PDA

View Full Version : Baseball decides to scrap Spiderman promtion


MRKARNO
05-06-2004, 06:59 PM
No link yet as it's "breaking news." Thank God the MLB decided to take a step to save baseball from more overcommercialization.

cheeses_h_rice
05-06-2004, 07:00 PM
How soon before Dubya accuses Selig of "flip-flopping"?

But seriously, I am glad MLB has decided to change its mind. A line has to be drawn, and the Spiderman 2 promotion crossed it, IMO.

MarqSox
05-06-2004, 07:05 PM
WOOHOO!! This is great news.

JohnJeter
05-06-2004, 07:10 PM
Right, baseball has never had ads promoting alcohol and tobacco use on billboards plastered all over outfield walls. Baseball has never glamorized a womanizing, overindulgent party-boy (and I do like the Babe), baseball has never offered itself as an advertising medium, baseball wasn't originally built on a bunch of guys who'd regularly be in bar fights if it were not for the nascent "sport as business", etc.

Preserve the integrity of the game! Uh huh. Save the children!

MarqSox
05-06-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by JohnJeter
Right, baseball has never had ads promoting alcohol and tobacco use on billboards plastered all over outfield walls. Baseball has never glamorized a womanizing, overindulgent party-boy (and I do like the Babe), baseball has never offered itself as an advertising medium, baseball wasn't originally built on a bunch of guys who'd regularly be in bar fights if it were not for the nascent "sport as business", etc.

Preserve the integrity of the game! Uh huh. Save the children!
What does all that have to do with not wanting a movie poster on second base?

Palehose13
05-06-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by JohnJeter
Right, baseball has never had ads promoting alcohol and tobacco use on billboards plastered all over outfield walls. Baseball has never glamorized a womanizing, overindulgent party-boy (and I do like the Babe), baseball has never offered itself as an advertising medium, baseball wasn't originally built on a bunch of guys who'd regularly be in bar fights if it were not for the nascent "sport as business", etc.

Preserve the integrity of the game! Uh huh. Save the children!

I understand that advertising is part of the game, but on the bases?!?!?!?! No way. You have to draw a line somewhere.

MarqSox
05-06-2004, 07:20 PM
Here's the link confirming it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1796765

Nard
05-06-2004, 07:27 PM
One man even started an online petition to oppose the "Spider-Man 2" logos on the bases "as well as all other 'in field of play' advertisements." As of 7 p.m. Thursday, more than 250 people had signed it.

Whoa look out Bud!!!

But honestly, I think it's pretty interesting that they actually stopped the promotion as an immediate reaction to fans' dissapproval.

ShoelessFred
05-06-2004, 07:30 PM
i myself didn't see a problem with the ads. also i thought that either way, if it happened or it didn't, SPIDERMAN 2 was getting a boatload of publicity. now that it's not gonna happen, they got it for free.

ChiWhiteSox1337
05-06-2004, 07:42 PM
Yeah. I'm pretty sure Sony/Colombia pictures are happy with all of the free publicity they got. It doesn't matter if the logo is on the base, the movie is going to be probably the top grossing film of the summer.

fhqwhgads
05-06-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
the movie is going to be probably the top grossing film of the summer.

I think not. It would have to beat this movie (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/main/homepage/home.html), which it won't.

Daver
05-06-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Yeah. I'm pretty sure Sony/Colombia pictures are happy with all of the free publicity they got.

What makes you so sure it was free?

MeanFish
05-06-2004, 08:06 PM
If major league baseball wants to start getting kids attention again, they need to stop focusing on dollars and drugs. Kids are looking for sports, mlb is giving them an live episode of Miami Vice.

They need to focus on the baseball side of baseball again.

ChiWhiteSox1337
05-06-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What makes you so sure it was free?
Well, it got additional publicity for free because it was talked about on channels such as ESPN and it generated a 5 page thread on this forum. I don't think Sony/Columbia Pictures paid ESPN or WSI, only the MLB for the league wide promotion. Are they paying you under the table or something? :)

edit: I forgot all about the harry potter movie coming out. Harry potter coming out during the summer when all the kiddies are out school is a pretty scary thought for movie goers.

ScottyTheSoxFan
05-06-2004, 08:41 PM
good!

batmanZoSo
05-06-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by ShoelessFred
i myself didn't see a problem with the ads. also i thought that either way, if it happened or it didn't, SPIDERMAN 2 was getting a boatload of publicity. now that it's not gonna happen, they got it for free.

I wouldn't put it past MLB to have charged Sony a handsome price just to make this issue public and generate controversy. You make a good point that they already got a ton of press already and the deal didn't even go through. :smile:

Dadawg_77
05-06-2004, 09:29 PM
MLB is still getting paid, the only which is changing is the logo won't be on the bases. They will still have the give aways and such.

KruseControl04
05-07-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I wouldn't put it past MLB to have charged Sony a handsome price just to make this issue public and generate controversy. You make a good point that they already got a ton of press already and the deal didn't even go through. :smile:

Yeah, and they're also going to keep the adds on the on deck circle also, which I don't really agree with. But I am very pleased that the MLB decided to take the adds off the bases.

daveeym
05-07-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
I think not. It would have to beat this movie (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/main/homepage/home.html), which it won't.

Man Ron Weasley doesn't look like he's aging well at all.

ewokpelts
05-07-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
I think not. It would have to beat this movie (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/main/homepage/home.html), which it won't.

Yeah....but Harry POtter 2 grossed LESS than Harry POtter 1. Spider-Man 1 grossed MORE than Harry Potter 1(by about 100 million). Hell , if Spider-Man 2 grosses 75% of #1's final gross, it'l still make more than Harry 2. The rule of movie grosses is that #3 usually grosses about %50 of #1. There are exceptions(Star Wars vs. Return of the Jedi, LOTR 1 vs. LOTR 3), but let's look at the Matrix trilogy.
Matrix 1: 175 mil
Matrix 2: 289 mil
Matrix 3: 125 mil
3 may have only grossed 50 mil less than 1, but when you factor a 164 million drop from 2-3, that's brutal. My money's on Spider-Man 2 over Harry Potter.
Gene

fhqwhgads
05-07-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
Yeah....but Harry POtter 2 grossed LESS than Harry POtter 1...

One thing that you are forgetting: HP 1 and 2 were both holiday season releases. This is the first summer release, which should be worth more bucks. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

ewokpelts
05-07-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
One thing that you are forgetting: HP 1 and 2 were both holiday season releases. This is the first summer release, which should be worth more bucks. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

But with a summer release means more COMPETITION...namely mr wall crawler himself. In 2002, Harry's box office mojo was beaten up when mr bond showed up 2 weeks later. But I have a feeling that Passion may still be the year's box office champ.
Gene

Railsplitter
05-07-2004, 01:52 PM
MLB could have just as easily said nothing until June 11 and left the TV announcers to explain things. Did they really expect somebody to go to a ball game because of an ad?

Also, to expand on what JohnJeter said, Ddin't I see Ohio Lottery billboards at the Jake and GABP last year?