MLB Changes 2020

[jp1409]

5 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

With the light blue jersey overload going on, I wonder if there is a chance these Toronto jerseys are navy blue with light blue letting and accents.  Would be a little odd with the Rays in their division though.

 

 

 

 

It'd be a :censored:ing shame to pair such a :censored:ty look with their gorgeous current set.

[DEAD!]

3 hours ago, jn8 said:

So apparently Houston may be making a tweak:

 

I would have went with a word that rhymes with "Astros"

[SilverBullet1929]

4 hours ago, jn8 said:

So apparently Houston may be making a tweak:

It's missing the Nike check. 

[Aznkid25]

Here’s a good look of the “20 at 24” patch the Giants will have on their jerseys this season. $300 for a blank authentic jersey. 

[OBomb]

7 hours ago, tohasbo said:

 

 

How was the replica compared to last seasons?  I'd assume it's $129 for the ones with no name and a bit more for the player replicas?

To the naked eye, the font looked a little smaller and the shade of brown on the letters looked a little lighter. No Swinging Friar sleeve logo and the ones I saw didn't have a player's name on the back. The feel was similar to the Majestic Cool Base.

[jp1409]

 

29 minutes ago, Aznkid25 said:

$300 for a blank authentic jersey. 

 

[Gothamite]

ing outrageous. 

[guest23]

38 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

ing outrageous. 

 

If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it 

[jn8]

Nike when someone suggests lowering the price of jerseys to a more reasonable price:

 

 

However, I’ll play a little devil’s advocate with a counterpoint: From a business perspective, if customers are willing to pay that much, why wouldn’t you charge that price? Not that it isn’t just money grabbing, but if people are still buying jerseys after they’ve raised the price it would be crazy for them to drop it and make LESS money. 

[jp1409]

6 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it 

 

[Newfie]

 

 

This teaser reminds me of these uniforms from player's weekend

[SilverBullet1929]

8 hours ago, jn8 said:

From a business perspective, if customers are willing to pay that much, why wouldn’t you charge that price? Not that it isn’t just money grabbing, but if people are still buying jerseys after they’ve raised the price it would be crazy for them to drop it and make LESS money. 

You are 100% correct here... I think the question that we have here is are enough people willing to pay that much that it makes sense for Nike to keep it at that price? I am inclined to think not but if the prices stay this way then maybe we're all wrong and there are enough people dumb enough to give in to that price.. and if so then yes it's perfectly fine for Nike to maintain those prices.

[Brian E]

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

You are 100% correct here... I think the question that we have here is are enough people willing to pay that much that it makes sense for Nike to keep it at that price? I am inclined to think not but if the prices stay this way then maybe we're all wrong and there are enough people dumb enough to give in to that price.. and if so then yes it's perfectly fine for Nike to maintain those prices.

 

i don't want to derail this with a business discussion, but i hate this argument. sure, you CAN try to milk every last dollar out of a customer base, and there are certainly businesses that do, but it's not necessarily sound strategy. not only is there undoubtedly a tipping point in the pricing scale, i don't know how good or satisfied that kind of purchase leaves someone feeling. it's gotta leave potential repeat buyers on the table. when adidas launched their NHL retail authentics, they lowered the price point significantly from the reebok edge, and i don't have sales figures, but i'd venture to say that it's much more attractive now at $180 than it the edge 1.0s were at $250.

 

how much business do manufacturers lose to knock offs, simply based on price point? how many people are buying older stock off ebay and customizing? just because there are some people that will pay $300 for a blank authentic doesn't mean it's smart for nike to do so.

[Gothamite]

Baseball's business model right now is to extract more and more money from each of fewer and fewer customers.  At the moment, they're content with dwindling numbers so long as each individual transaction is bigger.  It's true at the ballpark, and it's true for these jerseys.

 

That doesn't strike me as a particularly healthy or sustainable model.  We shall see.  But it's unquestionably theirs.

[SilverBullet1929]

1 hour ago, Brian E said:

just because there are some people that will pay $300 for a blank authentic doesn't mean it's smart for nike to do so.

I'm saying it's only smart for them to do so if enough people buy it that it becomes sustainable for Nike to keep those prices, not just if some are buying it. Has to be enough.

[BC985]

Let’s not forget that Nike took on the MLB uniform contract to make money. As they are paying MLB $100 million a year, they are expecting to make multiple times that. One way to go about doing that, charging more for apparel. 

[Digby]

5 hours ago, Newfie said:

 

 

This teaser reminds me of these uniforms from player's weekend

 

I was thinking that as well, and that maybe a sorta-tonal look (like powder on navy) would be a nice variation on that promotion -- if they hadn't gone down this bizarro mono-black and white thing.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

Let’s not forget that Nike took on the MLB uniform contract to make money. As they are paying MLB $100 million a year, they are expecting to make multiple times that. One way to go about doing that, charging more for apparel. 

 

Of course.  But there are different ways to make that money back. 

 

Just as an example, the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United have realized that they can make more profit on concessions by slashing the price.  People are more than making up for the lower price point by buying more at the concession stand.

 

 

It was so successful that they did it again.

 

 

So you can increase profits by jacking up the price and making more on a single transaction, or through volume sales at a lower price point.  MLB and Nike have clearly chosen the former path, and I'm not sure that's sustainable for either merchandise sales or the sport as a whole.

 

  

[BC985]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

Of course.  But there are different ways to make that money back. 

 

Just as an example, the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United have realized that they can make more profit by slashing the price of concessions.  People are more than making up for the lower price point by buying more at the concession stand.

 

So you can increase profits by jacking up the price and making more on a single transaction, or through volume sales at a lower price point.  MLB and Nike have clearly chosen the former path, and I'm not sure that's sustainable for either merchandise sales or the sport as a whole.

I just think there is an expectation that Nike you should do that now because this board has expressed their outrage to the new sticker price. In reality Nike probably won’t make that call for several months after sales figures are collected during the season. We are simply in the data collection phase right now. 

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Of course.  But there are different ways to make that money back. 

 

Just as an example, the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United have realized that they can make more profit by slashing the price of concessions.  People are more than making up for the lower price point by buying more at the concession stand.

 

So you can increase profits by jacking up the price, or through volume at a lower price point.  MLB and Nike have clearly chosen the former path, and I'm not sure that's sustainable for either merchandise sales or the sport in general.

Do we have actual evidence of that?

Also - you can state your opinion of what MLB's financial policies are (more money from fewer people) and declare it to be true, but is it true?  Maybe it is more money from more revenue streams, to the point that historical financial concerns (i.e., attendance) are less relevant.