After Dismal Season, Mets' Branding Strikes Out

Posted by Anthony De Rosa on October 8, 2009 02:16 PM

Fans and foes agree: the New York Mets have been one of the past decade's most disappointing baseball teams. But the team's problems go deeper than who's starting at first base, their epic final-month collapse the past two years, or this year's spate of injuries. The Mets have a big branding problem.

The issues begin with the new stadium. The Mets aligned themselves with Citigroup. Oops! The Mets couldn't have known that Citi would soon become the poster child for unchecked corporate malfeasance. But they could have tried to replace Citi after it took the huge bailout, rather than leaving taxpayers with the impression they are paying the Mets millions for Citi's naming rights.

CitiField is, strangely, a homage to a team that doesn't even play in New York anymore: the Brooklyn Dodgers. Owner Fred Wilpon grew up a Dodgers fan, and wanted to build CitiField in the image of Ebbets Field. This works architecturally.

But they forgot to add anything to the stadium to represent the Mets. Its colors don't reflect the team's blue and orange: The wall is black, the seats are green.

The Mets seem allergic to tradition. The stadium features no homage to the great Mets teams of the past 40 years: the '69 Amazin's or the Mets of 1973, 1986 and 2000. The rotunda, which serves as the main entrance, is a homage to Jackie Robinson, who never played for the team.

The team hasn't even branded its uniforms consistently, inexplicably varying its colors instead of adopting one home and one road uniform like other classic teams. Sponsor marketing at games tend toward tacky and distracting giveaways, like the Pepsi T-Shirt Party Patrol promotion that fires shirts into the crowd between innings. Providing a minor-league feel is not an ideal way to keep fans paying $80 a ticket.

The Mets' once-sharp PR has stumbled lately, forced to admit they'd covered up injuries, and way behind on the web. Their relations with bloggers and reporters have been testy and suspicious. (Their biggest web outlet is run by Matthew Cerrone, recently hired at their SNY television network.)

These branding and fan relations missteps are not an inevitable part of major league sports. Many teams -- not just in Major League Baseball but even in the NFL -- make better use of the Internet, and cultivate a more honest dialogue to maintain fans' trust and engagement. And back when the team was riding high, the Mets were masters of their brand.

While the Mets look to the free agent market this off-season for the magic acquisition who will take them out of their rut, perhaps they should also look to their front office operations and find some new media superstars to bring some order to their brand management.

What do you think: how do the Mets compare to other major teams (across different sports and in different cities or countries) on brand management?

More about: Mets, Sports, Citigroup, Citi Field, Baseball, NFL, Pepsi

Chris says:

The black wall (with orange trim) and green seats are intentional, but ill-marketed nods to the Giants and the Polo Grounds (arguably, both, of more historical significance to the franchise), in a stadium otherwise modeled on Ebbets.

They still wear an insignia styled on the Giants' plus the blue backdrop of the Dodgers, suiting the hodgepodge of both teams' old personnel on hand at inception.

There's nothing evoking the original Metropolitans - and look at these f*****g hipsters! upload.wikimedia.org/.../NY_Metropolitans.jpg , but I digress...

The Mets are the orphan scion of Brooklyn's storied baseball history, left combing through artifacts and memories to synthesize their cultural inheritance. In their nostalgia they're taking for granted their own story. They miss their father, and we're all witnessing the temper tantrums.

October 8, 2009 03:31 PM # Reply

Ceetar says:

Actually, I disagree.  They're not that badly branded.

The facade of the front is the only thing resembling Ebbets field.  which is fine.  The rotunda is a nod to one of the most groundbreaking players in NY baseball history, and the Mets are a representation of New York baseball. They should honor the negro league teams as well.  Represent the history of NY baseball (Yankees from Baltimore, as we know)

You enter Citi Field, which is just a name, and no way should the Mets have given up that $20 million, through the Rotunda, just as the Mets entered baseball 'through' the Dodgers and the Giants.  This is almost a seperate area, because besides walking past it on the field level, you never need to be in it once you enter the stadium.

Yes, they need more Mets stuff inside ,and they're working on it.  But there is _no_ more representation of the Dodgers once you're inside/through the rotunda than their is at any other ballpark (the 42 retired number)

The seats and black wall are actually modeled after the scheme of the Mets first home.

They do still need a nod to Shea, rename a club or something.  Maybe this is one of the changes they have planned for the offseason.

The one big thing is that they don't market their fringe/non-money players enough.  Remember how the Yankees had Joba Rules shirts almost instantly?  Try to find a rookie Mets shirt.  It's gotten a lot  better lately, but you still don't see shirts like Maine, Pelfrey, Murphy (although there are some now) a lot.  I didn't see a Francoeur shirt at all and he's been around for months.  Compare the cost of printing a couple of these shirts/jerseys with the amount of people that would in fact pick them up.

October 8, 2009 05:29 PM # Reply

AnthonyD says:

Ceeter,

The problem is the stadium should have been dominated with Mets history, with the Brooklyn Dodger and New York Giants as an afterthought. Instead they've done this in reverse. They focused on the Dodgers and Giants and the actual team that plays in the stadium has it's own history being shoehorned in as an afterthought. The great 69 and 86 teams should have been the focus, not the Dodgers and Giants. I think the Dodgers and Giants should have been represented, but as a footnote to the great history of the 1962 to 2000 Mets.

October 8, 2009 08:45 PM # Reply

Oh, I agree that they have the priorities mixed up, but I don't think they've necessarily 'failed'. Also, while they have a couple of Dodgers things in there, most likely that's the extent of it, while they'll add Mets stuff for the life of the stadium.

October 8, 2009 08:53 PM # Reply

John says:

As a preface, let me say that the Mets are my team. That out of the way, I can say that this stadium build is one of the most embarrassing things that could've happened to them (and as a fan of the team, I've seen some embarrassing fucking things).

Over the last decade, we've seen, what, two-thirds of the major league teams either undergo major park renovations or build news ones entirely. And every single one of them has thrown an increasingly lame nod to baseball's "storied history" - even down to many of them calling their stadiums "fields", as if the word alone is supposed to evoke the good ol' days.

Then you have the Mets, a team who will never EVER have the enormity or presence or tradition as their crosstown rivals. The Yankees aren't the biggest team in baseball; they're one of the biggest sports franchises in the WORLD. so, anyone who's got to come up with marketing to rival that needs to think way outside the box. Building a cutesy replica of Ebbetts Field, a park where *they never played* isn't gonna do the trick.

I think this was a massive opportunity for the Mets to break away from the storied history of baseball, and build something that represented the *future* of the sport. And they even had the most obvious people in the world right in front of their faces... remember how everyone marveled at the stadium architecture for the Beijing Olympics?? I'm no architecture nerd, but a quick google just now led me to Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. surely someone in the organization should've thought of this?? well, they didn't, and I think the Mets just blew their biggest chance at becoming anything other than New York baseball's "other team."

October 9, 2009 03:09 AM # Reply

I'm more familiar with the Philadelphia Phillies. Not only are they are superior team on the field, with better management, but they do take care of their brand image. It is consistent throughout beautiful Citizens Bank Park, which links strongly with the team's 126 year history. Especially after enjoying the World Series celebration, fans feel like part of the Phillies family. They are a good example of what the Mets should strive to achieve.

October 13, 2009 05:46 PM # Reply

payday loans says:

Just try to smile for about 2-3 mins then you can get back to work

November 26, 2009 05:45 PM # Reply