Statement from Tim Mead on Mike Trout

[Jeff Fletcher]

43 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

So by not interested in cooperating, I’m guessing this means declining to participate in the WBC and Home Run Derby?

I’m sure those are part of it. 

The discussion about the “fame” of an athlete really means making people who aren’t fans of the sport aware of him. That’s what requires doing commercials and late night shows and that kind of thing. MLB can reach MLB fans and show them a ton of Mike Trout’s face, which is what some of you are talking about. I think MLb does plenty of that. But Aunt Jenny who doesnt watch baseball still won’t know who he is. 

Tom Brady has hosted SNL. LeBron and Brady have been in a movies. 

[Pujols4MVP]

If Trout pulls a Tavares & signs with the Phillies they'll be marketing Trout in everything possible, hell they'll even name a star in space after him.

[Dick B Back]

48 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I’m sure those are part of it. 

The discussion about the “fame” of an athlete really means making people who aren’t fans of the sport aware of him. That’s what requires doing commercials and late night shows and that kind of thing. MLB can reach MLB fans and show them a ton of Mike Trout’s face, which is what some of you are talking about. I think MLb does plenty of that. But Aunt Jenny who doesnt watch baseball still won’t know who he is. 

Tom Brady has hosted SNL. LeBron and Brady have been in a movies. 

Got it, thanks Jeff.

I worked for a top five international marketing company for a few years, so I’m just wondering why MLB would care about Aunt Jenny knowing Mike Trout is the LaBron of MLB if she’s still not going to buy a ticket, catch the game on the tube, but a hat, buy the sports drink Trout pitches on a commercial, or turn on SNL cause the face of MLB is the host.

The easiest Player to market to non-baseball fans would be Verlander cause of his wife but I don’t think he’s sexy enough.

[Pujols4MVP]

1 hour ago, Dick B Back said:

Got it, thanks Jeff.

I worked for a top five international marketing company for a few years, so I’m just wondering why MLB would care about Aunt Jenny knowing Mike Trout is the LaBron of MLB if she’s still not going to buy a ticket, catch the game on the tube, but a hat, buy the sports drink Trout pitches on a commercial, or turn on SNL cause the face of MLB is the host.

The easiest Player to market to non-baseball fans would be Verlander cause of his wife but I don’t think he’s sexy enough.

More Kate Upton being involved with MLB would be a plus for all teams.

[failos]

I like the cut of Trout's jib. He's bringing integrity/humility back to professional sports. 

 

Sometimes I think Trout was born in the wrong generation. 

[Lou]

4 hours ago, yk9001 said:

Trout could help himself a little by participating in a HR derby, or World baseball classic.

which players have seen a bump in their popularity as a result of participation in the WBC?

[yk9001]

20 minutes ago, Lou said:

which players have seen a bump in their popularity as a result of participation in the WBC?

I would hazard a guess that Judge last year and Harper this year moved the needle on the general sports fandom.

[Lou]

Just now, yk9001 said:

I would hazard a guess that Judge last year and Harper this year moved the needle on the general sports fandom.

they played in the WBC?

[Lou]

31 minutes ago, bojangels said:

I like the cut of Trout's jib.

[m0nkey]

Don't know if it's been posted, but this is also awesome:

 

[Blarg]

14 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Manfred’s point was you can’t fully market a player who isn’t interested in cooperating. 

That isn't what is happening. MLB is notoriously behind the other leagues in making the brand high visibility. 

A simple example is radio. ESPN spends almost all of their talk time on Football, College or NFL, year round. Year round and yet baseball gets only some attention during spring training, the All Star Game, a couple minutes on the trade deadline then a little about the playoffs and World Series but that is always overshadowed by football. 

You want to raise the profile start by getting your message out there rather than passively expecting on a local level the ball clubs will promote themselves. MLB Channel is a start but football is eating their lunch in so many other mediums. That's a commissioners office responsibility, not a player participation roadblock. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

Got it, thanks Jeff.

I worked for a top five international marketing company for a few years, so I’m just wondering why MLB would care about Aunt Jenny knowing Mike Trout is the LaBron of MLB if she’s still not going to buy a ticket, catch the game on the tube, but a hat, buy the sports drink Trout pitches on a commercial, or turn on SNL cause the face of MLB is the host.

I agree with you 100 percent. I don’t think it matters, which is why I think the whole discussion about Trout’s Q Rating is ridiculous. I think baseball fans just have their feelings hurt when they read that some random NBA player is more “famous” than Trout.

I think a player’s fame outside fans of that sport only benefits the player’s individual bank account, not the sport in general. So if Mike Trout doesn’t want any more money or fame, that should be OK with everyone, including MLB.

I also think MLB knows that you can’t make non-baseball fans into baseball fans by selling one player. One player just doesn’t do enough in a single game to be worth buying a ticket or tuning in solely to see him. You have to like baseball, not just think Mike Trout is cool. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

That isn't what is happening. MLB is notoriously behind the other leagues in making the brand high visibility. 

A simple example is radio. ESPN spends almost all of their talk time on Football, College or NFL, year round. Year round and yet baseball gets only some attention during spring training, the All Star Game, a couple minutes on the trade deadline then a little about the playoffs and World Series but that is always overshadowed by football. 

You want to raise the profile start by getting your message out there rather than passively expecting on a local level the ball clubs will promote themselves. MLB Channel is a start but football is eating their lunch in so many other mediums. That's a commissioners office responsibility, not a player participation roadblock. 

I’ll agree with this, but say that MLB needs to make people like the sport, not a few players. 

[Lou]

8 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Don't know if it's been posted, but this is also awesome:

 

How on earth can anyone expect MLB to market this guy?

 

[Lou]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

ESPN spends almost all of their talk time on Football, College . . . 

that's because CFB  kicks ass

[failos]

28 minutes ago, Loux said:

jerk

[failos]

edit: nvm

Edited July 20, 2018 by bojangels

[ten ocho recon scout]

Lets be real. If the Angels had actually been good the last few years, a lot of this would be moot.

We will never have the hype machine teams like new york, boston, the dodgers etc. That said, griffey was up there with jordan in the 90s. SF doesnt have the media pull of NY or LA, but Bonds was known everywhere. So was McGwire with Oakland and the Cards.

Obviously there are differences with all 3 of those examples. But its more than one thing. 

Manfred is correct in some ways. Trout himself doesn't want to do q lot of marketing, so hes part of the reason (blame is the wrong word). 

But at the end of the day, who cares.

 

[Lou]

for the record, i don't give a rat's ass about it, but Manfred should have kept his pie hole shut instead of putting this on Trout.

 

[Tank]

3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Lets be real. If the Angels had actually been good the last few years, a lot of this would be moot.

We will never have the hype machine teams like new york, boston, the dodgers etc. That said, griffey was up there with jordan in the 90s. SF doesnt have the media pull of NY or LA, but Bonds was known everywhere. So was McGwire with Oakland and the Cards.

Obviously there are differences with all 3 of those examples. But its more than one thing. 

Manfred is correct in some ways. Trout himself doesn't want to do q lot of marketing, so hes part of the reason (blame is the wrong word). 

But at the end of the day, who cares.

i think a lot of the hype some players receive is due to entities like espn. they have a tendency to highlight certain players in certain sports - griffey jr., jordan, kobe, shaq, lebron, Tiger, brady, judge, harper, etc. Those guys were/are always visible on espn, and espn is a network that probably every cable and satellite subscriber has. the same can't be said for MLB channel, or the NHL network, or the Golf Channel. 

i think we can all agree that MLB could do a better job of marketing itself. The NBA and NFL have done a lot more nationally than baseball has in this dept.

As for Trout, I saw an ad for a baseball video game last night, and it was all about him. I still think he should do an endorsement deal with Jersey Mike's.

[tdawg87]

12 minutes ago, Tank said:

i think a lot of the hype some players receive is due to entities like espn. they have a tendency to highlight certain players in certain sports - griffey jr., jordan, kobe, shaq, lebron, Tiger, brady, judge, harper, etc. Those guys were/are always visible on espn, and espn is a network that probably every cable and satellite subscriber has. the same can't be said for MLB channel, or the NHL network, or the Golf Channel. 

i think we can all agree that MLB could do a better job of marketing itself. The NBA and NFL have done a lot more nationally than baseball has in this dept.

As for Trout, I saw an ad for a baseball video game last night, and it was all about him. I still think he should do an endorsement deal with Jersey Mike's.

To be fair, ESPN is all over Trout's balls. But people don't like it because he doesn't play for NY or Boston. Also they don't understand anything other than muh ribbies. Muh batting average.

[Dick B Back]

46 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I agree with you 100 percent. I don’t think it matters, which is why I think the whole discussion about Trout’s Q Rating is ridiculous. I think baseball fans just have their feelings hurt when they read that some random NBA player is more “famous” than Trout.

I think a player’s fame outside fans of that sport only benefits the player’s individual bank account, not the sport in general. So if Mike Trout doesn’t want any more money or fame, that should be OK with everyone, including MLB.

I also think MLB knows that you can’t make non-baseball fans into baseball fans by selling one player. One player just doesn’t do enough in a single game to be worth buying a ticket or tuning in solely to see him. You have to like baseball, not just think Mike Trout is cool. 

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate your take on this stuff.

[Dick B Back]

49 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

Don't know if it's been posted, but this is also awesome:

 

 

[yk9001]

I heard Eddie interviewed the other day.  He wasn't even going to publish this stuff (note when Trout was in Baltimore) but heard about the Trout/Manfred stuff and wanted it to get out.

 

The pictures are priceless.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Another reality is that trout isnt "the celebrity" type. Small town kid, great at a sport that doesnt have the mass appeal of basketball, and after the season, stays out of the spotlight by doing small town guy things.

In todays society, as stupid as it is, your job is only one aspect. (In terms of celebrity). To really become a household name, you have to be attached to some other trendy junk. Pal around with other celebrities. Get in to tweet wars with some other celebrity. Date some other celebrity. Etc etc.

Its stupid, but its true. 

This is why i doubt trout cares to be a "celbrity". Like cj wilson mentioned, a lot of guys avoid the media and fans because someone will eventually take issue with some "thing" you say or do. 

Even if baseball marketed him better, its society that doesnt so much make a big deal about "normal" athletes anymore.