UGH. MLB Allowing Advertising on BASES.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed May 05, 2004 5:41 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbu ... id=1795742

Spiderman

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed May 05, 2004 5:44 pm

Doesn't bother me in the least bit. But then again, I work in professional motor racing, which depends on sponsorship revenue.

Revenue shortages plague nearly every professional sports league and franchise. Player unions will prevent major salary cuts, and TV contract values are decreasing in some sports. So teams and leagues need to be creative to keep the revenue stream flowing.

But I can see where this turns off a lot of people. Not me, though.

Take care,
PK

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:04 pm

I think this is a pretty lame move... who exactly is this advertising going to affect? I see it as having a much larger potential to have a negative affect than any type of positive one.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:05 pm

Sacreligious...you don't advertise on the damn bases. In fact, I was pissed they started putting MLB logos on the sides of them. Bases are supposed to be all white...the league is just looking for another revenue stream. It's sickening.

BBReBozo · Post by **BBReBozo** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:07 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote: Bases are supposed to be all white...

Racist!

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:10 pm

I'm still surprised that US sports franchises have never gone for shirt advertising.

NFL Europe teams do it, and you quite quickly get used to it.

fightingcamel · Post by **fightingcamel** » Wed May 05, 2004 8:59 pm

I wonder if you could see a greater role for advertisers in the NHL? It seems that with some of the monetary problems the league seems to be facing if that additional advertising could increase the revenue stream somewhat.

Just wondering'

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:41 pm

Absolutely, positively LAME!

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed May 05, 2004 11:51 pm

The should just advertise some steroid or performance enhancing drug on the basepaths and get it over with.

Baseball doesn't get it. Too bad we can't vote Bud Selig out.

Sudz · Post by **Sudz** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:21 am

Grant Fuhr wanted to paint his pads to look like Pepsi cans. The league said NO.

i'm surprised he didn't go with Coke. BA DA DUM

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Thu May 06, 2004 2:43 am

I absolutely hate shirt advertising in soccer. It makes things look so cheap. Some of the logos look like they're part of the uniform, but others look simply awful. I hated the Terra Mitica logo on Valencia's kits.

I could never get used to it in hockey.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu May 06, 2004 10:18 am

mobiggins wrote:I absolutely hate shirt advertising in soccer. It makes things look so cheap. Some of the logos look like they're part of the uniform, but others look simply awful. I hated the Terra Mitica logo on Valencia's kits.

I could never get used to it in hockey.

Mo:

Come on, the Dreamcast logo on Arsenal and Deportivo La Coruna's shirts earlier this decade were cool.

The changing shirt sponsors do increase revenue for the clubs in more ways than direct payment from the sponsor. Damn, Newcastle's sponsor has changed three times in the last five seasons (Newcastle Brown to NTL to Northern Rock), so supporters must shell out bucks for new shirts every time the sponsor changes if they want to stay current.

I always liked the Newcastle Brown logo on the Magpies' shirts. One, I love the beer. Two, it was the logo on the team's shirt when I first started supporting them.

Take care,
PK

DChaps · Post by **DChaps** » Thu May 06, 2004 10:39 am

I really don't get why they would pay for advertising on the bases anyway. Are they going to start showing close up shots of the bases? Without a closeup shot I would not even know what that Spiderman logo is.

I would have no problem with teams displaying advertising of some type on the uniforms as long as it is done with some parameters. All the stadiums are now just big adverstising symbols anyway for the most part so why not?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:08 am

pk500 wrote:Revenue shortages plague nearly every professional sports league and franchise. Player unions will prevent major salary cuts, and TV contract values are decreasing in some sports. So teams and leagues need to be creative to keep the revenue stream flowing.

Revenue shortages? How about not paying a SINGLE PLAYER $25 million a year? Parking is over $10, a can of beer is $3.50, and a hot dog is $3. Give me a break. They need new revenue streams like Pamela Anderson needs larger breast implants.

What all these poeple running the major sports need is some self-control with their spending. But as long as we the sheep keep paying, it won't stop.

I think ads on the bases is a travesty. Do we have no sense of tradition or pride anymore? Everything is about ads and $$$. What happened to paying for a product (like a baseball game) and then enjoying that product. Now we pay once to get into the game, twice when we buy a Pepsi or other product that now has the ad money added into the price, and then a third time as we are forced to have products constantly slammed into our senses at every turn.

*Deep breath* Ok, I'm done.....for now. I just know this is one of those discussions that's going to blow up.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:11 am

Actually, the agreement covers advertising on BASEBALL UNIFORMS according to some reports. Patches will begin to appear on the arms and right chest (opposite team logos) carrying various brands etc.

That's just wrong, IMO. The players are revolting (mainly because they don't get to pick/cut their own deals with the uniform sponsors) so it might never happen. Either way, it's crazy to think of the consequences...

Soon the Center in football will have ads on his ASS, shown each time the QB lines up for the snap. Of course, those with larger ASSES will be worth the most (to teams and advertisers), so the game will change and only LARGE ASSED centers will be worthwhile draft picks. It's only a matter of time before the entire team has ass-ads. Advertising Viagra on the ass of another man just seems wrong.

Women's tennis will change, as advertisers begin buying space on the panties underneath those skirts (since they know that's where you're looking). Every Kournikova grunt will be accompanied by a flash of a BUDWEISER covered hooch.

Hockey helmets will look like NASCAR vehicles.

When will advertisers understand that whether it's technology (Tivo) or conditioning (banner ads on the web) people eventually are able to look past the ads, or should I say through them. They become invisible, and continuously worthless. Direct Marketing/Advertising at the point of sale will be the way of the future...Pepsi ads hit you (with special discounts) as you wheel your smart, LCD screened grocery cart down the aisle.

Blanket the market with images (billboards, stadium ads, web banners, magazine ads etc.) but do your real marketing directly to the consumer where he/she is vulnerable... THE BATHROOM. "because we all know that the major decisions of life AREN'T made in the BOARDROOM; they're made in the BATHROOM." - OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:21 am

>>>Now we pay once to get into the game, twice when we buy a Pepsi or other product that now has the ad money added into the price,<<<

Please explain to me how ad money is added to the price of a product at the ballpark. The owners earn revenue from advertising and in turn increase the price of that product?

The owners may increase the prices of concessions at ballparks, but that isn't because of ad revenue.

For example, Miller Lite became the official beer of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway a few years ago. We didn't turn around and jack the price of a can of Lite by $1 right after the deal was signed.

People who don't work in sports often have this utopian ideal that it's less of a business than traditional companies like IBM, GM or Microsoft. Sorry to shatter that ideal, but sports is just as much of a business as any of those entities.

The bottom line is increasing revenue and making money while entertaining your customers, and the sooner you can wrap you head around that, the better. Sponsorship isn't going away. Without sponsorship, you'd be paying $80 for a ticket at an NFL game instead of $45, and you'd pay $10 for that beer instead of $6.

>>>and then a third time as we are forced to have products constantly slammed into our senses at every turn<<<

You pay that much attention to ads at sporting events? Seriously, if an ad detracts from your appreciation of the competition, then maybe you're not that big of a fan of that sport after all. As long as the ads don't influence the outcome on the field, isn't it about the athletes and their performances, anyways?

Would you appreciate a towering shot by Barry Bonds more if it was played in a stadium completely devoid of ads? Would you admire a game-winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri more if it didn't sail through the uprights toward a Budweiser ad attached to the scoreboard? Would you think Dale Earnhardt Jr. was a better driver and more worthy Daytona 500 winner if he crossed the finish line in a plain red car? Would you feel more joy if your favorite NHL team's captain hoisted the Stanley Cup on a rink with no ads on the boards?

Take care,
PK

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:26 am

Bob Gibson:

"What is this game coming to?"

"I guess it's all about the money, isn't it?" he said. "But go for it. It's not going to change the game anyway. If you can make some money, then go ahead and make it as long as it doesn't affect the game itself - and this doesn't affect the game."

"I'm surprised, not offended. What ticks me off is them lowering the mound 5 inches."

That happened in 1969, but Gibson holds a grudge. "That still ticks me off," he said.

Stan Musial:

"It makes me laugh," Musial said. "I think they should leave the game as it is.

"I don't think they should do anything - logos, uniforms, whatever."

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:49 am

What a bunch of outrage over nothing. Who gives a damn what they slap on the side of a player's shirt or on top of a base? When the Cubs are gunning for a championship, I could care less whether Sammy touches four Spideman 2 bases after he hits a homer. As long as the advertisers aren't paying for the outcomes, it's just another cosmetic change.

Is it that hard to ignore advertising? I mean, when I'm flipping through the newspaper, I'm not going, "Holy f---, look at all these ads! It totally denigrates the news!"

As for the players being paid too much, welcome to the reality of market based economies. Personally, I'd rather see A-Rod make $25 million a year than some CEO who's moving jobs out of the country.

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:55 am

"When the Cubs are gunning for a championship, I could care less whether Sammy touches four Spideman 2 bases after he hits a homer."

Not with that bullpen. All they'll be challenging is for a spot at the salad bar.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:13 pm

sportdan30 wrote:"When the Cubs are gunning for a championship, I could care less whether Sammy touches four Spideman 2 bases after he hits a homer."

Not with that bullpen. All they'll be challenging is for a spot at the salad bar.

Yes, the pen outside of Hawkins and Wellenmeyer has been bad. But given that we're two games out despite losing our best pitcher, three of the starters have ERAs under 3.00, and Maddux looks like Maddux again, I'm not too concerned. We'll be in the hunt all year.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu May 06, 2004 3:59 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>Now we pay once to get into the game, twice when we buy a Pepsi or other product that now has the ad money added into the price,<<<

Please explain to me how ad money is added to the price of a product at the ballpark. The owners earn revenue from advertising and in turn increase the price of that product?

You misread my statement. The owners of the teams don't raise the prices, the owner of the product does. Miller pays for advertising. The price of every beer you buy from them, whether it be at the game or at the corner store covers that advertising. Ever hear of the saying that you're paying for the name brand?

People who don't work in sports often have this utopian ideal that it's less of a business than traditional companies like IBM, GM or Microsoft. Sorry to shatter that ideal, but sports is just as much of a business as any of those entities.

Give me a break, PK. When did I ever even hint that sports was not a business? It is however different from other businesses. This is about sport and FAIR competition. If we take your view to the extreme, then all the players should just be free agents and go to the highest bidder. Screw drafting players, just let them interview for teams like we would interview for companies.

Would you appreciate a towering shot by Barry Bonds more if it was played in a stadium completely devoid of ads? Would you admire a game-winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri more if it didn't sail through the uprights toward a Budweiser ad attached to the scoreboard? Would you think Dale Earnhardt Jr. was a better driver and more worthy Daytona 500 winner if he crossed the finish line in a plain red car? Would you feel more joy if your favorite NHL team's captain hoisted the Stanley Cup on a rink with no ads on the boards?

I would enjoy watching the games and races more if I did not have to be constantly bombarded by ads. I do not mind ads on Nascars. I know they need that money to pay for the R&D, gas, parts, etc... I do not mind some ads in stadiums. What I do mind (and it detracts from the experience) is having every interview with a driver includes "My Brand X Chevy did great today. I'm just glad that Brand Y supported us and gave us a chance to win. I'd like to thank .......blah, blah, *trade hats* blah *trade hats*". That detracts from the experience for me. I also mind stadiums and bowl games being renamed to "The Tostitos Bowl" and "Enron Field".

Weren't you one of the critics of the NCAA renaming all the bowls after sponsors?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu May 06, 2004 4:14 pm

>>>The owners of the teams don't raise the prices, the owner of the product does. Miller pays for advertising. The price of every beer you buy from them, whether it be at the game or at the corner store covers that advertising. Ever hear of the saying that you're paying for the name brand?<<<

So, what, a company shouldn't advertise its products? Without advertising, we'll never know of the name brand.

>>>"My Brand X Chevy did great today. I'm just glad that Brand Y supported us and gave us a chance to win. I'd like to thank .......blah, blah, *trade hats* blah *trade hats*". That detracts from the experience for me.<<<

It's too bad that a 15-second snippet of an interview detracts from a sporting experience of four hours that was compelling and exciting. I don't like athletes referring to themselves in the third person in post-game interviews, either, but that doesn't detract from my experience of watching them produce great performances.

And yes, I did criticize the renaming of bowls. I still don't care for it because it's removing a traditional name that has equity for the dollar, but I understand why it's being done.

But last time I checked, a white base didn't have much name equity. It's a white base that guys stomp on, not a game with a name that fans have followed and understood for decades, in many cases.

Really, this whole advertising on the bases is much ado about nothing. Baseball still will be played on those bases just as it will be tonight on plain, white bases, unless I'm mistaken.

Take care,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu May 06, 2004 4:54 pm

pk500 wrote: So, what, a company shouldn't advertise its products? Without advertising, we'll never know of the name brand.

I never said they should not advertise their products, but there is a limit to how much I am willing to put up with. To you it's not a big deal. To me it is annoying. Why can't you just accept that this issue does bother some people and let them (myself included) have our opinion?

It's too bad that a 15-second snippet of an interview detracts from a sporting experience of four hours that was compelling and exciting. I don't like athletes referring to themselves in the third person in post-game interviews, either, but that doesn't detract from my experience of watching them produce great performances.

I still enjoy the races. It doesn't spoil my whole day as you keep implying. It detracts from the overal experience for me. That does not mean I don't enjoy the races, but it would be better if things like this were not a part of it.

A small logo you 'll never be able to read from 90 feet away is not the issue. It's the start of things to come. Everyone has been saying that you won't be able to see the logos on the bases anyways. So what will they do then? They'll make sure the cameras go out of their way to zoom in on any at a base in order to ensure that logo DOES get seen. Nest step is to have the commentators drop names like Nascar drivers do. Then comes logos on the jerseys. After that, who knows? You don't find it annoying when they superimpose product logos on the field during football telecasts?

To you the base is just a white square. To some it is part of the game itself, and should not be tarnished or tampered with. I can't wait to see your reaction when they rename the Buffalo Bills the Viarga Bills. Or better yet if they ever rename the Indy 500 the General Tao's 500. Don't think it will happen? Just wait.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:16 pm

PK, you mentioned Newcastle Brown...

Newcastle is my favorite beer (just too bad it costs 8-9 bucks a 6 pack and 16 for a twelver)...I always wondered why they didn't continue to support 'your' magpies with their logo. It seems like the perfect match...ya know.