New advertising at Wrigley?
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but I just read this article and got a little knot in my stomach. Apparently, there will be new Under Armour ads on the outfield doors in both right and left. Yuck:
The green doors tucked into the ivy in the left- and right-field bleachers of Wrigley Field will be decorated with 7-by-12 foot advertisements, touting Under Armour's signature logo.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."
Now, I realize this is a new era of mega-bucks advertising (and the Cubs already have a hard time competing with all the newer stadiums), but does anyone else see a problem with this? I know we're going to need some fast cash to pay for a $300 million shopping spree, but this seems like the beginning of a lot of "upgrades" to Wrigley. What say you BCB?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
108 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is incredibly sad
by cubbieboy on Feb 14, 2007 7:30 PM CST reply actions
This makes me sick.
What a sad turn of events. I guess this is what we receive with McDonut at the helm.
by FukudomeAtLarge on Feb 14, 2007 7:33 PM CST reply actions
You're probably right
I don't have a problem.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to care, but Wrigley has never been a big thing for me. I just love going there because the Cubs play there. However, I do understand why people wouldn't like it.
Yabbut
Well...
I don't even notice the rotating add, unless it has Cubs players. I don't even buy the stuff they advertise the majority of the time. My dad and I have fun with the radio ads though. Every time we see a Jiffy Lube we say what Pat says for every pitching change. But anyway.
Like I said, I don't pay much attention to this stuff. I'm sure I have a limit with this, but I'm not sure what it is.
by sparkles721 on Feb 14, 2007 10:56 PM CST up reply actions
That Picture
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but if it pays for Soriano I may have to grin and bear it.
Haha
Sad that there's not a company
That would be great.
To be physically sick or even upset about this
Are you serious??
by cubbieboy on Feb 14, 2007 8:16 PM CST up reply actions
But the one constant
by cubbieboy on Feb 14, 2007 8:26 PM CST up reply actions
What's constant?
What's constant?!?
2)No cheerleaders
3)No mid-inning interuptions, overstimulations, etc.
4)No mascots
5)No mascots with the name Phanatic. In fact no use at all of "ph" where "f" used to be.
6)No cheerleaders.
As far as spitting on the history of baseball, Wrigley is a constant of not doing so... or at least notsomuch...
You...
by cubbieboy on Feb 15, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions
Someone ban this guy
Mentioning...
But I choose to teach.
DON'T MENTION THAT NAME AGAIN!!!!!111!!!1!
HAHAHA
Well said Al,
Hey!
I haven't seen you in a while.
I dunno...
Sure..
There are always different ways to make money. It didn't have to come to this, but the Cubs will be slowly degrading Wrigley to the point of every other obnoxious ballpark.
by FukudomeAtLarge on Feb 14, 2007 8:48 PM CST reply actions
WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE!!
by nextyearcub on Feb 14, 2007 9:26 PM CST reply actions
Seriously???
Hilarious. I will be nice to you for a looooooong time. Like two or three weeks at least or something.
Ty,
But fantasy baseball, it's on, my man!
by nextyearcub on Feb 15, 2007 10:42 AM CST up reply actions
it's a good thing I wasn't drinking
by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 15, 2007 8:49 AM CST up reply actions
we must protect this house
WE ALSO MUST WIN!!
Sigh.
But it's not the 1940's anymore. They don't say how much they're getting, but without a videoboard, they've got to squeeze all the dollars they can out of the space they can.
The alternatives are having a blaring videoboard with commercials every half inning, or stratospheric ticket prices, or pay-per-view TV broadcasts, or all of the above.
Given that, a couple ads on the outfield walls don't bother me that much.
I agree
A few ads here and there isn't going to ruin Wrigley's charm. What does worry me is the future, when they will try to cut out segments of the ivy, like they do for the 355 signs, and put ads on the brick.
by stadiumguru on Feb 14, 2007 10:34 PM CST up reply actions
And that will probably happen someday.
Wrigley ads
Haha
Good observation
Hear me out...
I am not crazy about the rotating ad behind home plate, but it has never bothered me to the point that I don't enjoy watching a ball game. We live in a day in age where marketing literally makes the world go round. We can't escape it. If other teams are using it to pay the players then teams that don't will fall behind. I just hope that the Cubs will keep doing it tastefully and the charm of Wrigley Field will remain.
As long as the ivy is still there and the scoreboard is still standing tall Wrigley Field will continue being a very special place.
Loud, sustained applause.
Hmmm
This is such crap.
Seriously though, not cool. I do not approve.
Changes the look of the stadium
Wrigley's not supposed to be a billboard.
100% opposed to this.
It's already been changed...
Like I said, in a perfect world I wouldn't want those either. But this ain't a perfect world, and I'd rather have those than the alternatives, noted above.
And I was opposed to that, too
Then there's the fact that from your seats, you won't be able to see the ad as well as I'll be able to from mine, where (admittedly) I can't see the rotating billboard. =)
Frankly, I don't think any of it belongs, but it's going to be disgusting every time I see an ad on that timeless wall.
Al-
Not me either.
;)
Count our blessings
And it's better than having ads on the bases (remember the "Spiderman 2" debacle?).
And a lot better than playing in a ballpark named after a cell phone company.
by Troop EY on Feb 14, 2007 10:16 PM CST reply actions
Corporate named park...
I miss that guy's posts
by gravedigger on Feb 14, 2007 11:04 PM CST up reply actions
Well,with all due respect.....
Back in the 1920's and 30's it was common for ballparks to be named after their owners. Just off the top of my head the following ballparks of that era were named after their owners: Baker Bowl, Forbes Field, Crosley Stadium, Ebbets Field, Wrigley Field, and Comiskey Park. That's at least 6 out of 16 (and I think there were only 15 ballparks at the time because the 2 Philadelphia teams shared the same park for at least a couple seasons)ML ballparks named after their owners during this period.
Indeed, even today there are still a few parks named after either current or prior ownership - Jacobs Field, Turner Field, Busch Stadium (I do think your comment is true for this park), and Wrigley Field come to mind.
Now, one could argue that William Wrigley was using the park as a marketing tool, but I've never seen any historical evidence to support this - I'd be interested to see any evidence you have, or know about. I have seen, though, numerous descriptions of Wrigley's pride in his team, and his ballpark, so I think it's much more reasonable to conclude that Wrigley Field was named after the owner, and not the corporate brand for Wrigley's gum company.
BTW, the Cell's a nice enough ballpark in a generic way, although the ivy on the outfield walls is a nice touch :-)
by HolyMackeral on Feb 15, 2007 12:05 AM CST up reply actions
Alchohol, lights, ads, what's next?
It is a fact that Wrigley is the name of their product, Wrigley's Gum AND their former teams ballpark. What was their true motivation for changing the name to Wrigley?
Whether it was their stated intent or not, it is a branded, product name. I don't know if Charles Comiskey had any "Comiskey" branded products.
"BTW, the Cell's a nice enough ballpark...the ivy on the outfield walls is a nice touch."
They put ivy on the outfield walls of the Cell? When?
There is ivy at the Cell.
About Wrigley Field, it was named after the owner, not the company, although I suppose people took it as one and the same, since the company was also named after its founder.
For the first few years after the Wrigleys bought the team from Charlie Weeghman and his group, it was called "Cubs Park". It wasn't renamed Wrigley Field until, IIRC, 1927 or 1928.
literally...
True. There are vines growing on the outside of the Cell. There are shrubbery and vines on the batters eye. There is no ivy on the outfield walls at The Cell.
I really don't care
I knew someone in high school that was chubby and always wore a tight Under Armour shirt under his regular school clothing. I called it his "man-girdle".
i don't mind
Point taken.
Yes, I'd rather not have it there. But I'd also rather have that, than the alternatives, which are:
- a Jumbotron scoreboard blaring ads at us
- stratospheric increases in ticket prices
- pay-per-view TV
- a lower payroll, where you'd all be bitching
since i'm guessing
Just another reason to yell...
Al really hitched his horse to a poopy wagon this time around. But from what I've inferred from readings, I suppose this wouldn't be the first time.
Who knows
Might as well start working on the domed stadium in Schaumburg. Since the Cubs never have won in my lifetime, to me the ballpark is the best thing the team has going. The more they adulterate it, the less interested I am in going.
Does this really...
Geez. Ads can be ignored easily enough.
Gee Al
Although it's "yuck"...
Nor is it going to make me want to go out and buy UnderArmour stuff, either.
is part of the reason
if this is the slippery slope they are on, i would rather see them keep the bricks, ivy and scoreboard unadulterated, and put the ads elsewherhe in the stadium until they truly cannot financially compete. when that day comes, start working on the new ballpark. seing ads on the ivy wall is like seeing Santo in a Sox uni or Jordan playing for the wizards--let wrigley go out how its been for decades, don't bastardize it until its a hollow, commercialized shell of its former self.
i know its one ad, and this one isn't THAT horrible, but it IS a trend, and it will continue until one day we look at the park, and it just isn't great anymore.
LOUD SUSTAINED STANDING...
Forget about the Marquis signing then ...
You must have missed...
Geez.
I will
if the cubs suck...
I suppose you're right...
Whose a pessimist?
You're right...
While I'm not too concerned about this particular change, it's what's NEXT that worries me...
You're right
The ivy walls...
Frankly, I think they have done a really nice job with most of the changes (apart from the ad boards). The next step, which ought to include removing the ugly concrete panels on the outside, should also be an improvement.
Paneling
the paneling
if its gone the next time I get there I'll be a happy woman
The panels...
Idle speculation on my part
Same as last year when they changed the centerfield restaurant was turned into a skybox.
Just my belief.
by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 15, 2007 9:57 AM CST reply actions
My take?
However, Under Armour?
That's where I have a problem. The Cubs should have gone for a more established, long-lasting company....Budweiser, or Coca-Cola (well, I guess Pepsi is their soft-drink sponsor, but still), or even Wrigley gum, and had them design an advertisement that was "nostalgic" or somehow "retro" so that it would fit with the park.
That would have looked beautiful, been an advertising boon for the Cubs and the sponsor, and appeased fans who like the old-time charm....
Under Armour, however, fails the test.
see
and there is enough beer logos all over the place
Hey!
Well, I don't have any ideas...
by gravedigger on Feb 15, 2007 12:32 PM CST up reply actions
Umm...
sported advertising since the turn of the 20th Century, and that includes Wrigley Field -- before it's 'rebuilding' in the 30's. There was a strip ad on the RF wall (This was before the 'modern' bleachers were built, and ironically enough, the ad was for the Tribune.) I'll search for the picture later on) This image, with this huge billboard in RF has been used many times in illustrating Wrigley's history. (I don't belive I'm confusing this with images of the West Side Grounds, but that is a possibility. I'll search later on. But, in any event, a Cubs baseball park has been adorned with advertising, albeit in antiquity)
98 years of futility bothers me infinitely more than a damn sign. This is of little concern.
(MLB's attempted 'sell' of the bases to the Spiderman movie some time back is a bit more intrusive, and stupid. And FYI, someday the unis will sport ads. That's standard in minorleague sports, and it will eventually make its's way to all Major League Sports. It's just a matter of time.
And some day even Wrigley Field might be replaced.
Could happen. Perhaps either The Trib, or a future owner will not want to pour millions into an ancient infrastructure. (But I don't think this will ever happen == but it's always a possibility.) I love the park. We all love the park. It's great to be able to attend games in a historic spot. But as far as I'm concerned, the team comes first. Change is constant, nothing lasts forever -- there are worse things in this world to worry about.
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Feb 15, 2007 12:51 PM CST reply actions
I might add
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Feb 15, 2007 12:56 PM CST reply actions
Sign of the Times
However, don't kid yourself about this paying for any salaries. According ESPN's Darren Ruvel(sp?), this deal is only worth $1MM-$2MM. That's not even going to cover the minibar tabs that Soriano racks up in his private suites while they're on the road.
Also, we haven't even seen anything yet in terms of adverstising. My prediction is that we're 5 years away from some teams having large logos on the fronts and backs of uniforms, just like you see with European soccer teams. It won't start with the "traditional" teams like the Cubbies or Yankees, but don't be surprised to see the Marlins or D-Rays do something like that. And just like everything, we'll be shocked at how it all looks at first, but by the end of the first season, nobody will care about it anymore.
In some ways...
I don't buy it
I wish the ad weren't there.
And on TV
They actually want you to watch the ads, not the game. Pathetic.
True.
Like I've trained myself...
It's hard...
I don't even buy most of the products. I don't notice the ads that much. I'm too concerned with Z throwing all over the place.

by 

















