"The logical flaw underlying most of these "anti-marketing" posts is to assume that if a name is used in some entity's marketing, therefore that
name is *only* marketing." Hey Tony...(your above statement) I think you are missing the entire boat here. There is no "anti-marketing" campaign or assumptions about marketing in general..your going too far in the wrong direction with this stuff. (are you doing it on purpose just to confuse the hell out of everyone?) I find many residents of our community just have no historical perspective. The link to the Penn Gazette article at the very least gives you time-lines and transparency of the plot to market this community as a university ghetto. The real debate is about neighborhood names breaking free of being labeled as "University" owned. I hope you all enjoy the article. S -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony West Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:06 AM To: UnivCity listserv Subject: [UC] New voice in the anti-gentrification movement The logical flaw underlying most of these "anti-marketing" posts is to assume that if a name is used in some entity's marketing, therefore that name is *only* marketing. It's like saying, because the Philadelphia Phillies use the name "Philadelphia" in their marketing, therefore "Philadelphia" is a marketing tool. Or, because "The Green Line" is used by a café, that means the name has "become a brand". This is true but, in the context of our discussion, only in a trivial and misleading way. As earlier posters pointed out, *all* urban names begin as marketing. All cities are built, then marketed and sold. Most name changes, which are also built into city life, represent somebody's effort to repackage an area. So the discovery of Marketing in urban real estate names is a duh! discovery that really tells us nothing. More importantly for political purposes is whether a name catches on with the public. In order words ... did the marketing work? If it did, then it must have met a popular need. If it didn't ... where are the Edselvilles of yesteryear? As of 2006, "University City" is obviously being used by the public. There is good evidence, in fact, that the information-seeking public (as opposed to the sticker-printing public) prefers it to "West Philadelphia" as a community name. The June 2006 Verizon White Pages lists 23 separate entities that use the phrase "West Philadelphia" as part of their names. But only 6 of them are within the generally accepted boundaries of University City (say, Spring Garden to 42nd to Market to 52nd to the EPTA tracks to the Schuylkill). The same edition lists 15 separate entities that use the phrase "University City" as part of their names. Of these, 14 actually lie within our community. Regardless of its origin, then, University City exists and is well known today. There is no law against anybody's using it in their marketing. -- Tony West Wilma wrote: >I believe the name University City was first bandied about in the early >70's > and not the 60's. Also Powelton Village and Sansom Village (remember > that?). > It helps to have grown up here. > > University City has become a brand now promoted by the UCD. This is true. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
