From: mjw@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wolverton)
Subject: Re: Giants Sale Rejected 9-4
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:47:55 GMT

In article <74249@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin) writes:
>
>[Sherri Nichols writes about the Giants being a poorly marketed team]
>
>I'll disagree with this. The Giants, under current ownership, are marketed
>as a traditional baseball team. That tact works in many markets, including
>LA and Chicago.

I'm no expert in how teams are marketed across the nation, but, from
what I've seen, the Giants' marketing strategy is the complete
opposite from the Dodgers' strategy (and even the Cubs').  The Dodgers
seem to sell their games as "family fun at the ol' ballyard": their
radio sign-on song is a corny 50's-vintage "It's a Beautiful Day for a
Ballgame"; their radio guys are objective, and are constantly pitching
upcoming homestands based on the likelihood of seeing good baseball
(i.e., they'll talk about the good and exciting players on the
opponent, no matter how bad the opponent is); their promotional
giveaways are based on Dodgers tradition and history.  In short, I
think the Dodgers take pretty much the same approach as the A's.

Contrast this with the Giants' strategy, which I'd characterize as
"Death to the Opposition".  Their TV ads this year featured opposing
players being crushed by wrecking balls, etc.  Their radio
personalities, and those on their flag-ship station, are unobjective,
unknowledgeable, and (in some cases) mean-spirited.  (Though certainly
the Giants don't have total control over KNBR's talk show hosts.)
Pretty much every aspect of the marketing strategy seems to focus on
the Giants winning, rather than going out to the ballyard and seeing a
good baseball game.  The result, I think, is pretty much what you'd
expect: it works OK when the Giants are good (as if they need any help
then), and it looks pathetic when they're not ("Why do you think they
call 'em 'Giants'?" -- we're still waiting for the answer to that
question :-).

>By starting to mimic the A's, I'm not at all convinced it'll help that much,
>for the simple fact that given a choice of taking your kids to the Oakland
>Colliseum or to Candlestick (which, new marketing or not, will still be
>dirty, cold and not terribly pretty to look at), the families will still
>choose Oakland. If I had small kids,I would.

Good point.  Candlestick will never be as pleasant a place as the
Colliseum.  (Neither, I should add, will *any* outdoor ballpark built
in SF.)  I just think the Giants will get more people out to
Candlestick if they take a more positive marketing approach.  Maybe
they'll get 12,000 instead of 7,000.

>On the other hand, they've talked about playing ALL DAY GAMES except for
>Friday evenings, too. 

This is a very positive step, IMHO.  When all things are considered,
Candlestick isn't much worse than your average ballpark for day games.
I will definitely make an effort to go to some Giants games this year
if they go with this kind of a schedule.

-Michael
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton                       "Is that clear?"
mjw@cs.stanford.edu                     "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball