Posts: 11,808
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83142:date=Mar 17 2010, 06:25 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Butch, our differing opinions on the actual timeframe it would take for something like this to be feasible really makes no difference, your idea is just a bad one. It's pretty simple, in practicality, functionality, and implementation; a videoscreen is an infinitely better idea. A stadium full of dipshits sitting on their phones is pretty much the last thing that ever needs to happen. There's already too many people sitting on their phones at Wrigley, and in the world in general. Do we really need a whole stadium of people with their heads buried in their lap watching a 3 inch screen? I just don't see one redeemable quality about the idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine -- we disagree.
I prefer the phone idea because <b>it leaves the choice to the individual.</b> That's the redeemable quality. You can be a douche and look at your phone during the game if you choose to, or you can watch the game on the field.
With a Jumbotron, you don't have a choice. It's just blasting away all game long. You can argue that you can choose to look away, but it isn't all that easy to look away from a gigantic, glowing rectangle right in your field of vision. I find the Jumbotron incredibly distracting.
And...by the way -- it isn't "my idea." It's something that was presented by the Ricketts family not long after buying the team.
If it were up to me, it would just be the field -- no distractions. No Jumbotron. And there would be a block on mobile devices altogether. I just find the mobile device option the lesser of two evils.
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83117:date=Mar 17 2010, 05:01 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83105:date=Mar 17 2010, 03:01 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 17 2010, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83103:date=Mar 17 2010, 02:55 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The first smart phone was created in 1992...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you consider a smartphone?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something Blackberry-esque. Actually, when I looked it up to see when the first one was made, I was surprised to see that it was that long ago. I thought it was gonna be like 10 years, which would have been sufficient for my point, but it was 18 years making my point even more valid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember when you once laughed at the smartphone revolution.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83144:date=Mar 17 2010, 06:36 PM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Mar 17 2010, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83117:date=Mar 17 2010, 05:01 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83105:date=Mar 17 2010, 03:01 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 17 2010, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83103:date=Mar 17 2010, 02:55 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The first smart phone was created in 1992...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you consider a smartphone?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something Blackberry-esque. Actually, when I looked it up to see when the first one was made, I was surprised to see that it was that long ago. I thought it was gonna be like 10 years, which would have been sufficient for my point, but it was 18 years making my point even more valid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember when you once laughed at the smartphone revolution.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep. I love my Blackberry now though.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83143:date=Mar 17 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Mar 17 2010, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83142:date=Mar 17 2010, 06:25 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 17 2010, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Butch, our differing opinions on the actual timeframe it would take for something like this to be feasible really makes no difference, your idea is just a bad one. It's pretty simple, in practicality, functionality, and implementation; a videoscreen is an infinitely better idea. A stadium full of dipshits sitting on their phones is pretty much the last thing that ever needs to happen. There's already too many people sitting on their phones at Wrigley, and in the world in general. Do we really need a whole stadium of people with their heads buried in their lap watching a 3 inch screen? I just don't see one redeemable quality about the idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine -- we disagree.
I prefer the phone idea because <b>it leaves the choice to the individual.</b> That's the redeemable quality. You can be a douche and look at your phone during the game if you choose to, or you can watch the game on the field.
With a Jumbotron, you don't have a choice. It's just blasting away all game long. You can argue that you can choose to look away, but it isn't all that easy to look away from a gigantic, glowing rectangle right in your field of vision. I find the Jumbotron incredibly distracting.
And...by the way -- it isn't "my idea." It's something that was presented by the Ricketts family not long after buying the team.
If it were up to me, it would just be the field -- no distractions. No Jumbotron. And there would be a block on mobile devices altogether. I just find the mobile device option the lesser of two evils.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, now that you put it that way, it's still a dumb idea.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Well, now more info is coming out. Toyota wants to sponsor the area above Left Field Bleachers. Deal could be announced tomorrow.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_chc
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->MESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs are close to finalizing an agreement with Toyota in which the logo for the Japanese carmaker would be erected behind the left-field bleachers at Wrigley Field.
The multi-year deal could be completed by Thursday, according to Wally Hayward, the Cubs' chief sales and marketing officer.
Hayward said Wednesday the emphasis was on finding an ad that blended with the aesthetic of Wrigley.
"This was more about putting a corporate sponsor inside the ballpark for us to generate revenue for the team and the facility and do it tastefully," Hayward said. "Putting up a big standard board that you would see at other ballparks or on the Kennedy [Expressway] would not be right. I'm a Cubs fan and I want to preserve the historic nature of our ballpark -- but we still have to generate revenue. We felt this was the best way to incorporate a brand into the facility."
The proposed sign would be backlit and show Toyota's red logo above the carmaker's name. Because Wrigley Field has landmark status, the 360-square foot sign, which will rise 38 feet above the bleachers, would need the approval of the city of Chicago.
<b>"Home runs can go through the Toyota 'O,'" Hayward said.</b>
The left-center field area is the only place in the bleachers that the Cubs can add a billboard without blocking the view from the rooftops. The team has a long-term revenue sharing agreement with the rooftop owners.
The proposed Toyota sign, however, will partially block an ad on the building of a roof across Waveland Avenue, which is visible to fans and during television broadcasts. The Cubs do not receive any revenue from that ad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83158:date=Mar 17 2010, 11:16 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Mar 17 2010, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, now more info is coming out. Toyota wants to sponsor the area above Left Field Bleachers. Deal could be announced tomorrow.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_chc
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->MESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs are close to finalizing an agreement with Toyota in which the logo for the Japanese carmaker would be erected behind the left-field bleachers at Wrigley Field.
The multi-year deal could be completed by Thursday, according to Wally Hayward, the Cubs' chief sales and marketing officer.
Hayward said Wednesday the emphasis was on finding an ad that blended with the aesthetic of Wrigley.
"This was more about putting a corporate sponsor inside the ballpark for us to generate revenue for the team and the facility and do it tastefully," Hayward said. "Putting up a big standard board that you would see at other ballparks or on the Kennedy [Expressway] would not be right. I'm a Cubs fan and I want to preserve the historic nature of our ballpark -- but we still have to generate revenue. We felt this was the best way to incorporate a brand into the facility."
The proposed sign would be backlit and show Toyota's red logo above the carmaker's name. Because Wrigley Field has landmark status, the 360-square foot sign, which will rise 38 feet above the bleachers, would need the approval of the city of Chicago.
<b>"Home runs can go through the Toyota 'O,'" Hayward said.</b>
The left-center field area is the only place in the bleachers that the Cubs can add a billboard without blocking the view from the rooftops. The team has a long-term revenue sharing agreement with the rooftop owners.
The proposed Toyota sign, however, will partially block an ad on the building of a roof across Waveland Avenue, which is visible to fans and during television broadcasts. The Cubs do not receive any revenue from that ad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTF
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Well, if that goes through I guess we won't be getting a jumbotron on the Horeshoe Casino building anytime soon. Congrats Butcher.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83166:date=Mar 18 2010, 08:06 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Mar 18 2010, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, if that goes through I guess we won't be getting a jumbotron on the Horeshoe Casino building anytime soon. Congrats Butcher.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, the space taken up by the billboard could be converted into a video screen. If there's not a video screen at Wrigley in the next 5 years, I'll be very surprised.
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
Im totally for more corporate sponsorship since all profits are suppose to go back to the team now and not in the owners' pockets.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Ditto. Now, Toyota would not have been my preferred sponsor for such a prominent spot, but we've have several other prominent sponsors taking up significant real estate in and around the ballpark in the past, ie Sears, Torco, Budweiser, CBOE, and none of them altered the environment in a negative way.
Whatever gooses payroll is fine by me as long as it is done tastefully.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
My problem with this is that it's not a jumbotron and it sounds like a long-term agreement. I'd prefer Toyota be the primary, anchor sponsor <i>OF</i> a jumbotron. This could lock that out for years...a big-ass logo is not preferable to something with a functional purpose, in my view.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83181:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:41 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 18 2010, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My problem with this is that it's not a jumbotron and it sounds like a long-term agreement. I'd prefer Toyota be the primary, anchor sponsor <i>OF</i> a jumbotron. This could lock that out for years...a big-ass logo is not preferable to something with a functional purpose, in my view.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, what is to say that the agreement could't be expanded at some point to install a screen on that very spot? No reason why they can't renegotiate down the road when the landmark committee douchebags give the ok.
Posts: 11,808
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
As long as profits go towards improving the team, as promised, I'm 100% OK with sponsorship. If the money was right, they could stick logos all over the uniforms like Nascar drivers.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=83185:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:49 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Mar 18 2010, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83181:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:41 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 18 2010, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My problem with this is that it's not a jumbotron and it sounds like a long-term agreement. I'd prefer Toyota be the primary, anchor sponsor <i>OF</i> a jumbotron. This could lock that out for years...a big-ass logo is not preferable to something with a functional purpose, in my view.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, what is to say that the agreement could't be expanded at some point to install a screen on that very spot? No reason why they can't renegotiate down the road when the landmark committee douchebags give the ok.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope that's exactly the case. In fact, I'd be fucking delighted if the understanding with Toyota was 'Hey, we're going to do everything we can to buy the Horseshoe building, knock it down, build (whatever...more club offices...I don't care) and put a jumbotron on top of it. And when we do, you have sponsorship of that and we'll take the left field logo down.'
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
For what it's worth, a jumbotron is not only necessary, it's way way overdue. This is the 21st century for the love of Christ. I'm so tired of this team clinging to a past that was never ever kind to it in the first place. we're so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to technology and advertising. It's time to part with the losing tadition and and embrace a new future, one that includes things like jumbotrons, urinals, spacious clubhouses, parking lots, and......winning championships.
I not only welcome the idea of a jumbotron, I embrace it. It's time we modernized. In fact, I would've been happy with the complete destruction of Wrigley and a newer more modern replica in it's place. I'm a Cub fan, not a Wrigley fan, though I do love wrigley for what it is.
Wang.
|
