Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Melbourne City survey


n i k o
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

Who else has completed the survey that's just gone out? I found it interesting when they asked what we thought Melbourne City stands for. Anyone that feels strongly about the club having a strong Manchester identity rather than Melbourne this is an opportunity to make your feelings known. This is what I wrote:

From a football perspective we stand for being a club that plays an attacking brand of football. 

From an identity stand point that is difficult to answer because on one hand we are suppose to stand for the city of Melbourne but on the other hand we have such a heavy influence on being a part of CFG that it often feels like we are more a representative of Manchester than Melbourne. So I can't answer that accurately because I'm still trying to figure who we actually are, a Melbourne based club owned by CFG or a CFG club based in Melbourne. 

Good answer Niko. On reflection I missed an opportunity to make the same point. Basically the tone of of the survey led me to mention what I thought was good about the club, rather than what could be improved. I guess it's designed that way so that the marketing people can get the answers they want rather than those they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Good answer Niko. On reflection I missed an opportunity to make the same point. Basically the tone of of the survey led me to mention what I thought was good about the club, rather than what could be improved. I guess it's designed that way so that the marketing people can get the answers they want rather than those they don't.

I've done the same thing in the past so that's precisely why I posted about it on here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, n i k o said:

 

From an identity stand point that is difficult to answer because on one hand we are suppose to stand for the city of Melbourne but on the other hand we have such a heavy influence on being a part of CFG that it often feels like we are more a representative of Manchester than Melbourne. So I can't answer that accurately because I'm still trying to figure who we actually are, a Melbourne based club owned by CFG or a CFG club based in Melbourne. 

 

 

I think that you've quite accurately encapsulated it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, n i k o said:

Who else has completed the survey that's just gone out? I found it interesting when they asked what we thought Melbourne City stands for. Anyone that feels strongly about the club having a strong Manchester identity rather than Melbourne this is an opportunity to make your feelings known. This is what I wrote:

From a football perspective we stand for being a club that plays an attacking brand of football. 

From an identity stand point that is difficult to answer because on one hand we are suppose to stand for the city of Melbourne but on the other hand we have such a heavy influence on being a part of CFG that it often feels like we are more a representative of Manchester than Melbourne. So I can't answer that accurately because I'm still trying to figure who we actually are, a Melbourne based club owned by CFG or a CFG club based in Melbourne. 

 

 

Man I said we haven't had an identity since heart. The question actually stumped me as to what I would write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Might post it up in City Voice and see what the club has to say in response, if they say anything at all. 

I reckon. I've never been one that looks as something as worth doing purely based on the results. If the issue is big enough it's worth fighting even if you know you'll lose (tilting at wind mills).

The "keep the red & white" campaign was worth fighting regardless of the result, as is constant reminders to CFG that we feel disenfranchised.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I completed it.  Used it as a platform for what my issues are.  

I made it clear I wasn't happy about being a mini Man City, of ignoring the supporters wishes, of never telling us officially about Villa etc.

Everyone from Man City said "these guys are great, they listen, they care and they are respectful".  Sadly that hasn't been the case.  Now some will say "oh Sidwell was just as bad".  We could have that debate but i don't want to.  Just because you believe someone else was well short of the mark is no excuse for the next person to be the same.

i want to see them play in red and white at home and sky blue (or whatever) away.  Now I know some will say "that will never happen".  Maybe, but it sure won't happen if we don't put it forward as the number one reason we feel disenfranchised.  Ultimately they can't have it both ways, they can't be a man City clone on one hand, then complain no one accepts them as a Melbourne club on the other.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

I reckon. I've never been one that looks as something as worth doing purely based on the results. If the issue is big enough it's worth fighting even if you know you'll lose (tilting at wind mills).

The "keep the red & white" campaign was worth fighting regardless of the result, as is constant reminders to CFG that we feel disenfranchised.

Im not sure that would make things better, obviously back in the day 2 years ago it might have but even if we where to go back to red and white I'm not sure we'd have our identity back. 

In the end maybe a identity is something that comes with time :huh: or maybe it can be something that happens this Saturday, maybe it just needs Tuna going up to the active tard area and patting the badge or something??? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shahanga said:

I reckon. I've never been one that looks as something as worth doing purely based on the results. If the issue is big enough it's worth fighting even if you know you'll lose (tilting at wind mills).

The "keep the red & white" campaign was worth fighting regardless of the result, as is constant reminders to CFG that we feel disenfranchised.

Ahh, a true Cervantes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, n i k o said:

I found it interesting when they asked what we thought Melbourne City stands for.

My answer was simple- Business. 

Q-Why do you expect not to attend all of Melbourne City's home games this season?

A- Because if you once you take the emotional attachment out of a club like ours there is very little reason to attend. Melbourne Heart was part of my life and felt like it was a part of who I am (or was). City feels like being inside a giant department store that has opened its doors before the shelves have been stocked and there are still renovations still going on.

Edited by KSK_47
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Shahanga said:

I reckon. I've never been one that looks as something as worth doing purely based on the results. If the issue is big enough it's worth fighting even if you know you'll lose (tilting at wind mills).

The "keep the red & white" campaign was worth fighting regardless of the result, as is constant reminders to CFG that we feel disenfranchised.

The "Keep the Red & White" Campaign probably was successful to some degree without it we probably wouldn't have a red & white away shirt. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FIFA 2002 said:

Foundation 2010/11 member and submitted the survey with these points:

  • CFG's ownership has turned an underdog club with soul into a globalised marketing exercise.
  • I feel more of a 'shareholder' than a 'member' under the City moniker.

How do others feel?

But IMO there's no point in trying to take on the whole empire known as City Football Group with its huge assets and nearly 600 employees. Rather, pick some issues that are relevant to Melbourne City - IMO these will have at least some chance of success.

I would say these are:
- a distinctive playing kit that is clearly "Melbourne City";
- communications that are clearly addressed to supporters of Melbourne City - and by that I mean are clearly focussed on Melbourne City, are frank and informative, and in a style that recognises that as Aussies we don't like bullshit, attempts to pull the wool over our eyes, or being patronised.

IMO these two things would go a long way to addressing the concerns of many supporters.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

But IMO there's no point in trying to take on the whole empire known as City Football Group with its huge assets and nearly 600 employees. Rather, pick some issues that are relevant to Melbourne City - IMO these will have at least some chance of success.

I would say these are:
- a distinctive playing kit that is clearly "Melbourne City";
- communications that are clearly addressed to supporters of Melbourne City - and by that I mean are clearly focussed on Melbourne City, are frank and informative, and in a style that recognises that as Aussies we don't like bullshit, attempts to pull the wool over our eyes, or being patronised.

IMO these two things would go a long way to addressing the concerns of many supporters.

Woah that sort of pragmatism won't be tolerated here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the sort of thing I mean by focussing communications on Melbourne City, and where I think our current administration gets things so wrong, is its advertising for the Christmas Derby. It may be a small point in itself, but Saturday's match, IMO, is not the "18th edition of the Melbourne Derby", as the club keeps saying. It is the Christmas Derby, named that way by the fans right from the very first one. Changing from "Christmas Derby" is precisely the sort of corporatisation that IMO is pissing fans off. It implies that "someone" in "marketing" knows better than we do, and is patronising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Its a reflection of the loss of corporate memory in the Marketing Department compounded by a failure to ask. There's also no sign of the Santa hat, speaking of which I do hope that they aren't going to hand out light blue Santa hats on Saturday

Is it unkind to say that that loss of memory comes under the heading of "don't know, don't care"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belaguttman said:

Its a reflection of the loss of corporate memory in the Marketing Department compounded by a failure to ask. There's also no sign of the Santa hat, speaking of which I do hope that they aren't going to hand out light blue Santa hats on Saturday

I actually posted this question this afternoon on city voice.

Great minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jw1739 said:

That's good I didn't see that. These sort of things actually reinforce the reasons I support the club and it's really good the club continues. 

Lets just hope the hats are still red. Either way that's  not a big issue for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The club has finally got back on this issue.....response is down the bottom:
 
  1. City Voice Discussion > 
  2. Got an idea? > 
  3. What does Melbourne City stand for? 

What does Melbourne City stand for?

  • What does Melbourne City stand for? 

    16 December 2015
     

    There was a question that was a part of the recent survey sent out by the club asking what we as members feel Melbourne City stands for. 

     

    From a football perspective we stand for being a club that plays an attacking brand of football. 

     

    From an identity stand point that is difficult to answer because on one hand we are suppose to stand for the city of Melbourne but on the other hand we have such a heavy influence on being a part of CFG that it often feels like we are more a representative of Manchester than Melbourne. So I can't answer that accurately because I'm still trying to figure who we actually are, a Melbourne based club owned by CFG or a CFG club based in Melbourne. 

     

    Can someone from the club please enlighten me? 

     

     

     
     
    Reply Star for later  ·  5  0

    4 Replies
     
     
    • citizenGV · 16 December 2015

      Quality 

       
       
       
    • CVTG · 17 December 2015

      There is no easy answer to our identity, it's not really clear, and I think the club is asking us so it can accurately profile our identity as it stands and compare it to where they want it to be.   

       

      Before I go ranting, first I highly recommend you listen to CFG CEO Ferran Soriano give a lecture on football and football business here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzkRGvL0VNY  

       

      He doesn't talk about Melbourne (mostly Manchester & Barca) but it would help you explain more about what CFG stands for and what they're trying to do.   They're committed to growing their brand through star power, through entertaining football, through success and through prestigious cities that form high value markets.   

       

      So anyway, I'll try to answer as best I can as to what our identity is.  In short, we're a professional, elite, international club.  Every club in the league considers itself 'professional' but while the Mariners are a really friendly, appeal to their small community and market, or Wanderers appeal to their local geography, we at City have too large an area, and we share it, so we have to differentiate ourselves in another way.   Liverpool and Everton have a similar contrast - while Liverpool is a big club internationally with fans in every corner of the world, European success and big superstar names every season, Everton is focused on its community in merseyside and they contrast themselves that way.    These competing identities suit the city of Liverpool just fine.   I think we'll emerge as the 'Liverpool' and MV the 'Everton' of Melbourne (and as an Everton fan, I'd just like to clarify that this is purely an analogy for our identities and not something I would like to see in reality ha-ha).   For us right now, we're probably on the wrong side of this mission (before it's fully realised) because we're still a club that has never finished on the top half of the table in its own right (got a bump from Perth sanctions last season) and has exactly one finals win in the entire lifespan of the Heart AND City eras combined.    The identity of success and the high expectations that come with it will be built over the years, the hard way, through results on the pitch.   
       

      The most obvious evidence of our new identity and association  with CFG is this:  There's now a pathway from the brand new Melb City academy at La Trobe to starting for Manchester City in UEFA Champions League.   No other club can boast such a thing, and it's the possibility of moving 'up' the CFG chain that will keep Mooy here in January, and will attract talented Aussies and internationals to this club forever more as they hope to both improve and prove themselves.   

       

      So to summarise, in my opinion being part of CFG makes us an international club, more than our local rivals who focus on Victoria or Mariners with their very local Gosford focus.   We're part of something greater than ourselves, as well as being a 'Melbourne' club.  I think that's very cool and I'm proud to be part of it.   

       

      Or I could be completely wrong haha.  

       
       
       
      • n i k o · 17 December 2015

        "Being a part of CFG makes us an international club....as well as being a 'Melbourne' club."

         

        Appreciate the effort you've gone to in writing that, but this to me only further proves my point. 

         
         
         
    • MOD

      CityFan · yesterday at 1:59 PM

      Thanks for your post Niko. This is an interesting perspective and one of the reasons why we recently ran the members survey. We’ll publish the results of the survey shortly and continue the conversation. Thanks for the post.

       
       
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the answer. Red on our home kit because red = identity :droy:. Which is ironic, because these same discussions were taking place in the Heart days.

 

FWIW I cant stand the whole identity argument as its just circles and roundabouts. What creates an identity is time, success and consistency. Yes there are times when that is different (WSW) which is based on geography. But Melbourne is different, there is nowhere near the strong geographical divide as there is in Sydney so if there was an attempt at that it would definitely be manufactured and besides, its clear most of City's operations is in the north and that hassnt helped has it?

 

There has already been attempts by the club to generate a bit of an identity either via a direct method like the club badge or subtle approaches like hosting the player of the year awards at city hall or the city live event at the NGV plus there was that iconic billboard in the city we used and they ran that little competition to take a photo with yourself in it.

So its not like the club is making no effort at all but I get the sense that the only way to appease the keyboard warriors on here is red on the home kit will solve everything which is utter crap in my eyes. The one thing I do agree with the red people is that we need a home kit that is different from Manchester and New York and I am not trying to blow my own trumpet but the mock up I did a few weeks ago is a good, solid compromise in my eyes as you get a bit of the heart with the logo and the stripes and you get the blue the CFG want and most importantly of all, its a point of differentiation and my argument is that red issnt a point of differentiation we should use, it should be bringing the stripes back with one of the original consistent colours, white . 

Here it is again

 

                                      HASaF6a.jpg?1

 

 

 

Edited by Dylan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, Dylan said:

FWIW I cant stand the whole identity argument as its just circles and roundabouts. What creates an identity is time, success and consistency. Yes there are times when that is different (WSW) which is based on geography. But Melbourne is different, there is nowhere near the strong geographical divide as there is in Sydney so if there was an attempt at that it would definitely be manufactured and besides, its clear most of City's operations is in the north and that hassnt helped has it?

 

 

Identity is pretty important because it's a big reason why fans might both choose Melbourne City, and stay with Melbourne City long term.  

I think our main area of differentiation from the other blokes used to be pretty unclear, but nowadays it's a bit philosophical.   If you like, we're in a similar boat to Inter, because we're the internationally minded club, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.   We just have to be better at demonstrating that.   

I reckon the identity question was the club trying to get a good idea of what we see the club as, and to compare it to how they want the club to be seen.   Hopefully a first step to solving this identity crisis thing once and for all.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...