MLB Changes 2017

[OnWis97]

19 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Retail experts probably are telling them navy blue is much easier to sell than brown.  Most of the league has probably talked to those same experts. 

 

With that said, hawk36's change to brown and white is really nice and would be a great look for the Padres.

I am sure that's true.

 

Is there a difference, though, when they are one in a league of 30 teams, most of which use blue?  In other words, are the experts thinking in a vacuum when they should not be? Or, even if there are too many blue teams, would going brown simply hurt the Padres sales in said vacuum?  As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), merchandise revenue from online and retail is shared equally but "clubhouse store" revenue (at the ballpark) is kept by the teams.  If so, that should go a good deal toward mitigating whatever perceived loss there is by not going with a "safe" color.  Also, would MLB as a whole be better off with more variety?  I am not a marketing guy, but it seems to me that retail experts pointing out the general truth that blue outsells brown could be missing the big picture...not only that MLB could use variety, but that the Padres, more than most of the other blue teams, get lost in the shuffle.  Some neutral fan shopping for a "cool" hat may not buy a brown hat.  But is he really going to buy a blue Padres had when he could buy Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rangers, etc.?    So many blue teams are more recognizable to the average fan.  Don't the Padres need to find a way to stand out (even if it's not brown).

 

And even with the general truism that blue>brown, I tend to doubt that "only blue" would rise above blue/sand or blue/yellow.  And if it did, then humans are thinking too much like computers.

[Bouj]

13 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

The hat color argument outside of San Diego and its fans I think is valid. Brown is unique, blue is all too common.

 

For its fans, I agree, they want the SD first and then can choose which color they prefer. This would be my bet though...

1. Team keeps blue as the primary, you will still see a large percentage of brown gear worn 5 years later.

2. Team goes to brown as the primary, you will see a very small percentage of blue gear worn 5 years later.

 

Does anyone know how it worked in Houston? Is there still a lot of flying star navy and gold gear worn or has it gone almost completely back to the H star, navy and orange look?

It's almost all navy & orange now, either the new stuff or the Tequila Sunrise throwbacks.  You rarely see the brick/black or the 90's gold.  But the 90's gold wasn't getting a lot of play when the last set was being used.

[WSU151]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I am sure that's true.

 

Is there a difference, though, when they are one in a league of 30 teams, most of which use blue?  In other words, are the experts thinking in a vacuum when they should not be? Or, even if there are too many blue teams, would going brown simply hurt the Padres sales in said vacuum?  As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), merchandise revenue from online and retail is shared equally but "clubhouse store" revenue (at the ballpark) is kept by the teams.  If so, that should go a good deal toward mitigating whatever perceived loss there is by not going with a "safe" color.  Also, would MLB as a whole be better off with more variety?  I am not a marketing guy, but it seems to me that retail experts pointing out the general truth that blue outsells brown could be missing the big picture...not only that MLB could use variety, but that the Padres, more than most of the other blue teams, get lost in the shuffle.  Some neutral fan shopping for a "cool" hat may not buy a brown hat.  But is he really going to buy a blue Padres had when he could buy Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rangers, etc.?    So many blue teams are more recognizable to the average fan.  Don't the Padres need to find a way to stand out (even if it's not brown).

 

And even with the general truism that blue>brown, I tend to doubt that "only blue" would rise above blue/sand or blue/yellow.  And if it did, then humans are thinking too much like computers.

 

Great points.  I wish I had actual data.

[CitizenTino]

Unfortunately, the reason most here are bothered by UA putting their logo on the chest instead of the sleeve is the exact reason they're doing it: It's a lot harder to ignore.

 

If you're an apparel company spending tons of cash to be a uniform supplier for one of the big four sports leagues, you want as much visibility possible in order to maximize the return on your hefty investment.

[guest23]

14 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Great points.  I wish I had actual data.

 

What people are forgetting is that many marketing and design decisions either consciously or subconsciously making safe decisions as an act of job security. If you're a middling franchise wearing navy blue and your apparel sales are middle of the pack to bottom third in sales you can blame unknown external factors because your choices are based on research that's designed to appeal to a mass market of fans. If you choose brown and yellow you are making a bold decision to go against research and tried and true colors. If your campaign fails you are the obvious one to blame.

[hawk36]

20 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

What people are forgetting is that many marketing and design decisions either consciously or subconsciously making safe decisions as an act of job security. If you're a middling franchise wearing navy blue and your apparel sales are middle of the pack to bottom third in sales you can blame unknown external factors because your choices are based on research that's designed to appeal to a mass market of fans. If you choose brown and yellow you are making a bold decision to go against research and tried and true colors. If your campaign fails you are the obvious one to blame.

"Let's not draw any undue attention to ourselves and try to blend in and maybe they'll mistake us for a real MLB team"

[Ray Lankford]

3 hours ago, hawk36 said:

Does anyone have any hard data on this?

 

The few people I've spoken to working at Lids, etc. around Seattle (yes I get that it's not San Diego) say they can't keep the brown in stock and all the navy does is gather dust. My best guess on that very limited information was that brown sells outside the team's area because it is unique and is one of the only caps that work when wanting to match to a brown/earth palette (fashion). By contrast, if you are out of area and need a navy blue cap, you are much more likely to buy a Yankees or Tigers or Braves than a Padres cap.

 

I think that if every place offered both the navy and the brown, the brown would outsell the navy in San Diego and throughout the rest of the country. But again, that's just a guess. I'd love to see actual data.

Most websites that sell hats have a filter for top sellers. Brown's number one at Lids.com but it's behind the current blue and white hat at the Padres.com store and New Era

[Ray Lankford]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I am sure that's true.

 

Is there a difference, though, when they are one in a league of 30 teams, most of which use blue?  In other words, are the experts thinking in a vacuum when they should not be? Or, even if there are too many blue teams, would going brown simply hurt the Padres sales in said vacuum?  As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), merchandise revenue from online and retail is shared equally but "clubhouse store" revenue (at the ballpark) is kept by the teams.  If so, that should go a good deal toward mitigating whatever perceived loss there is by not going with a "safe" color.  Also, would MLB as a whole be better off with more variety?  I am not a marketing guy, but it seems to me that retail experts pointing out the general truth that blue outsells brown could be missing the big picture...not only that MLB could use variety, but that the Padres, more than most of the other blue teams, get lost in the shuffle.  Some neutral fan shopping for a "cool" hat may not buy a brown hat.  But is he really going to buy a blue Padres had when he could buy Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rangers, etc.?    So many blue teams are more recognizable to the average fan.  Don't the Padres need to find a way to stand out (even if it's not brown).

 

And even with the general truism that blue>brown, I tend to doubt that "only blue" would rise above blue/sand or blue/yellow.  And if it did, then humans are thinking too much like computers.

One thing here that I've thought about: Why don't the Mariners wear a teal hat? Or why don't the Astros or Marlins wear orange? All three have had the option to be more colorful but all retreated back to the safety of dark blue and black. This would seem to suggest that it's not just that the Padres who are afraid of standing out. 

[bosrs1]

38 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

One thing here that I've thought about: Why don't the Mariners wear a teal hat? Or why don't the Astros or Marlins wear orange? All three have had the option to be more colorful but all retreated back to the safety of dark blue and black. This would seem to suggest that it's not just that the Padres who are afraid of standing out. 

 

Is it fear, or is it reflecting what the market wants? I mean yes, teal, brown, etc.. stand out. But do fans buy those in large numbers when they're available, or do fans retreat back to traditional colors like black, blue, red?

[LMU]

25 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Is it fear, or is it reflecting what the market wants? I mean yes, teal, brown, etc.. stand out. But do fans buy those in large numbers when they're available, or do fans retreat back to traditional colors like black, blue, red?

Again though, this is where the thought process can be questioned. Are traditional caps better selling because they're traditional or because they're what the team actually wears on the field and not an alternate/fashion cap?

 

Plus, brown's a much more understated color than teal so I don't know if you can compare the two.

[hawk36]

27 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Is it fear, or is it reflecting what the market wants? I mean yes, teal, brown, etc.. stand out. But do fans buy those in large numbers when they're available, or do fans retreat back to traditional colors like black, blue, red?

Not sure how often MLB players actually get a new cap but could it be the wear and tear? Lighter colors like teal and light blue and orange show sweat and dirt immediately and probably wouldn't be used more than a few games before being switched out. Of course that doesn't apply to brown for the Padres but it could for the other brighter colors. 

[bosrs1]

13 minutes ago, LMU said:

Again though, this is where the thought process can be questioned. Are traditional caps better selling because they're traditional or because they're what the team actually wears on the field and not an alternate/fashion cap?

 

Plus, brown's a much more understated color than teal so I don't know if you can compare the two.

 

Well I mean the brown is currently an on field cap for the Padres along side the blue. I imagine the team has sales data on the two cap styles and which sold better. It would be interesting to see that data.

 

Anecdotally I saw a lot more of the '16 blue and yellow caps around town than I did the new taco bell brown cap despite both being active on field caps. It will be interesting to see if that carries on now that they've gone back to blue and white along side the still active on field brown taco bell cap.

[BBTV]

Wait - so are the Yankees going to have the UA on their chest too?  Tigers?  THat will look so ridiculous.  Especially the yankees, who would have two pairs of interlocking letters on their front.

 

 

[PrimalCookie]

37 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Wait - so are the Yankees going to have the UA on their chest too?  Tigers?  THat will look so ridiculous.  Especially the yankees, who would have two pairs of interlocking letters on their front.

 

 

As proven by their past experiences with Majestic, I believe that the Yankees will find a way to get out of the chest logo. The Tigers, I'm not so sure. Now, what I want to know is if the UA will be customized to team colors, or will just be the normal black and white for every team.

[Paul Lucas]

The horror...

[(probably)notabandwagonfan]

10 minutes ago, Paul Lucas said:

The horror...

So much for that cleat rule.

[kroywen]

From https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/under-armour-inks-deal-to-place-logo-on-front-of-mlb-jerseys:

 

Quote

The agreement will put a logo on the front of MLB jerseys for the first time — on the right side of the chest, just above the team name...

When Majestic, which is owned by VF Corp., decided to end its partnership, the league looked for ways to make the deal more valuable, and one big change is moving the logo to the front of the jersey, according to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred. That helped MLB more than double what it will earn annually from the license, he said.

There you have it. We're one step away from ads on uniforms.

[LMU]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well I mean the brown is currently an on field cap for the Padres along side the blue. I imagine the team has sales data on the two cap styles and which sold better. It would be interesting to see that data.

 

Anecdotally I saw a lot more of the '16 blue and yellow caps around town than I did the new taco bell brown cap despite both being active on field caps. It will be interesting to see if that carries on now that they've gone back to blue and white along side the still active on field brown taco bell cap.

Here's the thing though... people tend to buy the primary home cap way above and beyond any other option as it's almost the default.  I'm sure that the Tigers sell more white D caps, the A's sell more yellow-billed hats, the Reds sell more all-red caps, etc.  if a fan is buying their team's hat they're going to stick with what they see the team wearing most of the time.  So, if the Padres wore the Taco Bell hat more than on a once-a-week-at-home basis it'd probably have a lot more sales associated with it.

 

The flawed logic is when owners think that their team's merchandise will suddenly be prominent in the mainstream a la the John Cena thuganomics era when the bulk of their sales are going to be fans wanting to wear what's being worn on the field in front of their eyes.

[lahaye7]

2 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

As proven by their past experiences with Majestic, I believe that the Yankees will find a way to get out of the chest logo. The Tigers, I'm not so sure. Now, what I want to know is if the UA will be customized to team colors, or will just be the normal black and white for every team.

the only positive thing I can think about UA doing the baseball unis is that they did the faux grays for some college teams (Mizzou I can think of) That might be pretty cool for MLB teams. 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, kroywen said:

From https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/under-armour-inks-deal-to-place-logo-on-front-of-mlb-jerseys:

 

There you have it. We're one step away from ads on uniforms.

 

No - you have ads on uniforms.  If paying extra for the right to put your logo on the front of a jersey doesn't constitute purchasing ad space I don't know what does.  The whole contract is all about being able to place a logo on a jersey - it's $X to purchase space on the sleeve, $Y (where Y>X) to purchase space on the chest, and $Z to replace the team names with your company's name.  Don't act like there's not a real number for Z.  If someone would pay it, we'd have the Under Armour Tigers vs the Baltimore Under Armours.