Toronto star article

[zer0dotcom]

I was sitting in class the other day when i saw this little blurb in the Toronto Star Sports section at the end of a Dave Perkins Article on The GM situation for the Toronto Maple Leafs and it really got me thinking. Are logo and uniform changes in modern sports an honest attemp to upgrade a team's identity? or a simple attempt to milk the fan out a few more dollars for new merchandise?

Toronto Star, September 11th 2003, C2 written by Dave Perkins

CASH GRAB: Changing logos and uniform styles and such is a blatant cash grab nowadays. Teams listen to their marketing wizards and hope to dun the suckers into shelling out again for T-shirts and hats.

Those who can't stand the Blue Jays' new logo need only wait a couple of years, until they change it again, as they surely will. Seeing as how they missed the retro rage this time, they'll catch up soon enough.

Those who like the new ID and purchase the merchandise can always wear it as long as they wish, even when the next one comes out. Options are a wonderful thing.

Changing uniforms and logos and such really is as old as baseball, though. There have been literally hundreds of them.

More than 100 years ago, the Boston Americans ? later to be known as the Red Sox ? had a third uniform. John McGraw, beginning about 100 years ago, changed the design of his team's outfits almost annually. His New York Giants wore a different uniform at least 15 times in 20 years, 1901-1920, including violet socks introduced in 1913 and windowpane-checked uniforms, both home and road, in 1916. They lasted just one season, mercifully. You could look it up.

Unlike now, whatever McGraw's motivation then, it probably did not involve the word "marketing.''

I'm really interested in what the opinion of other out there is. Are logo changes truely something that is imbedded in baseball and all of sports, or has our modern age of sports taken away the significance of a uniform makeover?

(link to the whole article here)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp....9109774

[NJTank]

There is no doubt marketing, merchindising and money go into the introduction of new logos, uniforms and alternate uniforms. If you notice most teams taht go for a complete over haul are always teams that are at the bottom in merchindise sales.

[Sterling84]

I am sure it's money related.  Everything on earth is.  My question is though, how does it break down in terms of benefit to the club financially.  There are costs associated with changing something too...they may seem fairly minimal but you'd need a whole new court (NBA), paint job and carpeting (corporate offices) letterhead, uniforms, helmets(NFL).  Plus with revenue sharing, how much does your team alone benefit from your change??  I thought I heard that the NBA at least charges teams a cold million to change....just to keep it from being a whim thing.

So if you are a crappy NBA team...Cavs, Bucks, Nugs whomever...and you shuck out a million to the NBA, half million for uni, logo, design and assorted copyrighting lawyer stuff.........another million to revenate your stadium and complexes.........will you see significant profit on it after everyone else's share is taken out?? YOu must I guess or no one would ever do it.

[oilfaninvan]

Seeing as how they missed the retro rage this time, they'll catch up soon enough.

i said that exact thing in the jays logo thread.

they missed the boat this time.

yes i also think changing jerseys is a cash grab. the way you can tell is the way it is introduced. they hold a huge press conference to get the word out, then pack the shelves of local stores and rub it right in your face.

the thing is, not every team can do this...can u imagine if the yankess or red wings change their logos? ooooh bad news.