Saturday, November 24, 2007
Sponsored by Toys 'R' Us.
I have never really been sure of the purpose of bad design as the norm in Minor League Baseball, but thought that after following the design of many amateuristic looking minor league designs the past ten years, it was time to blog on the subject, Again.
Does a product marketed to families and kids have to look "juvenile"?
I suppose that somewhere, the head marketing guru or licensing exec for Minor League Baseball has sales results that confirm that when a minor league team changes it's logo and merchandise, there are increased sales. But that's simply common sense. When a product (like cars for instance) rolls our their new lines annually, the public senses new, different and improved. Or at least I assume that's why the big automakers ascribe to the need for change.
Somewhere, Minor League baseball saw the need to dumb down and design to an audience of 8-year olds. I completely can understand the logic. The Happy Meal of Major League Baseball would certainly be a proper analogy.
I don't agree. So I decided to take action and see what gives?
I've reached out to a smart and nice gentleman named Brian Engle at MiLB a few years ago.
I introduced Gameplan Creative and the work we've done over the years for the NBA, AFL, MLB and other large sports properties. Brian was both cordial and impressed. Brian explained that Minor League Baseball has established a "preferred" design vendor network of four firms.
Whoops! That was the first indication of a serious process flaw. Because unless there was a real difference in the firms participating, this Disney-like, busy, overdrawn style would reign supreme. But I persisted and asked if we might be considered for a fifth slot. Seemed like we'd have little chance because there's only over 120 teams total in the minors and how often do they change their identity after all. A numbers game?
He asked us to send a capabilities presentation to him and he would be in touch.
A few weeks passed and when I reached out to Brian he confirmed that yes, Minor League Baseball would use their network of vendors. One of the designer actually, Todd Radom, is one of the most talented and relevant logo designers in all of sports. And he has been used once for the Brooklyn Cyclones identity. Evidence that in fact a minor league identity can look professional. The other firms have really talented "illustrators' but none with a deep understanding of "team branding" nor a grasp of performance attributes in the uniform design process athletes need.
A look at the new Reading Phillies identity provides ample evidence of a Toys 'R' Us style lettering font hooked into a overly beveled star icon. I simply think it's bad design compounded by a late '80s font (see the Orlando Magic design from 1988).
My summation: "Minor League" does NOT have to be taken literally. MiLB, try something different and create a "Major League" look to a minor league brand. You might be surprised how effective, fresh and PROFESSIONAL it looks!
This blog has a lot of personal interest for Gameplan Creative. Heck, their new TB hat design was originally by our firm back in March of 2003! Look for a case study soon on our updated web site. www.gameplancreative.com. If you ever want to see the work-ups we developed, I'd be glad to send you a link to the work. Some pretty cool stuff.
But onto a bigger question?
Do the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Tampa Bay Rays, Florida Rays or whatever their latest name have any brand value as a professional sports franchise?
Well, not yet. But that's not a bad thing if your the DuJour Rays.
Fundamentally changing your identity ever three or four years would seem to be an expensive,
inconsistent and consumer confusing process in any business. I mean changing the Coke logo or the Apple mark over and over and over would destroy a corporate organization's brand recognition and trust.
However, in the case of the Devil Rays, a team only entering its' 11th year of existence, you have little to no down side to change because you do not have any established identity, players nor traditions (except for change) to speak of and thus continually changing your outfit brings new opportunities to someday "get it right".
Teams like the San Diego Padres, Houston Astros, Toronto Blue Jays and now the D-Rays have made numerous changes to their original identities. Collectively, you have One World Series Championship to speak of in 120 some years of on-field competition. So there's really no turning the teams back on great teams or winning traditions.
So have fun Tampa, and change like the wind. What's the downside afterall? A losing season?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Under Armour Signs Advertising Signage Deal for Outfield Walls at Chicago's Wrigley Field.
The Chicago Cubs have entered into a sponsorship agreement with sports apparel company Under Armour that includes signage on the ivy-covered outfield walls at historic Wrigley Field. The Under Armour logo will appear on the two doors in left and right field, and the company will also have signage rights behind home plate.
Financial terms of the two-year deal were not announced.
Built in 1914
Venerable Wrigley Field is the second-oldest ballpark in the country. Built in 1914, the famed ivy-covered walls were added during a renovation in 1937, and the two outfield doors that lead to the bowels of the stadium were painted green to blend in with the ivy.
The decision is bound to cause some debate.
But baseball diehards -- particularly Wrigley Field denizens -- will almost certainly decry the advertising creep taking place. After all, it was a group of Cubs fans that for years fought the good fight to keep night baseball out of Wrigley after the Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981 and announced its intention to add lights. The lights were finally added in 1988, in large part because Major League Baseball threatened to move any potential playoff games to a site that did have lights.
But baseball historians will note that stadiums regularly featured advertising on outfield walls during the heyday of the game, including the famous "Hit Sign, Win Suit" ad at Ebbets Field, former home of the Brooklyn Dodgers, in the 1940s and '50s.
"I think everything we do is very measured. We certainly do keep the fans in mind, the aesthetics in mind, and that's why you haven't seen this before or more advertising than this," said Jay Blunk, the Cubs director of marketing. "At this particular time in the organization's history, these revenues go directly to payroll."
At this particular time, the Cubs are spending money and need the influx of sponsorship cash. Chicago, which has been mired at the bottom of the National League's Central Division the last few years, spent $300 million in the off-season on free agents to bolster the team, including $136 million for outfielder Alfonso Soriano -- who, coincidentally, is an Under Armour endorser.
Moreover, of the teams in Chicago's division -- St. Louis, Houston, Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh -- all have moved into new stadiums within the last five years, giving those franchises additional revenue streams through naming rights, luxury suites and more.
'Norman Rockwell painting'
"We play baseball in a Norman Rockwell painting every day," Mr. Blunk said. "[Wrigley Field] is a tremendous asset to the organization but it takes millions of dollars to maintain. Our challenge is to find these new revenue streams to compete."
Mr. Blunk said it was important that the outfield signage be related to baseball and competition, rather than doing a deal with, say, an insurance company or car company. Under Armour, which also has its logo on the famed "Green Monster" left field wall at Boston's Fenway Park -- the nation's oldest ballpark -- is launching a new ad campaign this spring, done in-house, that touts its new baseball cleats.
"The timing was right for everybody," said Steve Battista, VP of Baltimore-based Under Armour. "I talked about this two years ago with [Cubs president] John McDonough, but the ball club wasn't going in that direction then. But the tide has really turned and there's a new way of thinking."
It's the first time the Cubs have allowed any ad or sign on the outfield doors. Jay Blunk, director of marketing and sales for the team, said the Cubs have been approached by other companies wanting to use the space. He said Under Armour was the "right fit."
"For us, marketing-wise, to have our logo and Wrigley associated with it is tremendous," Blunk said. "The brand represents performance and athletic achievement at the highest level."
"The Cubs have an impeccable track record of tastefully adding signage," Blunk said. "No question, there's been a change in the culture here. It's an aggressive culture. That aggressive culture means always maintaining the integrity of Wrigley Field, but how do we still win? This helps us in that regard."
This topic is tricky for me. I've worked with the Cubs Marketing Department for four years now. They do a great job and are as nice a people as you'll find in the industry. Initially however, like any traditionalist, I saw the Under Armour signage and cringed... Yipes, our beautiful green doors, our lovely ivy covered walls, blasphemy. Noooooooo....it can't be.
It's taken a while and I'm slowly coming around (okay, begrudgingly) to accepting the change knowing that the Cubs really are committed to winning a World Series.
Wrigley Field is a special place. It's the perfect ballpark. Fenway Park is a distant second. Sorry BoSox fans. I believe it's such a special place that my only child's middle name is what else: Wrigley. So any change comes with a huge amount of skepticism and resistance. Heck, it's personal... But give the Cubs credit. The organization has made evolutionary changes to this great old guy slowly, carefully and in nearly every instance, successfully.
In August of 1988, I was their for the first night game 8/8/88. And yes I went with a great deal of skepticism. I was opposed to the lights. No lights were one of the things that made Wrigley unique. Ferris Bueller's Day Off, cutting work, going out and having a few cold ones is a passage of life...the glorius self indulgence of "hooky".
In the last 5 years, the Tribune Company (the team's owner) has made more evolutionary changes like LED ribbon boards on the first and third base fascia to go along with LED ribbon board under the center field scoreboard, refined the luxury suites (I use the word luxury loosely). The Cubs also added four new rows of top end seats right behind home plate which were blended seamlessly into the old configuration. And the Cubs went the route of the behind home plate rotating signage a few years ago. None oo this has not hurt the look of Wrigley.
Last year, the Tribune Company rehabbed the famed bleachers by basically demolishing the decrepit old seats and replacing everything but the actual brick structure that comprise the outfield walls. Well, the new bleachers are tremendous. Clean, roomy, accessible, and more amenities. When the bleachers are full of fans (every game), you barely notice the changes.
So, while it's going to take a little getting used to see "Under Armour" as another Cubs home run leaves the playing field, when the Cubs finally win the World Series (and it will be soon) the motto will be CHANGE IS VERY GOOD. Go Cubbies!
Monday, February 12, 2007
Fred Bowen-Washington Post
The Washington Wizards unveiled their new alternate uniforms recently: a shiny gold top and black trunks, with lots of black stars on the sides and shoulders. The new uniforms are, in a word, ugly -- possibly the worst in the league. They look like circus costumes.
The team's new fashion statement got me thinking about sports uniforms. Some uniforms are cool. Some are not so cool. Let's look at the good, the bad and the ugly of sports uniforms.
National Basketball Association uniforms are all starting to look alike, but my favorite is the Phoenix Suns'. Royal purple is a strong color, and the circle around the number on the front of the jersey is a nice touch. Of course, maybe I like the Suns' uniforms because I love the team's run-and-gun style.
The Chicago Bears have the best uniform in the National Football League when they wear their dark helmets with the red "C," dark shirts and white pants. That's when the Bears look like the "Monsters of the Midway." When the Bears wear their orange jerseys, they look like the Chicago Pumpkins.
The Seattle Seahawks have the ugliest NFL uniforms, especially when they wear a single color. By the way, what is that color? Green? Blue? Gray? Or greenish-blueish gray? I can't find the Seahawks' color anywhere in my box of 64 crayons.
Lots of NFL teams have great helmets. I love the look of the helmets worn by the Colts, Falcons, Broncos and Texans. But the Miami Dolphins' helmet is dopey. A dolphin leaping out of the water wearing a helmet doesn't make the team look tough at all.
In college football, the Penn State uniforms are perfect: blue and white with nothing fancy. The University of Oregon's uniforms are a fashion nightmare. The Ducks wear green and yellow with some kind of crisscross pattern on the shoulders and knees .
Hockey uniforms are either terrific or terrible. I love the fiery red "C" on the Calgary Flames' jersey. The Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers and Minnesota Wild have cool jerseys, too. But I'm not crazy about jerseys with cartoon characters on the front such as the Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Phoenix Coyotes wear .
Of course, uniforms shouldn't matter. They don't help you score points. Still, uniforms are important to kids. Lots of kids have lucky numbers and favorite colors, or colors that they just can't stand.
One season when I was coaching, I was late picking up the shirts for my fourth-grade boys basketball team. The recreation department had only one color left.
"They're pink!" one of my players yelled as I handed out the shirts. "They're light red," I insisted.
The boys weren't so sure. It didn't help when the scorekeeper at our first game asked: "Why are you guys wearing girls' shirts?"
The next day the recreation department found my team new shirts. We played the rest of the season in blue. Just like the Wizards should do.
Fred Bowen writes KidsPost's sports opinion column and is an author of sports novels for kids.
I basically agree with everything Fred Bowen covers in this Washington Post article on the Washington Wizards alternate uniforms? Shiny gold on a professional athlete. Looks better as a lounge singer in Vegas or the football helmet of the Fightin' Irish... but has no place in the NBA.
Here's the low-down from the Pirates Vice President and Chief Marketing and Sales Officer, Tim Schuldt:
"Staying true to the Pirate brand is important to us," Tim Schuldt, the Pirates' vice president and chief marketing and sales officer, told the gathering of die-hard Pirate fans. "Black, gold and (red?) are our colors. This is consistent with our color scheme and it fits with the team: youthful, exciting and improving."Branding a sports team is not about just about sales. It's about the intrinsic connection and civic obligation you inherit when working with a team. Teams with a long heritage like the Pirates should not be easily swayed by adding alternate jerseys/caps without understanding the emotional connection fans make to their colors.
Sadly, the Pirates went for the look away from their history and now their fans are seeing RED.
If I were the Pirates I'd retire the red after one season and stay true to the yellow and black.
E-5 if you're scoring at home Bucco's.