Master Index of Archived Threads


Interesting Podcast?

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 07:12 AM

Some Guy On The Internet interviewed MLB's new chief marketing officer. I've been thinking a lot about how baseball is changing and why, so it was good timing. Important to note here that wrt MLB, marketing isn't focused specifically on "how things land" (that's really communications), or rules and onfield matters (that's like, Manfred and his advisors). So this interview is about how to grow what that game is, and less about "what the game is" [TWEET]https://twitter.com/_JonSpringer/status/1547202884621766660[/TWEET] Article is probably paywalled or registration-walled but you can find the podcast ("Marketers Brief" anywhere you find podcasts). here are a few things I heard on this podcast --Baseball's existing audience, even if cranky, is reliable and durable, but too old and not diverse --That's because baseball has encountered more trouble than a lot of competing entertainment properties in attracting young and diverse fans --Young fans are important, because without them, baseball dies when its fans do, and they're already old --turning casual fans into more avid ones is also a very big opportunity --old fans are focused on what's happening on the field. future fans aren't, at least at the moment they get hooked. We all start somewhere --Young & casual fans are more likely to become avid fans because they have interest in the celebrity, interests or backstories of individual players; for a lot of us, it was because of our interest in a team, and so, its important for baseball to amplify those aspects in how it positions itself to attract fans --Young people are also like a million percent influenced by what they see online, and they like the things they like to intersect with those other bigger cultural interests they also absorb online (music, fashion, food etc) --they really don't absorb anything like we did (their fandom isn't about clubs but players; they don't even have cable so the whole RSN thing may as well be irrelevant to them now) Lots of downstream effects from just those two things, if you think about it, and there are many more --they like presentations of things that are different than how they were presented to us (Internet, streaming channels, new angles, stats presentation etc. My 26-year-old nephew somehow overnight became a next-level Gen Whatever baseball fan and just yesterday presented me with Edwin Diaz stats I could barely understand in a text and remarked that he was "vindicated as a Diaz truther." I was impressed. Put all that together into a marketing plan, and what you get is: -- messages aimed at casual and young fans that we as avid fans, will probably notice anyway because we already like baseball--if we're hanging out in the online places they are because they're not really directed at us; --games on streaming TV with purposefully different presentation; --activations with celebrities and influencers who can help present baseball as part of their influence in culture the kids already care about (fashion, music etc) --messages that try and hook folks based on a combination of their interest in who the players are, ideally combined with the gameplay action that old farts like us like and that show how they fit together (two examples in the story) --Mixing old and new worlds together so like this All-Star Break we'll get stuff that matters to us and them (the Draft, the Futures Game, the All Star Game) + stuff that matters more to them (celebrity softball, Home Run Derby--this year with DJ's in the dugouts, a pro-Am style livestreamed Gamers/Social Media Influencers MLB The Show video-game tourney in front of a live audience, pop concerts etc Interesting stuff

Ceetar Jul 13 2022 07:27 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

psst: _aaron_ judge not Mike Judge.

Ceetar Jul 13 2022 07:45 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

I'm skeptical that they actually _talked_ to young baseball fans in a meaningful way, but maybe I'm just out of the loop. This, to me, reads like "how can we adapt OUR process to pitch to this crowd" rather than "how can change our process to adapt to THEIR consumption" i.e. we're still going to pitch the game to you with mostly old white men blathering on on TV, but this time they'll throw to DJs! They won't understand the DJs, and the rhetoric will be a lot of "kids these days" from them, which will turn you off, but LOOK MUSIC. The delivery method of the game needs work, and it's not a pace thing, I don't think say 22 year old kids care if they have to watch 3 tik tok videos during breaks or would magically be more interested if the game was 3 hours instead of 3:20. relatedly, putting some of that meaningful humanizing player/celebrity stuff ON the broadcast, LIVE, during commercial breaks and down time would probably be better than trying to get interesting sound bytes from them during games and such. Another angle that doesn't get explored is whether or not the 'youngs' are still fans if they're not engaging as much (or you can't measure how they engage). This talks about how to get their attention, but maybe getting their attention for 3-4 hours 162 times year just isn't attainable. There is A LOT of things out there. But get the hooks and incentives out there enough that that 20 year kid, when she graduates college and gets a paying job and money, might head out to a game as part of the mix. And then, when she's 32, potentially home with a family and a less vibrant social life, is still into baseball and gradually becomes the "old, avid fan into baseball". i.e. Is it that only the older generations commit that time and energy to baseball, or simply older _people_? I think MLB might've been on the right track with the Fan Cave stuff. Sort of how Tik Tok has a few paid influencers that live together and sorta feed off each other to make content. There's no reason MLB couldn't create similar situations where you've got 10 baseball fans making baseball content daily, feeding off each other, and rivalries and to tie it to MLB's latest grift since that's where the money is... The PointsBet friendly wager/challenge/etc when like, the Red Sox and Yankee fan in the house make a wager when the teams play each other.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 07:47 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

=Ceetar post_id=99538 time=1657718830 user_id=102] psst: _aaron_ judge not Mike Judge.

Doh, I knew it something was wrong with that sentence!



(I fixed it, and let's not ever speak of it again)

Benjamin Grimm Jul 13 2022 08:11 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

I'm sure that baseball fears that it will go the way of boxing. I'd probably a valid concern. I remember when a heavyweight title fight was a big deal, now I'm sure the very few people know who the current champ is. I'm pretty confident (though not certain!) that MLB and the Mets will be around for the two or three decades that remain for me. I don't (and won't) know what happens after that. The notion that people would be fans of particular players instead of teams is interesting. I don't have that perspective at all, but I can see how that might work for some younger fans. There are probably some who followed LeBron James from team to team, for example. I'm not sure that would work as well for baseball, but I suppose it's happening anyway.

MFS62 Jul 13 2022 08:13 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

Young & casual fans are more likely to become avid fans because they have interest in the celebrity, interests or backstories of individual players; for a lot of us, it was because of our interest in a team, and so, its important for baseball to amplify those aspects in how it positions itself to attract fans That approach was successfully used by Wild World of Sports, and got many fans interested in players, and sports, they hadn't thought much of before. Will it be successful with baseball? Will it turn viewers into statistics keeping, jersey wearing rabid fans? Who knows? But it is worth a shot. Later

Marshmallowmilkshake Jul 13 2022 08:31 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

That explains why DJ Yoshi was in center field at Citi last Friday night, shooting sparks. I'm all in if MLB wants to take some new approaches with marketing, especially highlighting players. There are inherent challenges when one being highlighted does something bad or gets a season-ending injury. But there is no shortage of quality players to promote. It helps when everyone - players and announcers - are brought in and on the same page. And that might require some prep work. When the Tigers booth spends an inning griping about the Independence Day caps, I'm sure there are some segments of the audience that would applaud, but it probably hurts the greater good. But if they are told in advance, "Here is why we are wearing these caps and why this design tested well with this demographic" and so on you don't get the people who are the direct connection with your audience tearing down your product.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 08:39 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

Young & casual fans are more likely to become avid fans because they have interest in the celebrity, interests or backstories of individual players; for a lot of us, it was because of our interest in a team, and so, its important for baseball to amplify those aspects in how it positions itself to attract fans That approach was successfully used by Wild World of Sports, and got many fans interested in players, and sports, they hadn't thought much of before. Will it be successful with baseball? Will it turn viewers into statistics keeping, jersey wearing rabid fans? Who knows? But it is worth a shot. Later The flip side is, teams promote teamdom, MLB promotes "baseball" they meet somewhere in the middle

Edgy MD Jul 13 2022 09:15 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

The problem with highlighting players is that baseball stars don't get fed the ball. They get four or so trips to the plate just like anybody else. So you can market the hell out of Lebron James, and maybe he scores 55. But even if he has a bad game, he's probably going to get enough shots that he'll score 24 with two or three terrific memorable highlights. On average, there's a good chance you'll see 30 and four or five highlights. Even marketing Barry Bonds in his prime, an average night for him would be 1-for-3 with a double and a walk. Marketing players, you can't really promise much return on an evening's investment. Baseball is a team game, and what you're buying is the team, the culture, and the social experience. It's not the easiest sell, but it's hard to make that into something else.

roger_that Jul 13 2022 09:30 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

Yeah, some of my most intense memories are of disappointments to find I'd hauled myself out to the ballpark and gotten good seats near the 1b bag so I could watch Hernandez perform his magic only to learn that Keith was taking the day off and I'd be staring at Danny Heep's ass all afternoon.

Ceetar Jul 13 2022 09:31 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

but it's not about marketing _one_ player or _star_ players. It's about all of them. And it's not precisely about baseball either. You get them as people. Even if Alonso goes 0-4, he's still standing at first base, doing baseball things. Or he's in the dugout, engaged in the game. And Alonso didn't really 'entertain' for a day or two? That's okay, we brought up this other guy, he's kind of cool. He did this funny skit on his TikTok interacting with security when he got to Citi Field, I wonder how he'll do today? There have been all sorts of memorable bit players on teams going back forever. Remember the Hunter Pence signs? That's a fun little thing. "Hey, Hunter Pence is coming to town, any one got some new signage material?" or take Atlanta's organist. Always coming up with fun walk-up songs for the visitors. Or just playing the jeopardy music while Nido ambles back to the plate after a foul ball. That's engaging.

G-Fafif Jul 13 2022 10:12 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

That was indeed an interesting listen. Not quite as Sign of the Apocalypse as I'd inferred from the bracing description you offered. I would've been curious to know why the streams have to be exclusive. It feels as if they're being shoved down the throats of the longtime fan who actually cares about team identity in order to reach those potential dabblers who might be charmed by this alternative presentation. Apple+ and Peacock away on all the devices you like — leave me my GKR. Surely the ballparks have the bandwidth to allow home, away and bonus productions (a la TBS and ESPN weeknights). I just knew she was gonna say (even if she didn't want to go there) she grew up MFY.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 10:19 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

She was very sharp. And we got along well--many of these are done zoom, but this one I was actually in the MLB TV studio with her live, so the back and forth was better than most I've done and the sound was better since we had all their equipment. Interestingly, the Jacqueline Parkes who was baseball's last CMO is the daughter of longtime NY Mets Doctor Parkes (James Parkes?) you used to see his in the back pages of the yearbook, or I think sometime in team photos. A big Mets fan. Also the immediate predecessor also named was a Mets fan too.

Edgy MD Jul 13 2022 10:38 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

I'm all about marketing players as people. I think that works well, and MLB should lean into it.

Ceetar Jul 13 2022 11:22 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

=G-Fafif post_id=99560 time=1657728729 user_id=55] I would've been curious to know why the streams have to be exclusive. It feels as if they're being shoved down the throats of the longtime fan who actually cares about team identity in order to reach those potential dabblers who might be charmed by this alternative presentation. Apple+ and Peacock away on all the devices you like — leave me my GKR. Surely the ballparks have the bandwidth to allow home, away and bonus productions (a la TBS and ESPN weeknights).

Occam's razor suggests Apple and NBC won't pay as much for non-exclusive, as everyone's aware of the regionality of the sport. MLB wants the money, Apple/etc wants subscribers, as it's part of their disruption play in their own markets. And also them pitching the viability of streaming sports as it pertains to advertisers like PointsBet, and nVenue. Apple wants to make sure the subscriber/watcher rate is as high as possible, so nVenue can make sure it has a high number of people willing to click the $5 the Mets score a run this inning button.

G-Fafif Jul 13 2022 11:28 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

=Ceetar post_id=99576 time=1657732925 user_id=102] =G-Fafif post_id=99560 time=1657728729 user_id=55] I would've been curious to know why the streams have to be exclusive. It feels as if they're being shoved down the throats of the longtime fan who actually cares about team identity in order to reach those potential dabblers who might be charmed by this alternative presentation. Apple+ and Peacock away on all the devices you like — leave me my GKR. Surely the ballparks have the bandwidth to allow home, away and bonus productions (a la TBS and ESPN weeknights).

Occam's razor suggests Apple and NBC won't pay as much for non-exclusive, as everyone's aware of the regionality of the sport. MLB wants the money, Apple/etc wants subscribers, as it's part of their disruption play in their own markets. And also them pitching the viability of streaming sports as it pertains to advertisers like PointsBet, and nVenue. Apple wants to make sure the subscriber/watcher rate is as high as possible, so nVenue can make sure it has a high number of people willing to click the $5 the Mets score a run this inning button.


Would've liked to have heard the MLB honcho articulate it artfully. “We see these as opportunity zones for our long-lived fans.”

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 11:42 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

My take was, Apple TV is what the people we want to watch baseball are watching, so to be considered to be watched, we have be there too. Also, its good for MLB to be a part of Apple, which is an exclusive and distinct brand that people love enough to pay to belong to

A Boy Named Seo Jul 13 2022 11:52 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

It helps when everyone - players and announcers - are brought in and on the same page. And that might require some prep work. When the Tigers booth spends an inning griping about the Independence Day caps, I'm sure there are some segments of the audience that would applaud, but it probably hurts the greater good. But if they are told in advance, "Here is why we are wearing these caps and why this design tested well with this demographic" and so on you don't get the people who are the direct connection with your audience tearing down your product. I don't know shit, but I assure you young potential baseball fans don't want a corporate, homogenized experience blatantly marketing product-placed uniforms or hats because some suits have communicated to all the stakeholders that "that's what we're doing". I've absolutely noticed the effort MLB has put in to marketing young, exciting players (lets the kids play!) to a generation that is content to just watch highlights on their iPhones. But when they actually login to watch Tim Anderson or Ronald Acuña play, the (generally speaking) older white announcers are 100% going to be a turnoff to younger fans. Half the announcers don't even embrace the young, exciting players (Ceetar, we agree on something!). If the people on this forum (pretty solid hardcore fan demographic) hate what the announcer teams on Apple TV or Peacock are doing, then MLB is probably certain they're doing something right.

Ceetar Jul 13 2022 11:54 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: My take was, Apple TV is what the people we want to watch baseball are watching, so to be considered to be watched, we have be there too. Also, its good for MLB to be a part of Apple, which is an exclusive and distinct brand that people love enough to pay to belong to that locked down, faux exclusive nonsense though, is very akin to MLB's current blackout 'problem'. Also Apple TV has an estimated 25million subscribers. NetFlix has ~75m (though this article says 222?). HBO has ~75m. Amazon Prime has about ~75 (and supposedly 71% of those watch video, though a different article says they have 200 million). obviously grain of salt on all of these, but as they kind of match, that makes sense. Peakcock had 9 million at the end of last year. Discovery+ (what?) has 22. Hulu.. which is tricky, is 45m. Paramount+ 56. Disney 130m (42 us/canada) [url]https://www.indiewire.com/2022/03/how-many-subscribers-netflix-disney-plus-peacock-amazon-prime-video-1234705515/ Anyway, who are the two laggards there? It's Peacock and Apple. "They have the fans baseball wants" is nonsense.

A Boy Named Seo Jul 13 2022 12:06 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

=G-Fafif post_id=99560 time=1657728729 user_id=55] That was indeed an interesting listen. Not quite as Sign of the Apocalypse as I'd inferred from the bracing description you offered. I would've been curious to know why the streams have to be exclusive. It feels as if they're being shoved down the throats of the longtime fan who actually cares about team identity in order to reach those potential dabblers who might be charmed by this alternative presentation. Apple+ and Peacock away on all the devices you like — leave me my GKR. Surely the ballparks have the bandwidth to allow home, away and bonus productions (a la TBS and ESPN weeknights). I just knew she was gonna say (even if she didn't want to go there) she grew up MFY.

This kinda reminds me of an ESPN Mets/Phillies game earlier this year. It was apparently also on ESPN2 where I accidentally landed, but that version featured a picture-in-picture with Michael Kay and A-Rod (because just listening to them isn't bad enough, let's show you their faces, too!). They also added a third and then fourth picture on screen when John McEnroe joined, as well as John McEnroe's brother, for some reason. The game itself was reduced to like 50% of the screen, but some suit somewhere gambled that people would want to tune into that format because iT's nEw aNd DiFfErEnt! (even though it was just shit). I missed GKR badly that night.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jul 13 2022 12:10 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

the other thing is, from apple's perspective, maybe there are fans for whom the addition of a few games a year is the thing that makes them pull the trigger and subscribe. And, Apple aligning with MLB is good for apple in similar ways (maybe some prestige... oldest and most established American sport, and probably, opportunity to do more). I don;t even know if its international but if so, there's a lot more reason for MLB to be there. You should see what NFL is doing to market itself overseas--mostly in Europe (UK and Germany, but also China). Baseball has big opportunities in Asia, maybe less in Europe but some, and in South America

A Boy Named Seo Jul 13 2022 12:13 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

Apple also went all-in on MLS and will have every single game with no local blackouts next year. They're definitely on a mission to update sports watching experience to a new version.

whippoorwill Jul 13 2022 12:52 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

John McEnroe and his brother? You mean like they showed them as celebrities at the game? I hate when they do that

Marshmallowmilkshake Jul 13 2022 12:55 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I don't know shit, but I assure you young potential baseball fans don't want a corporate, homogenized experience blatantly marketing product-placed uniforms or hats because some suits have communicated to all the stakeholders that "that's what we're doing". But there's a difference between a corporate homogenized experience and having people on the payroll tearing down the attempts to build the market. Having them rattle on as old farts saying, "I hate those darned caps. We wouldn't have worn those awful caps when I played the game" helps no one. (Except the Uni Watch guy, who uses the rant as column fodder.) Doesn't mean they have to get out there and say, "Love those new caps, get yours at MLB.com," but ripping them to the new audience they are trying to appeal to is counter productive.

Edgy MD Jul 13 2022 02:01 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

I'm always gonna agree about the downside of homogenization, which is why I think MLB should mostly leave each team to market themselves as much as possible. Let them grow more distinct from each other so I can feel clearer about who I love and who I hate and who I laugh at and who I fear.

A Boy Named Seo Jul 13 2022 04:04 PM Re: Interesting Podcast?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I don't know shit, but I assure you young potential baseball fans don't want a corporate, homogenized experience blatantly marketing product-placed uniforms or hats because some suits have communicated to all the stakeholders that "that's what we're doing". But there's a difference between a corporate homogenized experience and having people on the payroll tearing down the attempts to build the market. Having them rattle on as old farts saying, "I hate those darned caps. We wouldn't have worn those awful caps when I played the game" helps no one. (Except the Uni Watch guy, who uses the rant as column fodder.) Doesn't mean they have to get out there and say, "Love those new caps, get yours at MLB.com," but ripping them to the new audience they are trying to appeal to is counter productive. I think you're assuming the new audience is tuning in to begin with, which is the crux of this whole thing. They're largely not. If a kid wanted so see some incredible play by Javy Baez, he's going to watch it on instagram or TikTok and not sit though 3 hours listening to 3 old white guys talk about the olden days. BUT if some kid were listening to that particular moment of the broadcast, they would've thought it was cool to trash the Fourth of July hats because 1) they're ugly 2) it's fake patriotism to sell merch and 3) kids hate authority.

Fman99 Jul 14 2022 05:26 AM Re: Interesting Podcast?

I'm officially an old white guy because everything I've read in this thread is too far removed from actual game play. I don't care about player back stories or DJ's or what 11 streaming services might carry the broadcast. Give me pitchers hitting and announcers who are proven to not be terrible kthxbye