MLB 2024 Uniform/Logo Changes

[M59]

5 hours ago, Pyromania1983 said:

MLB will have ads on all batting helmets during from at least 2024 to 2027 in the Postseason. YUCK 

 

Well, they made me Google who Strauss is. Fortunately, I wasn't previously a customer, which makes it easier not to be one going forward. Good job, Strauss & MLB. Good effing job. 

[BrySmalls]

In case anyone was wondering about the thought process of adding ads to baseball helmets, here is an article from the Sports Business Journal with a direct quote below. Suffice it to say, that the helmet ads will become the norm now.
 

Quote

Playfly Sports SVP/Consulting & Valuation Jessi Sanchez estimated the value of the batting helmet exposure at “roughly 1,000 seconds of on-screen time per game -- significantly higher than jersey patch offerings across leagues, (and) easily north of $30M per year In sponsorship media value. ... With this exposure touching so many teams and impacting across the MLB and minor leagues the helmet provides a strong platform for meaningful engagement. Beyond the awareness, partnerships like this can go deeper into the marketing funnel, positively influencing brand health.

 

[BBTV]

If I was a jersey advertiser, I would have wanted something in the contract that states I was the exclusive advertiser on the uniform* (which includes hat/helmet).  I wonder if this was the plan all along and MLB specifically prohibited any clauses like that.

 

*the jersey, pants, and hat have obviously had ads for years, but I mean non-apparel ads.

[MJD7]

I’m afraid this might be the point where my opinion of the City Connect program starts to decline, where they start replacing the great designs (this Rockies one is one of my favorites) with (very likely) progressively inferior ones.

[FrutigerAero]

2 hours ago, MJD7 said:

I’m afraid this might be the point where my opinion of the City Connect program starts to wane, where they start replacing the great designs (this Rockies one is one of my favorites) with (very likely) progressively inferior ones.

I like the Diamondbacks ones as its now the only thing keeping sand alive on that team that should have some sand somewhere

[M59]

5 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

In case anyone was wondering about the thought process of adding ads to baseball helmets, here is an article from the Sports Business Journal with a direct quote below. Suffice it to say, that the helmet ads will become the norm now.
 

 

"[D]eeper into the marketing funnel, positively influencing brand health."
Jeebus. What language was that written in? And do they not know they're simply pissing off many of the sports existing fans? (I know they don't care. I'm asking if they know.)

[aawagner011]

Fans pitched a fit over Nike’s relatively minor (by comparison) template changes. I’ll take those any day of the week instead of nasty ads. This all feels too much, too fast. I guess a good comparison would be hockey. Maybe teams had a wordmark on the helmet which have since been replaced by ads, in addition to the chest ads. At least on their helmets, the ads are occupying a space that was already adorned with graphics. With MLB, they are adding a new spot for graphics which will feel totally out of place. MLB is also such a tradition rich sport and the combination of the helmet and sleeve patch are too much, too fast. What’s next? Large chest scripts? Ads on the back of the pitcher? It feels like baseball has no limit as long as the price is right. Fans should revolt.

[adsarebad]

Here is your chance to pay 350 dollars and at the same time advertise for your favorite Mobile phone manufacturer or other brand/company you desire. 

 

-

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

With MLB, they are adding a new spot for graphics which will feel totally out of place.

 

They already did this when they added the New Era logo to game caps for the post seasons a few years ago (and then kept it permanently).

 

7 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

MLB is also such a tradition rich sport and the combination of the helmet and sleeve patch are too much

 

Yet to me, I feel that the Nike ad on the front of the jersey is the most egregious of any of these stupid-ugly things.

 

Point being, they already crossed "too much" by desecrating the front of the jersey.  By adding an add to the front of the Yankees' jersey directly opposite the iconic NY.  The line was crossed years ago.

[Sec19Row53]

10 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Fans pitched a fit over Nike’s relatively minor (by comparison) template changes. I’ll take those any day of the week instead of nasty ads. This all feels too much, too fast. I guess a good comparison would be hockey. Maybe teams had a wordmark on the helmet which have since been replaced by ads, in addition to the chest ads. At least on their helmets, the ads are occupying a space that was already adorned with graphics. With MLB, they are adding a new spot for graphics which will feel totally out of place. MLB is also such a tradition rich sport and the combination of the helmet and sleeve patch are too much, too fast. What’s next? Large chest scripts? Ads on the back of the pitcher? It feels like baseball has no limit as long as the price is right. Fans should revolt.

I get it - this is a uniform and logo site. But REALLY? There are far more fans of baseball than there are fans of uniforms. One is not the other.

[aawagner011]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

They already did this when they added the New Era logo to game caps for the post seasons a few years ago (and then kept it permanently).

 

 

Yet to me, I feel that the Nike ad on the front of the jersey is the most egregious of any of these stupid-ugly things.

 

Point being, they already crossed "too much" by desecrating the front of the jersey.  By adding an add to the front of the Yankees' jersey directly opposite the iconic NY.  The line was crossed years ago.

The New Era logo felt like a big step because it was the first change in decades to increase branding. Obviously, New Era and Strauss are on totally different levels, seeing as New Era  is about a half inch big on one side whereas Strauss has a massive patch on both sides of the helmet. Nike was another big change to locate the swoosh on the chest, but I quickly got used to it. I feel there’s a distinction between a manufacturer logo (which have been done for years) and straight up advertising. One is the manufacturer showing “we made this garment” whereas the sponsorships are simply ad space that has been bought. I guess the lines between the two are blurring in recent years, but ads have always felt like a line too far to me.
 

 

23 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I get it - this is a uniform and logo site. But REALLY? There are far more fans of baseball than there are fans of uniforms. One is not the other.

My point was that baseball fans as a whole, not just uniform junkies, rioted over Nike’s template changes and actually convinced MLB and Nike to revisit their design. Change is coming in 2025. The consumer’s voice was heard. There’s no reason that can’t happen again.

[M59]

25 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

The New Era logo felt like a big step because it was the first change in decades to increase branding. Obviously, New Era and Strauss are on totally different levels, seeing as New Era  is about a half inch big on one side whereas Strauss has a massive patch on both sides of the helmet. Nike was another big change to locate the swoosh on the chest, but I quickly got used to it. I feel there’s a distinction between a manufacturer logo (which have been done for years) and straight up advertising. One is the manufacturer showing “we made this garment” whereas the sponsorships are simply ad space that has been bought. I guess the lines between the two are blurring in recent years, but ads have always felt like a line too far to me.

The New Era logo didn't thrill me, but also didn't bother me that much. I'd have preferred it be on the back of the cap, but I'd have preferred a lot of things turned out differently than they did. The Nike logo on the front of the jersey irritated me to a much greater extent. The jersey maker's mark goes on the sleeve. Period.  Once you've burned that bridge, I'm pretty much done with you.

[Marlins93]

1 hour ago, aawagner011 said:

My point was that baseball fans as a whole, not just uniform junkies, rioted over Nike’s template changes and actually convinced MLB and Nike to revisit their design. Change is coming in 2025. The consumer’s voice was heard. There’s no reason that can’t happen again.

 

While I am sure that had a part in it, the greater factor seems to be the players themselves (and the MLBPA) being annoyed with the changes. 

 

I don't think MLB and Nike care much about consumer preferences at all. Fans are still going to by merchandise, even with :censored:ty design templates and ad patches. And the reason for changing the template in the first place is likely due to manufacturing cost savings.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

One is the manufacturer showing “we made this garment”

 

Not to be pedantic, but Nike isn't the manufacturer for the baseball uniforms, and I'm not sure how even if they were, they would have a "right" to have their logo on it without paying for the space.  Similar to how Ripon made all the NFL uniforms and simply slapped a Reebok logo on them (and slaps the Nike on them for the Packers.).

 

But yeah in general, we're just "used" to brands slapping their logo on things that we pay for, which is like reverse-advertising.  Normal people actually pay to wear some company's logo on their chest, which is kinda weird but I guess some view it as a status thing.

 

At least you don't see brand logos on suits or dress clothes or most women's wear.

[M59]

22 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

And the reason for changing the template in the first place is likely due to manufacturing cost savings.

IMO, you didn't need to bother with "likely" there. Every change Nike/MLB made was to make the uniforms cheaper and/or more standardized. (Maybe those "sun collars" added a penny to the cost of each jersey, but everything else was to pinch pennies.) The one that still baffles me is changing the front numbers for the teams that still use MLB block. 

[Marlins93]

2 hours ago, M59 said:

IMO, you didn't need to bother with "likely" there. Every change Nike/MLB made was to make the uniforms cheaper and/or more standardized. (Maybe those "sun collars" added a penny to the cost of each jersey, but everything else was to pinch pennies.) The one that still baffles me is changing the front numbers for the teams that still use MLB block. 

 

Oh, I agree. I supposed I try to give them some benefit of the doubt in the claims that players like having some kind of lighter fabrics. 

[spartacat_12]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:50 AM, BBTV said:

They already did this when they added the New Era logo to game caps for the post seasons a few years ago (and then kept it permanently).

 

Yet to me, I feel that the Nike ad on the front of the jersey is the most egregious of any of these stupid-ugly things.

 

Point being, they already crossed "too much" by desecrating the front of the jersey.  By adding an add to the front of the Yankees' jersey directly opposite the iconic NY.  The line was crossed years ago.

 

The New Era & Nike logos being on uniforms is nowhere near the same as the ad patches we've gotten in the last couple of years. Whether or not they're the actual manufacturers, they do their best to make the logos fit with the rest of the uniform. They're small, single layered patches that match the teams' colours. They're meant to be subtle and not distract from the rest of the uniform.

 

Most of the ad patches are gaudy monstrosities that often clash with team colours. They're designed to draw as many consumer eyes as possible for maximum ROI, so they're purposely distracting.

[Sec19Row53]

12 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The New Era & Nike logos being on uniforms is nowhere near the same as the ad patches we've gotten in the last couple of years. Whether or not they're the actual manufacturers, they do their best to make the logos fit with the rest of the uniform. They're small, single layered patches that match the teams' colours. They're meant to be subtle and not distract from the rest of the uniform.

 

Most of the ad patches are gaudy monstrosities that often clash with team colours. They're designed to draw as many consumer eyes as possible for maximum ROI, so they're purposely distracting.

The only difference is that the "manufacturer's" logo is the correct color (for baseball) by design. We're all accustomed to that logo existing, so we don't grouse about it. It's equally an advertising logo, just like the sleeve ones are.

[spartacat_12]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

The only difference is that the "manufacturer's" logo is the correct color (for baseball) by design. We're all accustomed to that logo existing, so we don't grouse about it. It's equally an advertising logo, just like the sleeve ones are.

 

That's a false equivalence. Ask any baseball fan and the vast majority wouldn't call those ad patches. 

 

I hate that this argument gets brought up every time people complain about ads. Acting like the blue swoosh and the giant red square on the sleeve are the same thing seems intentionally obtuse.

 

 

[Sec19Row53]

27 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

That's a false equivalence. Ask any baseball fan and the vast majority wouldn't call those ad patches. 

 

I hate that this argument gets brought up every time people complain about ads. Acting like the blue swoosh and the giant red square on the sleeve are the same thing seems intentionally obtuse.

 

 

Whether or not a baseball fan calls them an ad doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, an ad. If they weren't an ad, why would they be placed there?

You're equating my statement with something that I'm not saying. The ad that isn't the same color as the uniform in all cases IS seen as the more hated of the two. I have no difference of opinion on that.