase, downplay their best players, allow TV numbers stagnate or get lower, etc.?

[MACK11]

Who's making the next game thread???

[Joey]

Who's making the next game thread???

I left it the people! Si said I should continue, but I know that's not how it works. Why not you MACK?! Guide us oh GIF Master! Haha

You were pretty lucky for us last year, no?

[Chr1s1anL]

Mike Brown won 66 games, guess that makes him a good coach.

Yes, I do.

[yabadabayolo]

Mike Brown won 66 games, guess that makes him a good coach.

lol when you have lebron on your team, you win games. mike brown being a good coach has little to nothing to do with those 66 wins. that team had a shitload of chemistry though. it was so fun watching them because they werent the most talented but played like it with lots of heart

[CalgaryRapsFan]

The Raptors marketing machine is trying to build a fanbase, just a tad beyond the few hundred people at RR I might add, and up against hockeyville culture. What do you want them to do? Of course they're going to promote any player angle at their disposal. Or would y'all prefer they didn't do everything they can to expand the fanbase, downplay their best players, allow TV numbers stagnate or get lower, etc.?

I just don't like the idea of keying on a single player as the face of the franchise, elevated above the team. The big thing with this team, which lead to their success last year, is how they came together and played as a team. I think the organization should embrace that and rotate a variety of young/up-and-coming/popular players in their marketing collateral, as opposed to forcing a player into a role that doesn't necessarily suit their skillset/personality/etc... My main reason for that is that by forcing a player onto a pedestal, unfair expectations are inevitably placed on him, which isn't the least bit fair to him; setting him up for 'failure'. The Raptors haven't had a true franchise type player since Vince left. There's nothing wrong with that. We have a good team - let's play up that angle and promote the team, not a particular player.

Things (and opinions) aren't as extreme black & white as you'd like to make them out to be.

[chico]

I just don't like the idea of keying on a single player as the face of the franchise, elevated above the team. The big thing with this team, which lead to their success last year, is how they came together and played as a team. I think the organization should embrace that and rotate a variety of young/up-and-coming/popular players in their marketing collateral, as opposed to forcing a player into a role that doesn't necessarily suit their skillset/personality/etc... My main reason for that is that by forcing a player onto a pedestal, unfair expectations are inevitably placed on him, which isn't the least bit fair to him; setting him up for 'failure'. The Raptors haven't had a true franchise type player since Vince left. There's nothing wrong with that. We have a good team - let's play up that angle and promote the team, not a particular player.

Things (and opinions) aren't as extreme black & white as you'd like to make them out to be.

I've no idea why where you're getting that I see things as black/white, much less that I'd like to make them to be.

If anything, you're suggesting that promoting DeMar isn't promoting the team, black vs white, but from a business sense, I'm saying it's both. The NBA is a "star league" in more sense than one, and has grown in leaps and bounds during my lifetime, in large part due to promoting it's stars, not it's secondary players. It's just business, man. The kids that will build the brand love their stars and dunks. DeMar is the all star, Lowry will be one. They're the guys to use for long term business goals right now. If DeMar were traded, as some are yelling for (smh, so far from good for this team/organization right now, that it's beyond description if one can't see already, imo), whoever came back would likely fill his spot on the promo tour.

That's just the way it is. That aside, I don't see how there hasn't been appropriate attention payed to other players, and the team success that they've enjoyed. They use it/them, but they can't highlight everybody all the time, when they're dealing with short snipits all over the place. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet they'd love to have a couple of more players step up and be more marketable too, but equal distribution of billing to up and comers is never going to happen. Not when they have stars to promote. Business.

As for putting pressure on someone like DeMar, they sign up for it. For the good ones, that get all the attention, they've been auditioning for it all their organized basketball lives.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I've no idea why where you're getting that I see things as black/white, much less that I'd like to make them to be.

If anything, you're suggesting that promoting DeMar isn't promoting the team, black vs white, but from a business sense, I'm saying it's both. The NBA is a "star league" in more sense than one, and has grown in leaps and bounds during my lifetime, in large part due to promoting it's stars, not it's secondary players. It's just business, man. The kids that will build the brand love their stars and dunks. DeMar is the all star, Lowry will be one. They're the guys to use for long term business goals right now. If DeMar were traded, as some are yelling for (smh, so far from good for this team/organization right now, that it's beyond description if one can't see already, imo), whoever came back would likely fill his spot on the promo tour.

That's just the way it is. That aside, I don't see how there hasn't been appropriate attention payed to other players, and the team success that they've enjoyed. They use it/them, but they can't highlight everybody all the time, when they're dealing with short snipits all over the place. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet they'd love to have a couple of more players step up and be more marketable too, but equal distribution of billing to up and comers is never going to happen. Not when they have stars to promote. Business.

As for putting pressure on someone like DeMar, they sign up for it. For the good ones, that get all the attention, they've been auditioning for it all their organized basketball lives.

With regards to the bolded part, I got that idea from the last sentence in your message I responded to:

Or would y'all prefer they didn't do everything they can to expand the fanbase, downplay their best players, allow TV numbers stagnate or get lower, etc.?

I suggested an alternative approach to their marketing campaign, rather than focusing on just one player to the be 'face of the franchise', as they've done since the early days of 'Mighty Mouse'. Rather than having a reasonable discussion about marketing principles, you try to write off my opinion and equate my suggestion to me having a desire to shrink the fanbase, demean their best players and shrink the tv viewership - seems a little extreme, no?

I absolutely agree with you that the NBA has become a star league, but that isn't necessarily a good thing, especially for a team that's lacked a true star for about a decade. In fact, your acknowledgement of that only strengthens the point I was trying to make, about the potential for eventual backlash when a good-but-not-star player is constantly promoted as some sort of superstar; expectations will naturally grow in response to the organizational and media driven hype, which sets the player up for failure. I don't think that's a fair spot to put our best players, because they wind up being held to a standard that far exceeded what should ever have been expected of them.

[chico]

With regards to the bolded part, I got that idea from the last sentence in your message I responded to:



I suggested an alternative approach to their marketing campaign, rather than focusing on just one player to the be 'face of the franchise', as they've done since the early days of 'Mighty Mouse'. Rather than having a reasonable discussion about marketing principles, you try to write off my opinion and equate my suggestion to me having a desire to shrink the fanbase, demean their best players and shrink the tv viewership - seems a little extreme, no?

I absolutely agree with you that the NBA has become a star league, but that isn't necessarily a good thing, especially for a team that's lacked a true star for about a decade. In fact, your acknowledgement of that only strengthens the point I was trying to make, about the potential for eventual backlash when a good-but-not-star player is constantly promoted as some sort of superstar; expectations will naturally grow in response to the organizational and media driven hype, which sets the player up for failure. I don't think that's a fair spot to put our best players, because they wind up being held to a standard that far exceeded what should ever have been expected of them.

Yes, totally unfair. My apologies.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Yes, totally unfair. My apologies.

No worries, and thanks.

I totally get the motivation to make players larger than life, but I've just witnessed it backfire in the long-run more often than not, when the player is incapable of ever living up to the expectations that come with that mantle - either individually or in terms of carrying their team to glory. Unless that player is an MJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, LBJ, Dirk, Duncan, etc... I think it's a double-edged sword, in terms of a marketing campaign for an NBA team.

That approach works better in larger lineup sports like hockey, baseball and football, where no one player can singlehandedly dictate the success/failure of their team. The team can afford to elevate popular players, because the risk is mitigated. In basketball, however, a team's #1 player can make such a difference that his inability to do just that gets magnified; hence my fear for popular players being forced into a situation where they're unfairly doomed to fail.

[chico]

No worries, and thanks.

I totally get the motivation to make players larger than life, but I've just witnessed it backfire in the long-run more often than not, when the player is incapable of ever living up to the expectations that come with that mantle - either individually or in terms of carrying their team to glory. Unless that player is an MJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, LBJ, Dirk, Duncan, etc... I think it's a double-edged sword, in terms of a marketing campaign for an NBA team.

That approach works better in larger lineup sports like hockey, baseball and football, where no one player can singlehandedly dictate the success/failure of their team. The team can afford to elevate popular players, because the risk is mitigated. In basketball, however, a team's #1 player can make such a difference that his inability to do just that gets magnified; hence my fear for popular players being forced into a situation where they're unfairly doomed to fail.

I hear ya, and wish it was different too, but it's one of the trappings that come with the business. Some great talents crumble because of it, and we've all seen/heard the sad stories. It's one of the things I admire, that these young men can handle it, and feel bad for those that can't.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I hear ya, and wish it was different too, but it's one of the trappings that come with the business. Some great talents crumble because of it, and we've all seen/heard the sad stories. It's one of the things I admire, that these young men can handle it, and feel bad for those that can't.

I wasn't even talking about the players themselves, but more about what happens from the fans' perspective.

Bosh, Bargnani, Gay, DeRozan... they were all good and popular players, who were elevated to 'face of the franchise' levels by the organization and the media. The hype machine unfairly drove up the expectations that fans have for them, to the point that their status (and the inflated expectations that come along with it) surpassed their true skill/potential. When that happens, there's simply no way for them to live up the hype, until fans start turning on them. We saw it with Bosh, we saw it with Bargnani, and now we're seeing it with DeRozan.

[chico]

I wasn't even talking about the players themselves, but more about what happens from the fans' perspective.

Bosh, Bargnani, Gay, DeRozan... they were all good and popular players, who were elevated to 'face of the franchise' levels by the organization and the media. The hype machine unfairly drove up the expectations that fans have for them, to the point that their status (and the inflated expectations that come along with it) surpassed their true skill/potential. When that happens, there's simply no way for them to live up the hype, until fans start turning on them. We saw it with Bosh, we saw it with Bargnani, and now we're seeing it with DeRozan.

I see that as an obstacle that the fans face, but it's their choice to buy too far into the hype that the NBA, and it's teams, by it's very nature and success, will never stop, to say nothing of players eating up all the extra salary and endorsement money that it generates. The media? People need to learn to look at media talk with the right perspective. They're writers with some basketball knowledge, at some level that is often debatable, but writers out to make a buck first and foremost. IMO, fans need to manage their own expectations a little better, if their being unfair. A maturation process in understanding the business nature of pro sport, as different than any form of the sport they're most familiar with?

[Dwane Casey]

Hi Dwane. Big fan here. Could you play Bruno next game? Preferably, in the 4th quarter with the game on the line? I mean, he IS the Brazilian Kevin Durant after all.

No.

[consmap]

No.