Signs Join Ivy at Wrigley

[redlegsfan21]

MESA, Ariz. (AP) -A sign of the times is finally sprouting at Wrigley Field: Advertising will appear among the ivy on the outfield walls.
Doors in right field and left field will sport the logo for Under Armour, a sports apparel manufacturer. The outfield signs represent a change for the storied ballpark.

"The Cubs are committed to finding alternative and creative revenue streams," team marketing and sales director Jay Blunk said in a statement.

Under Armour also will have advertising rights for signs behind home plate.

Alfonso Soriano, who signed an eight-year, $136 million deal with the Cubs in the offseason, will wear the company's batting gloves and wristbands this year.

http://sports.myway.com/news/02142007/v7272.html

[Elvis]

And so it is written in the trivia books - The 2006 Wrigley Field was the last ballpark in the history of baseball to holdout against ads on their walls.

[PeteU]

And so it is written in the trivia books - The 2006 Wrigley Field was the last ballpark in the history of baseball to holdout against ads on their walls.

I think two years ago they added those ugly rotating signs to the famed brick backstop. A pitty shame, but money talks, I guess.

[Knick9]

I think two years ago they added those ugly rotating signs to the famed brick backstop. A pitty shame, but money talks, I guess.

A slight correction to that, "Money talks too much."

Money should shut up if you ask me. :atthepc

[Knick9]

"The Cubs are committed to finding alternative and creative revenue streams," team marketing and sales director Jay Blunk said in a statement.



That is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard in my life. I swear, I get this feeling that fans need to literally tear off all these ads in the ballparks in order to ever address this issue. Sure, you'd get arrested, but...

The Cubs are going to trim off some ivy in order for people to view the stupid ads! I sure hope for you peoples' sakes that you'll fight against this advertising idea. It is by far beyond disgusting. :grouchy

[Solair Wright]

I don't like this idea at all. It's basically as equal to scribbling on a painting that was good, but now it looks horrible. I say NO to ads on Wrigley Field's ivy. It is a historic ballpark and nobody (except the idiots that decided to advertise on Wrigley's ballpark) can ruin it. At the most, I should see a Pepsi advertisement (the Pepsi logo). That's it. Nothing else. :mad: :grouchy

[PeteU]

Ads on outfield walls in and of themselves is not anything new or necessarily bastardizing the traditional baseball experience. Heck, the Green Monster used to be covered with ads until the 1940s, I think.

But with Wrigley, it just seems...different. You expect to see brick and ivy, and only brick and ivy. That whole park, until recently, has been kept nearly free of advertising. Even the Budweiser sign is painted on a neighboring rooftop and not in the stadium itself.

And as for my prior point, regarding the rotating home plate signs, I don't know why, but I just detest those things in general. It's like they push subliminal advertising into your head. You're trying to watch the game, yet something in the back of your head is telling you: "Must....drink....Tropicana...Orange Juice"

[L. Regira]

It may be a "sign" of the times but all the old ballparks I have seen in pictures seem to have been loaded with signs. Who can ever forget "The Phillies use Lifebuoy" and they still stink sign. I always found it rather nostalgic in looking at the old parks and their ads.

Lawrence R.

[RichardLillard1]

I don't care much about how many ads there are, just how painful to the eye that they are.

Ads back then used to be simple colors and if they were bright it was one color not multiple ones.

Ads of today are completely the opposite. Its like a bomb of colors went off. At what point did our society need bright abnoxious ads to get their point accross? Its like staring at a siezure.

However there is Wrigley Field.... ads don't belong on those outfield walls. They are iconic and if they are cutting the ivy to make room for them I hope Piniella throws his hat at them and scoffs at them with his cleats. I realize the place has hardly changed in nearly 70 years but why is that such a bad thing?

Can't there be one team that respects its history and the palace they play in? Oh wait, this is the same country that is bulldozing Yankee Stadium.

[redlegsfan21]

And so it is written in the trivia books - The 2006 Wrigley Field was the last ballpark in the history of baseball to holdout against ads on their walls.
I do not believe Coors Field has advertisments but I could be looking at old photos.

[Elvis]

I do not believe Coors Field has advertisments but I could be looking at old photos.

You have a good eye. Although most of Coors' walls are ad-free, the RF scoreboard wall does indeed sport ads. This is truly the end of an era. Funny how quickly things change - From 1971-1991, there were 0 ads on any outfield wall in MLB. Camden Yards opening in 1992 opened pandora's box.

[vtbub]

I miss the logos that used to be on the walls. Shea had pennants, it looked cool.

[Yanx4ever]

It's a shame to see the ivy yield to advertising.

I don't mind the ads behind home plate, but it bothers me to no end that Fox always takes them over, putting ads for their shows electronically over the one in the park. You can tell when there's a replay from a different angle near home plate, the sign appears in green screen.

[bigtime39]

They're not cutting away ivy. The ads are going to be on existing doors in the outfield walls.
Personally, I miss the old "hit it here" Maryland Lottery sign from Camden Yards outfield. That was pretty cool...

[PeteU]

Personally, I miss the old "hit it here" Maryland Lottery sign from Camden Yards outfield. That was pretty cool...

I think when it was up, the Maryland Lottery did a contest where a lucky person would win a jackpot if the target got hit on the fly, a la Ebbet's "Hit the Sign, Win a Suit" contest.

[BeatEmBucs]

They're not cutting away ivy. The ads are going to be on existing doors in the outfield walls.
Personally, I miss the old "hit it here" Maryland Lottery sign from Camden Yards outfield. That was pretty cool...

Did anybody actually "Hit it Here" when it was up?? If so did anything happen? PeteU said something about a jackpot, if that was the case how much was it??

So more advertising will adorn walls. Pretty soon, all ballparks will resemble minor league parks with wall-to-wall advertising.:ughh

[Cubsfan97]

They arent covering any ivy, trimming any ivy, there have always been 2 dorrs for equipment on the Wrigley OF walls that they are going on. Personally, I also hate the idea, but in my opinion, it could also be a LOT worse, we just get a white logo with 2 lines, and nothing else, its not like you got Bob out there selling car insurance and giving you 5 different phone numbers for stuff you dont need.

[Knick9]

Oh, but Cubsfan97, watch it get worse. This could only be the beginning. You could see visible toothpaste ads on those doors soon. I really believe Cubs fans need to act like Philly fans and boo the ads out of the ballpark. Let management know that you're not going to put up with it. If you hate an idea, then show your displeasure of it.

The fact that people put ads out there and those ads are things that you will never consider buying just make the purpose of having ads all the more useless and tasteless. Having Bob's Car Insurance isn't something I would consider giving the ballpark more character.

[RichardLillard1]

I do beleive he has a point there. If you start small then you can work up to something else.

Granted its nice that they aren't putting anything over or in place of any ivy but its also paving the way for things to come.

They are merely buttering everyone up.

[Bishop2100]

Advertisements in the stadium are a necessary evil. I've followed Cubs baseball since the advent of WGN on cable showing the "Boys of Zimmer" in the 1980's, and I've loved that Wrigley was one of the less "decorated" stadiums. That said, the Under Armour ad they're proposing for the outfield wall is actually pretty subtle (there's a picture of it in the L.A. Times last week; if I can find a link to it, I'll add it later). It's basically the Under Armour logo between the words "Under" and "Armour" in white paint on the doors leading into the outfield.

I've been to Dodger Stadium since I was a kid, and I went to Edison International Field in Anaheim a few years ago, and they were very nice. Not a lot of ads, not a lot of "buy this" or "see this" around the field to distract you. Nowadays, Dodger Stadium's outfield blue walls are lined with billboard ads but they're still understated. Anaheim Stadium, though, is an atrocity. You can't go 20 feet along the outfield without ads up and down the outfield walls, the DiamondVision screen in left field and the huge right field scoreboard, which makes the scores seem like an afterthought amidst the advertisements.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/Anaheim_640_14.html

[Elvis]

Advertisements in the stadium are a necessary evil. I've followed Cubs baseball since the advent of WGN on cable showing the "Boys of Zimmer" in the 1980's, and I've loved that Wrigley was one of the less "decorated" stadiums. That said, the Under Armour ad they're proposing for the outfield wall is actually pretty subtle (there's a picture of it in the L.A. Times last week; if I can find a link to it, I'll add it later). It's basically the Under Armour logo between the words "Under" and "Armour" in white paint on the doors leading into the outfield.

I've been to Dodger Stadium since I was a kid, and I went to Edison International Field in Anaheim a few years ago, and they were very nice. Not a lot of ads, not a lot of "buy this" or "see this" around the field to distract you. Nowadays, Dodger Stadium's outfield blue walls are lined with billboard ads but they're still understated. Anaheim Stadium, though, is an atrocity. You can't go 20 feet along the outfield without ads up and down the outfield walls, the DiamondVision screen in left field and the huge right field scoreboard, which makes the scores seem like an afterthought amidst the advertisements.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/Anaheim_640_14.html


For the record, that photo in the Times was an artists conception, not nessesarily what they will actually look like. My guess is that they will be more colorful than that "B&W" ad they featured.

[Bishop2100]

For the record, that photo in the Times was an artists conception, not nessesarily what they will actually look like. My guess is that they will be more colorful than that "B&W" ad they featured.

Thank you, King, you are correct. My apologies for not noticing that the first time I saw it. Still, though, considering how gaudy Anaheim Stadium is now, I'll hold judgment on what they have in store for Wrigley until I see it. :)

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The artist's rendition is in this (http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/la-sp-cubsign17feb17,0,6975825.story?coll=la-home-headlines)article.

Looks decent but like some said, it may simply open the floodgates.

In the "I hate... thread", I said that I don't like it when people refuse to accept the fact that baseball is a business, and make arguments like "They should keep Tiger Stadium around for it's tradition". While it would be nice to do so, it's not feasible economically, to the owner.

However, there are some things that I wish would remain sacred. The owner doesn't have to go and squeeze all the profit he can out of everything. I like to see them have some eye for tradition.

Hopefully the Cubs keep that in mind, and don't go ad-crazy.

[Knick9]

Advertisements in the stadium are a necessary evil. I've followed Cubs baseball since the advent of WGN on cable showing the "Boys of Zimmer" in the 1980's, and I've loved that Wrigley was one of the less "decorated" stadiums. That said, the Under Armour ad they're proposing for the outfield wall is actually pretty subtle (there's a picture of it in the L.A. Times last week; if I can find a link to it, I'll add it later). It's basically the Under Armour logo between the words "Under" and "Armour" in white paint on the doors leading into the outfield.

I've been to Dodger Stadium since I was a kid, and I went to Edison International Field in Anaheim a few years ago, and they were very nice. Not a lot of ads, not a lot of "buy this" or "see this" around the field to distract you. Nowadays, Dodger Stadium's outfield blue walls are lined with billboard ads but they're still understated. Anaheim Stadium, though, is an atrocity. You can't go 20 feet along the outfield without ads up and down the outfield walls, the DiamondVision screen in left field and the huge right field scoreboard, which makes the scores seem like an afterthought amidst the advertisements.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/Anaheim_640_14.html

I've heard this phrase (in bold) be tossed around for awhile now and I really believe that the phrase just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's an evil, then it is never necessary to begin with. To each his/her own, but that's just my opinion.

But anyway, I do agree with you on this. Angel Stadium is just too fake. No sense of realism there. At least with Dodger Stadium, it feels realistic, though I admit I get pretty annoyed with the ads there, too. Angel Stadium must of went bonkers especially after the 2002 championship season. Remember folks, ads don't equal more fun and entermainment, they equal an eyesore. Do the math.

I have to stress this about Wrigley Field's ad issue some more, when there is smoke, there's fire. Right now, the Under Armour ads are smoke signals, and if people; casual fans, turn out to like them, it will grow out of control and create a fire of unwanted ads. We've seen this happen all too much before with other ballparks. You don't ever associate Wrigley Field with that special ad over there in the corner, the ballpark is for the sake of looking at history and appreciating it without putting your own spin on it because you just want to, example: corporate businesses.

[Knick9]

I wonder if anybody else has an opinion about this. I'm bumping the thread.

[Bishop2100]

I've heard this phrase (in bold) be tossed around for awhile now and I really believe that the phrase just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's an evil, then it is never necessary to begin with. To each his/her own, but that's just my opinion.

Knick, what I meant about it being a necessary evil is that, like Richmond said earlier, baseball (and by extension, ballparks) is a business, first and foremost now. The owners are going to make money any way that they can and, given the choice between the evil of selling advertising space and the evil of jacking up ticket prices and concession prices, I'll take the painted wall any day. That said, I agree with the other posters on this board and I hope the owners don't make this the first step on the road to plastering billboards and gaudy signage everywhere. Subtlety's the key.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Exactly. And while I'm not just going to sit down and take it while the advertise all over the place, I think you have to have at least some understanding that it's a money-making enterprise. Things aren't always done for the sake of nostalgia (although that would certainly be nice).

[timkuda]

I would consider myself a cubs fan and I still like the team. But I have stopped going to Wrigley. The cub brass continues to look for ways to generate money but they refuse to spend it properly. I have no problem with ADs on the walls if they take that money and use it. Don't charge me $60.00 for a bleacher seat just because the Cards are in town. Make the extra money, spend it on the team, and quit raising my ticket prices! Let me know what you think!

Tim Kuda

[RBi]

I wonder if anybody else has an opinion about this. I'm bumping the thread.

Life long fan, and honestly, I couldn't care less.

[StanTheMan]

Well.... I have no problem with it, and although defnitely NOT a Cubs fan, I have been to Wrigley about a dozen times.

You have to pay for Jason Marquis' contract somehow!! :laugh

Their biggest worry(s) should be this....

Are there any Cubs fans left? After three straight WS wins from the White Sox, Red Sox (leving the Cubs alone in the incredibly futilie dept) and the hated Cardinals, haven't all the Cub fans slit their wrists?

The other thing to worry about is that Wrigley Field could fall down on top of our heads at any moment during a game.

[RBi]

Are there any Cubs fans left? After three straight WS wins from the White Sox, Red Sox (leving the Cubs alone in the incredibly futilie dept) and the hated Cardinals, haven't all the Cub fans slit their wrists?

We still outnumber the fans of the those three teams... combined. But, I am not too sure what this has to do with the topic.

[E.Banks#14]

Life long fan, and honestly, I couldn't care less.
Same here AJ. As long as they're not dying the ivy to look like a Pepsi logo or slapping ads across the scoreboard, it's not really going to bother me.

[bigtime39]

The other thing to worry about is that Wrigley Field could fall down on top of our heads at any moment during a game.

I've read stories suggesting that Wrigley needs major renovations. What's the story...and, more importantly, what's the plan?

[StanTheMan]

We still outnumber the fans of the those three teams... combined. But, I am not too sure what this has to do with the topic.

That is simply false.... and home attendance fingures cannot really tell the story, since you and the Red Sox have small ballparks. I could just cite the Cards huge attendance figures, when compared to you, Boston and the White Sox, but that's not alltogether fair.

Do you really thing Cub fans (despite having an almost nationwide cable television station for as long as most of us can remember) you out number Cardinal Nation? Visit the southern half of Illinois, Indiana, all of Arkansas, Tenessee, etc..... And the Boston Red Sox, who draw from a multi state area known as New England. Combined? And the White Sox too?

Absolutely ridiculous. It is these kind of statements that makes the rest of the baseball world laugh at you folks.

So what to do here.... lets look at ROAD attendance, which pretty much puts the teams on a relatively even playing field, and eliminates the Cardinals advantage of having a slightly bigger home ballpark. So then....

The Red Sox drew more fans ON THE ROAD last year than the Cardinals and the Cubs. The Cubs and Cardinals were virtually even, with just 8 fans difference, at 33,809 and 33,817 averages.

If you lot really have more fans, they certainly don't care to go to games, do they?

And I would argue that the Cubs have an advantage, in the fact that they have teams relatively close to them (Milwaukee, the WS and Tigers when you play them) closer than any team the Cards have. I know how Cubs fans invade Miller Park.

The Cardinals have been setting attendance records for years, while the Cubs can't sell out some games because it is "cold in April." :laugh

But, good old Cubbie Nation.... bigger than three entire fan bases LOL.

[StanTheMan]

I've read stories suggesting that Wrigley needs major renovations. What's the story...and, more importantly, what's the plan?

The Cub fans could answer that better than I could. Last I knew, pieces of concrete (some of them large enough for the City to mandate a repair prior to the next home game) were falling from the underside of the upper deck.

I for one, enjoy Wrigley Field, have been there many times.... but it will have to go someday. That said, you just should NOT take that team out of that neighborhood... and it takes a LOT for a lifelong Cardinal fan to say that!!

I would tear down Wrigley Field, have the Cubs play at the White Sox' park for ONE season ------- and REBUILD Wrigley Field exactly as it was, and exactly WHERE it is, with perhaps a few more amenities befitting a modern stadium (add a dozen more luxury boxes, something minor like that) and you have a brand new Wrigley Field to last another 100 years.

[rockin500]

I wonder if anybody else has an opinion about this. I'm bumping the thread.
I'm a season ticket holder, and frankly it doesnt bother me all that much as I'd rather have them add some advertising to the doors that are already set apart from the ivy than moving away. the cubs are at a significant disadvantage as they are not allowed a Jumbotron, which is a good source of revenue.

besides, its not like they can realistically add all that much to the outfield, considering they are a landmark and required to get approval for signicifiant changes

[rockin500]

I've read stories suggesting that Wrigley needs major renovations. What's the story...and, more importantly, what's the plan?
not anymore than fenway.

The concrete issues are at rest now and actually arent any worse than being in downtown chicago with all of their old buildings.

[StanTheMan]

not anymore than fenway.

The concrete issues are at rest now and actually arent any worse than being in downtown chicago with all of their old buildings.

Except that the buildings downtown don't charge admission, and are not there for entertainment purposes, which bring about all sorts of legal issues.