Ballgame, Inc.

Derek Zumsteg

Two weeks ago I wrote about what the trend towards mega-corporate ownership of baseball teams could mean for teams. This week, what it means for you and me, the fans.

Corporate sponsorships and promotions are going to increase. It's difficult to imagine how this could happen, given that even the first pitch is sponsored, but I think this is going to get much, much more pervasive. After all, these huge corporations are going to put people on the job of turning more money out of their franchises any way they can, and their jobs will depend on how many they come up with.

Ground outs will be sponsored by garden tools. Sacrifice flies will be brought to you by noble bank tellers trying to give you free checking. Those annoying musical cues will come with a spinning CDnow logo.

Beyond that, though, I think the companies will enter into broader alliances. I see companies trading other companies blocks of season tickets as part of sponsorship deals like radio stations give comp ads for furniture, to the point where a huge percentage of seats in these parks are going to be owned by suits who don't go to games that often. Getting really good seats will be like going to Disneyland: you could pay the gate price, or you could see if your company has a deal going, or your frequent flier plan, or your credit card company -- anything to get that 'in' to the corporate seats.

This means games will get quieter. Not only are suits less interested in the game than fans, but they've got contacts to chat up, contracts to talk about, dirty jokes to share over expensed beers. The Wave will die an silent death in the horseshoe of great seats. I'll be happy, but that'll break a lot of kids' hearts (to which I say: screw 'em. Sooner they get used to it, the better).

So when Fox decides to squeeze money out of the Dodgers we're going to see them try and trade seats for services and sell off naming rights to everything imaginable. You saw that coming.

What'll be interesting is how clubs seek to distinguish themselves. Few teams reflect their homes -- except the Yankees, who are a bunch of spoiled, coddled thugs, just like their fans -- but when media companies own the teams, there's going to be an interesting dynamic at work, because media companies need the story, and there's no easier story than the home-town kid. I think that while some teams are going to coddle the fan favorites, some will go to great lengths to get name players who are locally-grown and might increase interest and thus the gate.

Every media-owned team is going to want the cross-over hit, a collection of good-looking winners that become America's team. How they go about that is going to reflect their saavy: some will go the way of the Diamondbacks, buying gritty name veterans that play hard, shave, and get regular haircuts (except Randy), while some will go for the diverse melting-pot, others the bad-boy gang.

Since assembling a marketable team will be just as important to the media companies as winning, they'll likely find a marketable image and work to fit it, with PR money and real shifts in organization philosophy. Most likely the image will have to be somewhat palatable, because they're not going to want to alienate anyone (unless that's part of the image), but the teams owned by the most faceless media conglomerates may actually develop the most distinct styles of play and personalities.

I'm also looking forward to seeing what the marketing gurus do with the actual game experience, at home and at the park. If a club like the Mets sets itself up as a historical throwback, it's probably going to have to cut out clipping the first pitch of each half-inning, and other clubs may experiment with different ad styles, doing the Bloomberg split-screen style breaks or even just running a corner ad constantly, a la World Cup coverage.

We'll get to see actual styles of baseball broadcasting, the classic Vin Scully versus the opposing team's color commentary by MTV Real World cast members ("So, like, I was feeling really bummed when Gold Glove award-winning shortstop Rey Ordonez came up, right?"). Just as they compete for broadcast ratings, I can see Disney, TBS, and Fox go at it over baseball share. Increased choice is a victory for us at home.

This competition will extend to the ballpark, too. An upscale team run for pure profit may be a price gouger, but what happens when the Twins, a working-class kind of club in a cheap stadium, are bought out by NPR? Cheap, pledge-driven attendence, with decent food at reasonable, communist-era prices? Sell outs make for great background noise, too. I think the trend towards media-owned ballclubs is going to drive cable-style distinctiveness in the ballpark experience as well as on the field and on the air.

Considered as a whole, I think media conglomerates owning baseball teams is a good thing. It hopefully means more games on the tee-vee, which is good for the sport, and it's certainly going to shake things up for a while. I look forward to seeing the results.

about the author

Derek Zumsteg is hoping to see Madonna purchase a team, if only for the potential uniform designs. Argue that maybe sequinned skorts aren't the most durable in a game situation at dmz@strikethree.com.