Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
I had said in my last post that the Timberwolves needed some serious marketing help to promote yet another re-building team. They did one marketing move (which I had heard little about, until a few days later), and that was to unveil a new "alternate" jersey.
Many teams have three or more jerseys. There's a standard home jersey, and a standard away jersey. In the last few years, many teams find it fun to unveil a third jersey that is very different from the usual.
Sometimes the alternate jerseys look better than the standard ones. Sometimes the alternate jerseys are so unwelcomed by fans, that the team ends up scrapping them. One such instance was the NBA's Dallas Mavericks a few years ago. They had released an alternate jersey that had a very droll color scheme; and the fans showed their discontent in no uncertain terms. The team wore the jerseys once, and never wore them again.
The Wolves re-vamped their entire uniform a couple years ago. They had shortened "Timberwolves" to just "Wolves" on the front of the home jersey (from their early franchise days), and on the road jersey, exchanged "Timberwolves" for "Minnesota."
Just recently, the Wolves unveiled a black jersey. Everyone loves black. Black is a slimming color, and complements many other colors nicely. This is the second time in franchise history the Wolves have donned a black jersey. I liked the old black jersey better than the new black jersey.
Several years ago, the border on the jerseys was a black border with green pine trees, similar to the primary logo. With the latest uniform re-design, they scrapped the pine trees, and eventually took all the green out entirely. With the new black jerseys, a little green might improve things a bit.
At this link: http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/pressrelease_Wolves_Unveil_New_Black_Alternate_Uniforms_2010_11_23.html
you can see what the new jersey looks like. Personally, I think it's just a little too bland. Instead of complementing the colors, I think the black intermingles with them. There's no contrast.
Maybe that's in tune with the whole team's attitude, though. The Wolves have been nothing short of bland the last few seasons. Attendance has dropped, players come and go, there's more losses than wins. If the Wolves were looking to generate some excitement with this latest marketing ploy, I think they came up a bit short.
Kermit the Frog once sang, "It's not easy being green." In this case, a little green might help.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe To comPRehend
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wolves need some serious marketing help
I have to admit, I've lost all interest in the Timberwolves. I can't even remember the last time I actually paid to go to a game. The last game I went to, I had received free tickets from the Timberwolves promotions department.
If you've watched any of the pre-season games on TV, there's empty blue seats everywhere. Not like it was when Kevin Garnett was here, there wasn't an empty seat in the house.
I was reading Patrick Reusse's column in the Star Tribune today (click post title to read full article), and he believes the T-wolves need some serious marketing to go along with the new shooters that are part of a team that seems to be in a constant state of re-building.
They've done their best in the past couple years in the area of branding: re-designed jerseys, a re-designed logo (which looks awful) and a new Target Center court. They've done some new things in the ticketing department as well. Last season, according to Reusse's article, the T-wolves had an abysmal season ticket base of 5,000.
When Garnett played here, I remember it being almost impossible to get a seat in the lower seating bowl of the arena. The lower level at Target Center seats about 8,300 people (total capacity is just shy of 20,000). What's even worse, is the team expected to lose another 10 percent of that base from last season.
It may not be the team, however. People still are loving the Minnesota Wild on the other side of the river; even though the Wild's consecutive sellout streak at the Xcel Energy Center has come to an end. And, let's not forget all the hype about the Twins this year with Target Field opening and the overall excitement that was re-generated for the Twins. An excitement, only to be squashed away in three games against the Yankees.
The T-Wolves started things off late last season when they decided to cut season ticket prices. I don't remember too much about that particular campaign, and I can't remember whether ticket prices were cut across the board, or just for new season ticket accounts. Even before that, the team has touted a season ticket up in the far reaches of the arena, that goes for about $300-some-odd a season.
And, apparently, it's worked. The Wolves, instead of losing another 10 percent of their season ticket base, have actually GAINED about 2,000 season ticket holders. Well, that helps, but for the most part still leaves the Target Center well below half-capacity.
If you have 7,000 season ticket holders (banking on the fact that they'd all show up for every game), and 3,000 unlucky fans decide to walk up to the ticket office ten minutes before the tip-off to snag a ticket, that's only 10,000 people. Which leaves the remaining 10,000 or so seats unoccupied.
Granted, the Wolves surprisingly had a decent pre-season. But, that's happened before. I remember getting so excited one year when the Wolves went 7-1 in the preseason. Hardly did anything after that, and to my recollection, didn't even win 35 games that season.
In seasons since Garnett's departure, it's felt very much like the expansion year of 1989 all over again. Only problem was, in 1989, people were so excited to have NBA basketball back in town after an almost 30-year absence, they didn't care how bad the team was.
Now, 22 years later, people do care, and they seem to be proving it by placing their allegiances elsewhere. Even Reusse commented that the one replica jersey he saw in the stands at the Target Center the other night was an Adrian Peterson Vikings jersey. But, if this Wolves team is really as good as it seems, or as Reusse postulates, then the Wolves need to get some serious marketing work done to make these lower ticket prices pay off.
If you've watched any of the pre-season games on TV, there's empty blue seats everywhere. Not like it was when Kevin Garnett was here, there wasn't an empty seat in the house.
I was reading Patrick Reusse's column in the Star Tribune today (click post title to read full article), and he believes the T-wolves need some serious marketing to go along with the new shooters that are part of a team that seems to be in a constant state of re-building.
They've done their best in the past couple years in the area of branding: re-designed jerseys, a re-designed logo (which looks awful) and a new Target Center court. They've done some new things in the ticketing department as well. Last season, according to Reusse's article, the T-wolves had an abysmal season ticket base of 5,000.
When Garnett played here, I remember it being almost impossible to get a seat in the lower seating bowl of the arena. The lower level at Target Center seats about 8,300 people (total capacity is just shy of 20,000). What's even worse, is the team expected to lose another 10 percent of that base from last season.
It may not be the team, however. People still are loving the Minnesota Wild on the other side of the river; even though the Wild's consecutive sellout streak at the Xcel Energy Center has come to an end. And, let's not forget all the hype about the Twins this year with Target Field opening and the overall excitement that was re-generated for the Twins. An excitement, only to be squashed away in three games against the Yankees.
The T-Wolves started things off late last season when they decided to cut season ticket prices. I don't remember too much about that particular campaign, and I can't remember whether ticket prices were cut across the board, or just for new season ticket accounts. Even before that, the team has touted a season ticket up in the far reaches of the arena, that goes for about $300-some-odd a season.
And, apparently, it's worked. The Wolves, instead of losing another 10 percent of their season ticket base, have actually GAINED about 2,000 season ticket holders. Well, that helps, but for the most part still leaves the Target Center well below half-capacity.
If you have 7,000 season ticket holders (banking on the fact that they'd all show up for every game), and 3,000 unlucky fans decide to walk up to the ticket office ten minutes before the tip-off to snag a ticket, that's only 10,000 people. Which leaves the remaining 10,000 or so seats unoccupied.
Granted, the Wolves surprisingly had a decent pre-season. But, that's happened before. I remember getting so excited one year when the Wolves went 7-1 in the preseason. Hardly did anything after that, and to my recollection, didn't even win 35 games that season.
In seasons since Garnett's departure, it's felt very much like the expansion year of 1989 all over again. Only problem was, in 1989, people were so excited to have NBA basketball back in town after an almost 30-year absence, they didn't care how bad the team was.
Now, 22 years later, people do care, and they seem to be proving it by placing their allegiances elsewhere. Even Reusse commented that the one replica jersey he saw in the stands at the Target Center the other night was an Adrian Peterson Vikings jersey. But, if this Wolves team is really as good as it seems, or as Reusse postulates, then the Wolves need to get some serious marketing work done to make these lower ticket prices pay off.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Standing Room Only
I decided I’d take in one more Twins game this season, and take them up on the latest ticket offering: standing-room only.
I went on Friday night, the day after the Twins unexpectedly swept the Chicago White Sox. I also went into the game thinking, ‘the Twins just swept the White Sox. Logic dictates, they’ll lose a game to the lowly Oakland A’s.’
It sounded like a fun thing to do, to have a ticket for the game and just be able to walk around our brand-new ballpark. A couple of the ushers told me that it’s very likely they could easily sell 1,400 standing-room only tickets.
I also wanted to be able to scope out different views of the stadium that I had previously not explored; predominantly out in the left field and center field area. I had started out in the main concourse before the game started. And my plan was, by the end of the game, to be as close to the main gate as possible, to promise a quick exit.
A note of caution if you decide to go the standing-room only route: avoid the main concourse. It is incredibly crowded and very noisy down there. I had my fill after about the second inning, and I went searching elsewhere. Also, with many of the standing-room locations on the main concourse, you will not be able to see the video board, as the club level overhang will block your view.
However, over between sections 101-103, you will get a much more open view of the action on the field. Of course, you’ll miss things, with people sitting in front of you and walking up and down the aisles.
The upper level was quieter, but the view isn’t incredible. One fun location was the Twins Pub, an enclosed “warming house” if you will. It’s a good place to get warm (or stay cool, depending on when you go). You get a relatively good view of the field from up there. It wasn’t a bad location.
The Twins Pub is also where the ballpark’s organist, Sue Nelson, sits.
The plaza out in right field is an OK spot to be. This is where Fox Sports Net does its pre-and post-game shows. I did catch a glimpse of Roy Smalley (and took his picture) getting ready for the broadcast. But, this is also where 85% of the people enter the ballpark. So, you’ll be pushing your way through quite a bit.
I spent a good chunk of the game up in the Batter’s Eye, which is in center field. It also is much quieter up there, as there aren’t many seats. You do get a nice view of the field and the game. Down below is another story. One level down is the big wall in center field, and you can stand back there, but you will find yourself peeking over the wall to get a glimpse of the action. Good place to pull aside and eat your hot dogs and cheese curds, but probably not to get a great view of the game.
Although I hadn’t planned it, I ended up down behind the Powerball Pavilion out in right-center field. Not a bad place to be. You’re just steps away from the exit, and you do get a very nice and surprisingly close view of the field. You will not be able to see the scoreboard from this location; however, there are LCD televisions mounted that have all the information right there.
And, making good on my plan, I actually did end up with a very quick exit from Target Field. It didn't take me more than two minutes, and I was out. Not like the Metrodome where you had to exit single-file out the revolving doors.
I am glad that the Twins added this ticket option for this year. Word to the wise, you'll feel sore by the end of the game. You might regret actually doing the standing-room only option. But for $22 (cheaper for mid-week games), it's not a bad option to get yourself into the game.
Reports are indicating that because of the Twins' great performance this year, and their road to a very good run in the playoffs, tickets could be even harder to come by next season. Especially would that be true if the Twins do in fact win the World Series.
Charley Walters from the Pioneer Press said last Sunday that season-ticket renewal is expected to be close to 100%. And, existing season-ticket holders have first dibs on buying extra tickets before everyone else.
Who knows, next season, standing-room only might be your ONLY chance to get a ticket into Target Field.
Click the title, "Standing Room Only" for pictures from the game.
I went on Friday night, the day after the Twins unexpectedly swept the Chicago White Sox. I also went into the game thinking, ‘the Twins just swept the White Sox. Logic dictates, they’ll lose a game to the lowly Oakland A’s.’
It sounded like a fun thing to do, to have a ticket for the game and just be able to walk around our brand-new ballpark. A couple of the ushers told me that it’s very likely they could easily sell 1,400 standing-room only tickets.
I also wanted to be able to scope out different views of the stadium that I had previously not explored; predominantly out in the left field and center field area. I had started out in the main concourse before the game started. And my plan was, by the end of the game, to be as close to the main gate as possible, to promise a quick exit.
A note of caution if you decide to go the standing-room only route: avoid the main concourse. It is incredibly crowded and very noisy down there. I had my fill after about the second inning, and I went searching elsewhere. Also, with many of the standing-room locations on the main concourse, you will not be able to see the video board, as the club level overhang will block your view.
However, over between sections 101-103, you will get a much more open view of the action on the field. Of course, you’ll miss things, with people sitting in front of you and walking up and down the aisles.
The upper level was quieter, but the view isn’t incredible. One fun location was the Twins Pub, an enclosed “warming house” if you will. It’s a good place to get warm (or stay cool, depending on when you go). You get a relatively good view of the field from up there. It wasn’t a bad location.
The Twins Pub is also where the ballpark’s organist, Sue Nelson, sits.
The plaza out in right field is an OK spot to be. This is where Fox Sports Net does its pre-and post-game shows. I did catch a glimpse of Roy Smalley (and took his picture) getting ready for the broadcast. But, this is also where 85% of the people enter the ballpark. So, you’ll be pushing your way through quite a bit.
I spent a good chunk of the game up in the Batter’s Eye, which is in center field. It also is much quieter up there, as there aren’t many seats. You do get a nice view of the field and the game. Down below is another story. One level down is the big wall in center field, and you can stand back there, but you will find yourself peeking over the wall to get a glimpse of the action. Good place to pull aside and eat your hot dogs and cheese curds, but probably not to get a great view of the game.
Although I hadn’t planned it, I ended up down behind the Powerball Pavilion out in right-center field. Not a bad place to be. You’re just steps away from the exit, and you do get a very nice and surprisingly close view of the field. You will not be able to see the scoreboard from this location; however, there are LCD televisions mounted that have all the information right there.
And, making good on my plan, I actually did end up with a very quick exit from Target Field. It didn't take me more than two minutes, and I was out. Not like the Metrodome where you had to exit single-file out the revolving doors.
I am glad that the Twins added this ticket option for this year. Word to the wise, you'll feel sore by the end of the game. You might regret actually doing the standing-room only option. But for $22 (cheaper for mid-week games), it's not a bad option to get yourself into the game.
Reports are indicating that because of the Twins' great performance this year, and their road to a very good run in the playoffs, tickets could be even harder to come by next season. Especially would that be true if the Twins do in fact win the World Series.
Charley Walters from the Pioneer Press said last Sunday that season-ticket renewal is expected to be close to 100%. And, existing season-ticket holders have first dibs on buying extra tickets before everyone else.
Who knows, next season, standing-room only might be your ONLY chance to get a ticket into Target Field.
Click the title, "Standing Room Only" for pictures from the game.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Twins Ticket buying strategy
Just as I did on March 1...I spent a good twenty minutes in an online "waiting room" for tickets to the rest of the Twins games this season at Target Field. Might I say, buying Twins tickets through their Web site is one of the most infuriating experiences you'll ever have.
I sat with five browsers open, each for a different weekend game. Many times I saw messages telling me the transaction activity was too high or the number of seats I was looking for was unavailable in a particular section.
After much perseverance, I finally did score tickets in the Family Section on August 1 against the Mariners.
Please note, this will be my last time purchasing tickets through the Twins Web site.
However, there are alot of other reputable sites through which to purchase Twins tickets. I'd like to share some of them with you:
http://www.ticketkingonline.com/ - a Hudson, WI-based company who guarantees their tickets. They are pricey however. Tickets for the opening game against the Boston Red Sox are taking in anywhere from $200-$400 a ticket, and that's just in the upper reaches of the stadium. Team performance can sometimes affect the going rate for tickets here, and they can substantially go down during the season.
http://www.stubhub.com/ - A ticket broker service that, if memory serves correctly, is the "official" secondary ticket supplier for Major League Baseball. Note of caution, the "fees" and other charges associated with this particular service are rather high. Buyer beware.
http://www.ebay.com/ - I think everyone knows eBay. eBay is an online auction site, and I've seen several listings for Twins tickets in the last few days. Incidentally, my tickets for the Oct. 4 game last season were purchased via a contact I made through eBay looking for tickets to another game. Of course, with eBay, the highest bid wins, and shipping charges are usually reasonable.
Of course, there's always the old-fashioned way of going to the Twins ticket office at Target Field and purchasing tickets walk-up. Games this year are in very high demand however, and I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many tickets will be available for walk-ups once the season starts.
After two successful but irritating experiences buying from the Twins Web site, I have opted to stick with eBay and a "ticket exchange" group that is being started with members of a blog site I frequent which has been tracking the construction of Target Field since the funding bill was originally passed in May, 2006.
It still promises to be a great season, and I can't wait for my first game on April 14.
I sat with five browsers open, each for a different weekend game. Many times I saw messages telling me the transaction activity was too high or the number of seats I was looking for was unavailable in a particular section.
After much perseverance, I finally did score tickets in the Family Section on August 1 against the Mariners.
Please note, this will be my last time purchasing tickets through the Twins Web site.
However, there are alot of other reputable sites through which to purchase Twins tickets. I'd like to share some of them with you:
http://www.ticketkingonline.com/ - a Hudson, WI-based company who guarantees their tickets. They are pricey however. Tickets for the opening game against the Boston Red Sox are taking in anywhere from $200-$400 a ticket, and that's just in the upper reaches of the stadium. Team performance can sometimes affect the going rate for tickets here, and they can substantially go down during the season.
http://www.stubhub.com/ - A ticket broker service that, if memory serves correctly, is the "official" secondary ticket supplier for Major League Baseball. Note of caution, the "fees" and other charges associated with this particular service are rather high. Buyer beware.
http://www.ebay.com/ - I think everyone knows eBay. eBay is an online auction site, and I've seen several listings for Twins tickets in the last few days. Incidentally, my tickets for the Oct. 4 game last season were purchased via a contact I made through eBay looking for tickets to another game. Of course, with eBay, the highest bid wins, and shipping charges are usually reasonable.
Of course, there's always the old-fashioned way of going to the Twins ticket office at Target Field and purchasing tickets walk-up. Games this year are in very high demand however, and I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many tickets will be available for walk-ups once the season starts.
After two successful but irritating experiences buying from the Twins Web site, I have opted to stick with eBay and a "ticket exchange" group that is being started with members of a blog site I frequent which has been tracking the construction of Target Field since the funding bill was originally passed in May, 2006.
It still promises to be a great season, and I can't wait for my first game on April 14.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
No More Dome Dogs ??!!??
Continuing my writings on the PR of the Minnesota Twins as they move closer towards baseball at Target Field (it won't be long now), here's an interesting one I heard today, Hormel won't be the hot dog supplier at Target Field.
According to an article in today's StarTribune (http://www.startribune.com/local/85210112.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr) Hormel is ending a corporate sponsorship with the Twins that has existed since 2001.
Personally, I had thought that Hormel might get the naming rights for the Twins' new ballpark. Hormel Field does have a nice ring to it. And, it is a local company.
If you've been to a Twins game, you see every once in a while promotional items from Hormel, stadium signage, and lest we forget the infamous "Hormel Row of Fame" in-stadium promotion where every fan in one lucky row, in a section picked at random wins a "Hormel hot dog treat," as the song goes.
With Hormel's departure, the Dome Dog will also depart from concession stands at the Dome. I have mixed feelings about that. First, the Dome Dog isn't one of those pre-cooked hot dogs that are placed in tin wrap and stuck in a warmer for three hours, making the bun soggy and the hot dog mediocre. Dome Dogs are placed on a fresh sesame seed bun (I believe the Our Family brand). Not only that, you also get a bag of chips.
While Hormel may not be the greatest hot dog on the market, I will miss the Dome Dog. Ever since its inception a few years ago, Dome Dogs are my meal of choice at the Dome, regardless of the event.
Apparently, according to the article, the parting was an "amicable" one. But, we are now left to wonder who will supply our hot dogs at the open-air Target Field in just a few short weeks. I have also read that the new concessionaire for Target Field, Delaware North SportService, specializes in hot dogs in the stadiums and arenas they service; so, maybe they'll come up with something better than the Dome Dog.
Maybe a hot dog and, cheese curds?
According to an article in today's StarTribune (http://www.startribune.com/local/85210112.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr) Hormel is ending a corporate sponsorship with the Twins that has existed since 2001.
Personally, I had thought that Hormel might get the naming rights for the Twins' new ballpark. Hormel Field does have a nice ring to it. And, it is a local company.
If you've been to a Twins game, you see every once in a while promotional items from Hormel, stadium signage, and lest we forget the infamous "Hormel Row of Fame" in-stadium promotion where every fan in one lucky row, in a section picked at random wins a "Hormel hot dog treat," as the song goes.
With Hormel's departure, the Dome Dog will also depart from concession stands at the Dome. I have mixed feelings about that. First, the Dome Dog isn't one of those pre-cooked hot dogs that are placed in tin wrap and stuck in a warmer for three hours, making the bun soggy and the hot dog mediocre. Dome Dogs are placed on a fresh sesame seed bun (I believe the Our Family brand). Not only that, you also get a bag of chips.
While Hormel may not be the greatest hot dog on the market, I will miss the Dome Dog. Ever since its inception a few years ago, Dome Dogs are my meal of choice at the Dome, regardless of the event.
Apparently, according to the article, the parting was an "amicable" one. But, we are now left to wonder who will supply our hot dogs at the open-air Target Field in just a few short weeks. I have also read that the new concessionaire for Target Field, Delaware North SportService, specializes in hot dogs in the stadiums and arenas they service; so, maybe they'll come up with something better than the Dome Dog.
Maybe a hot dog and, cheese curds?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Minnesota Twins PR Part 2 - Rebranding
In my second installment of analyzing the Minnesota Twins' PR, on the way to opening their new ballpark, I'd like to discuss their recent re-branding efforts, as they are headed into their 50th season of baseball in Minnesota.
The Twins re-branding effort does not have too many major changes. There are some small changes. The new primary logo is similar to what they have now, with the exception of the word "Minnesota Twins Baseball Club" added to it. This is a little strange to me. I think most people, especially those in Minnesota and neighboring states, understand full well that the Twins are a baseball team.
This is my opinion, but if your product is good (this applies to all business), if your company is respectable or if your company has been around for 50 years or more, you shouldn't have to tell people what it is. For instance, the big, cursive, capital G is the logo for General Mills. The logo says it all. People know the logo, they trust the products with that logo on it and they purchase products with that logo on it. General Mills' logo speaks for itself, they don't need to add to their logo "cereal company."
A good corporate brand should be able to speak for itself.
The Twins have also designed a commemorative logo to honor both their 50th season in Minnesota and their inaugural season at Target Field. Both were designed very well. The inaugural logo is maybe a tad overboard on the blue tones; but still looks nice. The colors on the 50-year logo blend very nicely together and create a sharp, distinctive image.
Lastly, there have been some more noticeable changes on the uniforms for the 2010 season. The road uniform seems to have undergone the most significant changes. It is a slightly lighter shade of grey (the Grateful Dead song is probably coming to mind right about now) than the previous road uniform that has been used since the 1987 season. The pinstripes on the road uniform are also gone. Instead of a block-letter "Minnesota" across the chest of the uniform, "Minnesota" now stands out in a very nice script logo.
The primary home uniform is virtually unchanged, but I've saved the best for last. Last season, the final season at the Dome, the Twins designed an alternate home uniform that replicated the uniforms the Twins wore the first year in the Dome in 1982. The Twins have designed another "throwback" home uniform that replicates the home uniforms worn in the 1960s at Met Stadium, when Twins fans cheered on Harmon Killebrew and Rod Carew. The color scheme, script logo and sleeve logo from the 1960s jersey is replicated in this new alternate jersey that will be worn for Saturday home games.
All in all, the Twins have done a good job in re-branding themselves for the next generation of baseball here in Minnesota. To take a look at the changes yourself, click this link: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/photogallery/year_2009/month_11/day_16/cf7673110.html
The Twins re-branding effort does not have too many major changes. There are some small changes. The new primary logo is similar to what they have now, with the exception of the word "Minnesota Twins Baseball Club" added to it. This is a little strange to me. I think most people, especially those in Minnesota and neighboring states, understand full well that the Twins are a baseball team.
This is my opinion, but if your product is good (this applies to all business), if your company is respectable or if your company has been around for 50 years or more, you shouldn't have to tell people what it is. For instance, the big, cursive, capital G is the logo for General Mills. The logo says it all. People know the logo, they trust the products with that logo on it and they purchase products with that logo on it. General Mills' logo speaks for itself, they don't need to add to their logo "cereal company."
A good corporate brand should be able to speak for itself.
The Twins have also designed a commemorative logo to honor both their 50th season in Minnesota and their inaugural season at Target Field. Both were designed very well. The inaugural logo is maybe a tad overboard on the blue tones; but still looks nice. The colors on the 50-year logo blend very nicely together and create a sharp, distinctive image.
Lastly, there have been some more noticeable changes on the uniforms for the 2010 season. The road uniform seems to have undergone the most significant changes. It is a slightly lighter shade of grey (the Grateful Dead song is probably coming to mind right about now) than the previous road uniform that has been used since the 1987 season. The pinstripes on the road uniform are also gone. Instead of a block-letter "Minnesota" across the chest of the uniform, "Minnesota" now stands out in a very nice script logo.
The primary home uniform is virtually unchanged, but I've saved the best for last. Last season, the final season at the Dome, the Twins designed an alternate home uniform that replicated the uniforms the Twins wore the first year in the Dome in 1982. The Twins have designed another "throwback" home uniform that replicates the home uniforms worn in the 1960s at Met Stadium, when Twins fans cheered on Harmon Killebrew and Rod Carew. The color scheme, script logo and sleeve logo from the 1960s jersey is replicated in this new alternate jersey that will be worn for Saturday home games.
All in all, the Twins have done a good job in re-branding themselves for the next generation of baseball here in Minnesota. To take a look at the changes yourself, click this link: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/photogallery/year_2009/month_11/day_16/cf7673110.html
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Metrodome Gets a New Name
Imagine my shock today, when I looked at my daily email from the Twin Cities Business Journal saying that the Vikings have sold the field naming rights to the Mall of America.(http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/09/28/daily47.html?ed=2009-10-01&ana=e_du_pub)
Call it what you want, the Hump, the Dump, the Humpty Dumpty...this one does take me by surprise. I know why they named the place the way they did back in 1982: after Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. But, the Dome seems to be a mediocre tribute to a famous Minnesota politician.
The article cites reasons why the Vikings did it: they are the only tenant left in the Dome as of next Monday (Oct. 5). The Gophers are gone, and the Twins will be moving into their new Target Field next April; however, the transition of the Twins offices to the new ballpark will probably take place much sooner. This deal is at least one means of making some extra revenue for the Vikings - now that they don't have 81 guaranteed nights of revenue from concessions, tickets, advertising and so forth.
The article begs the question, why would the Vikings ink a deal like this, with only a year-and-a-half left on their lease? They've been telling us for years, at the end of the 2011 season, their time is up. So, will a naming rights deal with the Mall of America really make that much of a difference?
There seems to be a catch, however. The naming deal does not expire until February 2012. According to the article, "the [Vikings] described the arrangements as a short-term rebranding effort." The fact that it is a "rebranding effort" piques my curiosity. I know that there has been some light talk as of late about a renovated Metrodome which the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (the group that operates the Dome) touts as "Metrodome Next."
So, is this to suggest that the wheels are spinning for "Metrodome Next" to come to fruition; and the naming deal with the Mall of America is an inroad to the future of the Vikings and the Metrodome? I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a "short-term rebranding effort," usually, if you re-brand something, it's should stick for more than three years. Are the Vikings suggesting that a much larger re-branding effort is in the works somewhere?
The new naming rights deal will be unveiled on Monday Oct. 5 (the day after the Twins' final home game) during the Monday Night Football (R) matchup with the Green Bay Packers.
Call it what you want, the Hump, the Dump, the Humpty Dumpty...this one does take me by surprise. I know why they named the place the way they did back in 1982: after Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. But, the Dome seems to be a mediocre tribute to a famous Minnesota politician.
The article cites reasons why the Vikings did it: they are the only tenant left in the Dome as of next Monday (Oct. 5). The Gophers are gone, and the Twins will be moving into their new Target Field next April; however, the transition of the Twins offices to the new ballpark will probably take place much sooner. This deal is at least one means of making some extra revenue for the Vikings - now that they don't have 81 guaranteed nights of revenue from concessions, tickets, advertising and so forth.
The article begs the question, why would the Vikings ink a deal like this, with only a year-and-a-half left on their lease? They've been telling us for years, at the end of the 2011 season, their time is up. So, will a naming rights deal with the Mall of America really make that much of a difference?
There seems to be a catch, however. The naming deal does not expire until February 2012. According to the article, "the [Vikings] described the arrangements as a short-term rebranding effort." The fact that it is a "rebranding effort" piques my curiosity. I know that there has been some light talk as of late about a renovated Metrodome which the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (the group that operates the Dome) touts as "Metrodome Next."
So, is this to suggest that the wheels are spinning for "Metrodome Next" to come to fruition; and the naming deal with the Mall of America is an inroad to the future of the Vikings and the Metrodome? I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a "short-term rebranding effort," usually, if you re-brand something, it's should stick for more than three years. Are the Vikings suggesting that a much larger re-branding effort is in the works somewhere?
The new naming rights deal will be unveiled on Monday Oct. 5 (the day after the Twins' final home game) during the Monday Night Football (R) matchup with the Green Bay Packers.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A&E buys Lifetime
Daily, I get emails from AdWeek about things that are going on in the world of advertising. It's one of several daily email newsletters I sort through once I'm home from work. Recently, one article caught my attention, "A&E acquires Lifetime."
I like this merger by A&E. I like A&E (Arts & Entertainment) television. I like their programming. A&E is the cable network where you can find shows such as Paranormal State (a personal favorite) and Intervention (also a personal favorite).
This merger also includes the Lifetime Movie Network, which has also produced some good, made-for-TV movies.
A&E also owns History (formerly The History Channel), which is a personal favorite cable channel in our household. According to the AdWeek article (found here: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3id9eac057de820fdc81d518e33fd20296) all three networks, A&E, Lifetime and History will remain "intact."
However, I wonder, with this merger, whether the female demographic of Lifetime will change. Lifetime has always been known as "Television for Women." With this merger, I am curious whether or not the female demographic will change.
Of course, there are other female-oriented cable channels. Women's Entertainment (We) and Oxygen! also have female-centric demographics. So, even if A&E does change the demographic a little, the type of programming for the female demographics won't disappear entirely.
I'm curious to see, when the merger is finalized (the article does not mention a specific closing date), what changes A&E will bring to Lifetime, good or bad.
Thanks for reading.
I like this merger by A&E. I like A&E (Arts & Entertainment) television. I like their programming. A&E is the cable network where you can find shows such as Paranormal State (a personal favorite) and Intervention (also a personal favorite).
This merger also includes the Lifetime Movie Network, which has also produced some good, made-for-TV movies.
A&E also owns History (formerly The History Channel), which is a personal favorite cable channel in our household. According to the AdWeek article (found here: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3id9eac057de820fdc81d518e33fd20296) all three networks, A&E, Lifetime and History will remain "intact."
However, I wonder, with this merger, whether the female demographic of Lifetime will change. Lifetime has always been known as "Television for Women." With this merger, I am curious whether or not the female demographic will change.
Of course, there are other female-oriented cable channels. Women's Entertainment (We) and Oxygen! also have female-centric demographics. So, even if A&E does change the demographic a little, the type of programming for the female demographics won't disappear entirely.
I'm curious to see, when the merger is finalized (the article does not mention a specific closing date), what changes A&E will bring to Lifetime, good or bad.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A 3rd jersey for the Minnesota Wild?
A ha, finally. an issue I love to write about: sports and corporate branding.
It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.
This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.
What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.
The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.
Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.
If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.
I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.
On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.
Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.
I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.
It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.
This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.
What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.
The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.
Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.
If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.
I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.
On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.
Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.
I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Timberwolves' Pledge
I'm sure we've all seen it by now, the TV spot featuring Glen Taylor, owner of a beleaguered Timberwolves team, sitting center-court, in a darkened Target Center, telling folks about season tickets for next year. "Season tickets as low as $5 per game" is the marketing ploy for the 2009-10 season ticket campaign.
If you have turned on a Timberwolves game lately, there have been lots of empty seats. And, it's not just four seats here, three seats there that are empty; there are entire sections of seats that are empty.
Think back 20 years, when the Timberwolves, one of the newest expansion franchises in the National Basketball Association (NBA), playing in front of very large crowds at the Metrodome. As a matter of fact, in their inaugural season of 1989-90, they set an all-time NBA season attendance record of over 1 million people.
But now, the Timberwolves are changing things up for their 2009-10 season ticket campaign. In a letter penned by Glen Taylor (and also mentioned in the TV spot), the Timberwolves have reduced prices on 95% of the seats in Target Center. I looked on the Timberwolves website, they have reduced ticket prices dramatically. Glen Taylor's letter to the fans can be found at http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/tickets/200910_Glen_Taylor_Letter.html .
Don't get too excited, however. The $5-per-game tickets are way up at the top of the arena, on the ends. And, those are season ticket prices; not single-game prices. What's more, the "Early Bird" deal, as they are calling it, lasts only until July.
This might be a bad thought, but I wonder whether or not the Timberwolves are lowering ticket prices to match the product on the court. Gone are the days of the NBA Playoffs at Target Center. Gone is our beloved Kevin Garnett, who for so many years got us to the playoffs. Now. it seems as though they're starting all over again.
Perhaps, in this bad economy, which is cited as a main reason for the ticket price reduction, that's exactly what the Timberwolves should be doing from a PR standpoint. They aren't asking for a billion dollars to build a new arena; they are trying to get their fan base back. What's more, they are trying to do that amidst a bad economy and a poor team.
Another part of this new campaign is the "no-risk pledge." This confused me at first. The pledge was, that if you lost your job, you wouldn't have to pay for the season tickets; you'd get your money back. According to the letter and the website, folks who lose their jobs will be refunded the money from the unused tickets. It's unusual, if not unprecedented in professional sports. But, I'm happy the Timberwolves have made that pledge.
In this world of billion-dollar stadiums, skyrocketing ticket prices, and the increasing luxury that is professional sports, it is refreshing to see a professional team make a PR move like this. I hope that this campaign is successful for the Timberwolves. I also hope that it will set a standard for other teams to consider; instead of always wanting more from their fans, to give a little back.
In my opinion, that is what keeps a fan base.
If you have turned on a Timberwolves game lately, there have been lots of empty seats. And, it's not just four seats here, three seats there that are empty; there are entire sections of seats that are empty.
Think back 20 years, when the Timberwolves, one of the newest expansion franchises in the National Basketball Association (NBA), playing in front of very large crowds at the Metrodome. As a matter of fact, in their inaugural season of 1989-90, they set an all-time NBA season attendance record of over 1 million people.
But now, the Timberwolves are changing things up for their 2009-10 season ticket campaign. In a letter penned by Glen Taylor (and also mentioned in the TV spot), the Timberwolves have reduced prices on 95% of the seats in Target Center. I looked on the Timberwolves website, they have reduced ticket prices dramatically. Glen Taylor's letter to the fans can be found at http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/tickets/200910_Glen_Taylor_Letter.html .
Don't get too excited, however. The $5-per-game tickets are way up at the top of the arena, on the ends. And, those are season ticket prices; not single-game prices. What's more, the "Early Bird" deal, as they are calling it, lasts only until July.
This might be a bad thought, but I wonder whether or not the Timberwolves are lowering ticket prices to match the product on the court. Gone are the days of the NBA Playoffs at Target Center. Gone is our beloved Kevin Garnett, who for so many years got us to the playoffs. Now. it seems as though they're starting all over again.
Perhaps, in this bad economy, which is cited as a main reason for the ticket price reduction, that's exactly what the Timberwolves should be doing from a PR standpoint. They aren't asking for a billion dollars to build a new arena; they are trying to get their fan base back. What's more, they are trying to do that amidst a bad economy and a poor team.
Another part of this new campaign is the "no-risk pledge." This confused me at first. The pledge was, that if you lost your job, you wouldn't have to pay for the season tickets; you'd get your money back. According to the letter and the website, folks who lose their jobs will be refunded the money from the unused tickets. It's unusual, if not unprecedented in professional sports. But, I'm happy the Timberwolves have made that pledge.
In this world of billion-dollar stadiums, skyrocketing ticket prices, and the increasing luxury that is professional sports, it is refreshing to see a professional team make a PR move like this. I hope that this campaign is successful for the Timberwolves. I also hope that it will set a standard for other teams to consider; instead of always wanting more from their fans, to give a little back.
In my opinion, that is what keeps a fan base.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)