PDA

View Full Version : The Power Of Tradition



Ron Madden
10-25-2006, 06:51 AM
The Power Of Tradition.

A catchy slogan that brings back all of the best memories of yester-year.

Because I'm a Die Hard Reds Fan I love the idea of remembering the Glory Days.

Because I'm a Die Hard Reds Fan I'd much rather see this Franchise focus on future success instead of dwelling in the past.

I'll always have my memories.

MLB of 2006 is almost a different game than it was in 1976.

I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to feel that joy and have those memories they can call thier own.

Am I right or wrong for feeling this way? Or am I just feeling this way cause I have a belly full of beer? ;)

MrCinatit
10-25-2006, 07:09 AM
While I do love the days of baseball past, and while I do love remembering the glory days of Reds past, you are correct.
There is nothing like the glory days of today.

RANDY IN INDY
10-25-2006, 07:52 AM
The power of tradition helps make baseball what it is. One does not have to be exclusive of the other and there surely is nothing wrong with combining the two.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 07:53 AM
It's a marketing campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

When they start bringing Foster, Bench and Morgan back to play, then you can worry.

GAC
10-25-2006, 08:15 AM
You're definitely not wrong in feeling that way Ron. Being born and raised here in central Ohio, it was more my love of the game of baseball (and my Dad) that drew me to the Reds. The Reds had alot of solid players back then... guys like Harper, Pinson, Robinson, Maloney, O'Toole, Jay, Cardenas. And "youngsters" like Rose, Perez, and Helms. But very average-to-mediocre teams growing up as a kid. It wasn't until I was in high school, and beginning in 1970, that many my age were able to witness greatness in this organization and the advent of the BRM.

And other then that era of the BRM, the Reds don't really have much of a tradition when it comes to winning. At least not in the majority of my lifetime. I count myself blessed and very fortunate to have been able to have experienced and been a part of the BRM mystique.

But seeing how baseball has "evolved" over these last 30 years, and with the growing power of the player's union breaking the hold owners had over players (ownership), free agency, and other economic factors, I doubt we will ever see another team in Cincy like the BRM. It's just too hard anymore, for most teams, to build that "dynasty" and hold it together because of the issue of money (player contracts).

And IMO, today's fans are left in the "wake" of all of that.

It is definitely not wrong with today's Reds fan to want a competitive/winning franchise. And I am sure that history will not be kind to the ownership of Carl Lindner & the Limiteds. And it shouldn't be.

You're right when you say we can't "dwell in the past". And that does not only include the past 6 years, but also 30 years ago.

When people look at today's team, and then dream of the glory days of the BRM, and want today's ownership to somehow recreate and bring those "days" back, they are setting themselves up for disappointment IMO.

It's like some still waiting for that Beatle's reunion because it was such a magical time. ;)

We definitely need to forget the past 6 years, the ineptness of the former ownership group, and move on. I played sports most of my life. And one of the things we were taught by coaches was that if you carry a losing attitude/mentality, even when you have talented players, and you carry that like a "burden on your shoulder", it will drag you down, cause you to become despondent, and you will see yourselves as losers with no hope.

The former ownership did a very good job of fostering that attitude among the fans, and it has to be broken.

That is why I have renewed hope in Castellini and Krivsky. They have one heck of a task on their hands to tear down that attitude and reverse the trend. And it is not going to be an easy task BECAUSE that former ownership seated such an ingrained mistrust within those fans who have to be won back.

In their first year at the helm they took steps forward and did alot to BEGIN that movement in the right direction. But simply turning us around is not enough. They still have to win the fan's trust back by showing progress on that road.

It's not enough to stop in your tracks and realize that you're heading down the wrong road. It's a start; but you then have to make the wise decision(s) that set you on the course of that right path.

And one of the huge hurdles this current management is saddled with is the existence of bad contracts. The old ownership is gone. But their contracts remain. And they are basically contracts that we can't really do anything with other then wait for them to expire and get out from underneath them.

Improvements are going to be made incrementally IMO. If some are thinking they are going to go out in this off-season and make huge moves to correct everything that is wrong with this team, then again, they are going to be in for a letdown. They need to get a "piece" here and there, and not do anything stupid. All things being equal, and IF they have the right plan/philosophy, I still say this team is 2-3 years away from seeing more long lasting results.

redsmetz
10-25-2006, 08:50 AM
The Power Of Tradition.

A catchy slogan that brings back all of the best memories of yester-year.

Because I'm a Die Hard Reds Fan I love the idea of remembering the Glory Days.

Because I'm a Die Hard Reds Fan I'd much rather see this Franchise focus on future success instead of dwelling in the past.

I'll always have my memories.

MLB of 2006 is almost a different game than it was in 1976.

I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to feel that joy and have those memories they can call thier own.

Am I right or wrong for feeling this way? Or am I just feeling this way cause I have a belly full of beer? ;)

Yikes! A belly full at 6:00 a.m.??? :eek:

I agree we need to take the game where it is today. Each generation had their qualms about the state of the game current to them as opposed to "back in the day". That's not to say there aren't things to be learned from the past, but today's game is what it is. Let's figure out how to win!

redsmetz
10-25-2006, 08:56 AM
In their first year at the helm they took steps forward and did alot to BEGIN that movement in the right direction. But simply turning us around is not enough. They still have to win the fan's trust back by showing progress on that road.

It's not enough to stop in your tracks and realize that you're heading down the wrong road. It's a start; but you then have to make the wise decision(s) that set you on the course of that right path.

And one of the huge hurdles this current management is saddled with is the existence of bad contracts. The old ownership is gone. But their contracts remain. And they are basically contracts that we can't really do anything with other then wait for them to expire and get out from underneath them.

Improvements are going to be made incrementally IMO. If some are thinking they are going to go out in this off-season and make huge moves to correct everything that is wrong with this team, then again, they are going to be in for a letdown. They need to get a "piece" here and there, and not do anything stupid. All things being equal, and IF they have the right plan/philosophy, I still say this team is 2-3 years away from seeing more long lasting results.

So many of us have said repeatedly that there can be no quick fix - it has to be a systemic change. The change must be from the top to the bottom and back up again. We need a new culture in the minors in our player develop-ment. We need solid drafts and we need to be teaching young players how to play the game.

We certainly need to get out from under the bad (or even just old) contracts and that is at least 2-3 years away as we shed those contracts one way or another.

Time is what it will take.

Roy Tucker
10-25-2006, 09:21 AM
I had a friend was a big baseball player
back in high school
He could throw that speedball by you
Make you look like a fool boy
Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in, he was walking out
We went back inside sat down had a few drinks
but all he kept talking about was

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days

Well there's a girl that lives up the block
back in school she could turn all the boy's heads
Sometimes on a Friday I'll stop by
and have a few drinks after she put her kids to bed
Her and her husband Bobby well they split up
I guess it's two years gone by now
We just sit around talking about the old times,
she says when she feels like crying
she starts laughing thinking about

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days

Now I think I'm going down to the well tonight
and I'm going to drink till I get my fill
And I hope when I get old I don't sit around thinking about it
but I probably will
Yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture
a little of the glory of, well time slips away
and leaves you with nothing mister but
boring stories of glory days

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days

Redsland
10-25-2006, 02:13 PM
The Power of Tradition.

The power of tradition?

Does tradition have power?

I suppose it can, but only among people who revere the tradition in question. So, what is the Reds’ tradition, and who reveres it? And, by extension, who are the Reds marketing themselves toward?

By most appearances, the Reds are alluding to their golden age—the era of The Big Red Machine.

Folks, The Big Red Machine started rolling more than 35 years ago. It peaked 30 years ago. The teenagers and 20- and 30-something year-old fans who cheered for those teams are in their 50s and 60s today. Come to think of it, they are people who bear more than a passing resemblance to Bob Castellini. Local empty-nesters within sniffing distance of retirement age.

Marty Brennaman qualifies. He arrived smack dab in the middle of our heyday and waved from parade floats while confetti ensnared itself in his poofy hair. Today he has a 40-year old son, and is about to serve out his final contract before riding off into the sunset. He calls himself a baseball fan, but looks a whole lot like a bitter curmudgeon.

And he’s, apparently, the Reds’ target demographic.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I rarely hear advertisers discussing ways to woo “coveted 60-year-olds.” Eighteen- to 30-year-olds? Sure. They have time and money to spend on the things marketers are peddling. So why are the Reds aiming 30 years downstream?

Why are the Reds talking to people who cast wary eyes at their 401(k) balances, and who have no kids in the house to watch games with, or to take outside and throw a ball around with? Why are they talking to people who, if a ball should land in their yards, neighborhood children know better than to retrieve it?

Baseball in general and the Reds in particular seem obsessed with the past, and I’m convinced it hurts them in the present. Every time I hear some talking head or other go all Bob Costas over a sepia-toned image of Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson, I hear today’s critically important young fan tuning out. What Little Leaguer or high schooler wants to hear stories about olden days? Tell me again about the Depression, gramps. For that matter, when was the last time a Super Bowl broadcast opened with black-and-white images of mud-caked heroes your dad recognized by sight, but you’d never seen play?

The power of tradition?

If I want to rebuild the fanbase for the Cincinnati Reds, I want it to start at the family level. A 30-something year-old dad and his school-aged son, throwing the ball into creeks and bushes and going to their first games together. That kid will grow up to be a fan and play on teams with kids his age and pass his love of the game along to his own son, and three generations will sneak out of work and go to Business Day Specials together.

What tradition do the Reds have for the people I’m describing? Well, I’m 30-something. I missed the Big Red Machine, but I got to see the early '80s. A players’ strike. The most recent 15 years of The Pete Rose Story. A lockout. An embarrassment of an owner. Then another. A sterile stadium. “Competitive” payrolls. Lowest-bidder managers. And two trips to the postseason. Two.

For the school-aged kids we really need to be reaching out to, the “tradition” is even bleaker. If I were the 15-year-old star of my high school team, I would never have drawn a breath at a time when the Reds were world champs. I would have been in kindergarten the last time they went to the playoffs (in a half-empty stadium). The Reds have been a losing team since before I was in Little League.

How powerful is that kind of tradition?

If I’m a teenager, I don’t care about my Dad’s heroes—the people the Reds keep propping in front of me. I want my own tradition, built with my own heroes, like Arroyo and Dunn. And if Dad likes seeing Soto and Foster with the club, that’s fine, but it’s not so different than having Dave Collins or Dennis Menke or Ron Oester or Ted Kluzewski on-staff and flashing signs.

The power of tradition?

I don’t know how powerful it is, at least not to the young fans who the Reds need to be attracting. Me? I like the idea of Cincinnati being the home of professional baseball, and I like knowing that some of the greatest teams in history wore our uniform. But those nods to the past aren’t enough to separate me and my family of four from $170 for three hours of entertainment. If I cared that much about the past, I’d gladly go to the Hall of Fame instead and save money in the process.

Celebrate the past? Sure. But build upon it. Give fans of today—and of all ages—something in this team to call their own. Or continue to preach to a choir of 60-year-olds.

GAC
10-25-2006, 02:22 PM
Folks, The Big Red Machine started rolling more than 35 years ago. It peaked 30 years ago. The teenagers and 20- and 30-something year-old fans who cheered for those teams are in their 50s and 60s today. Come to think of it, they are people who bear more than a passing resemblance to Bob Castellini. Local empty-nesters within sniffing distance of retirement age.

Hey! Lets don't take this too damn far OK! It hurts enough as it is. :lol:

redsmetz
10-25-2006, 02:27 PM
Yikes! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Redsland's diatribe against anyone older than himself (or her) rings a bit hollow. Why must the world be "either or", "black & white" - I'm just an old aging hippie who likes to think in a "both/and" way.

Born in 1954, I didn't remember first hand the 1961 pennant winning team, but I came into conscience knowledge of most of its players in the subsequent years. I had no idea of the dismal years between the previous World Series champs (1940) up to then and I'm sure I experienced the heartbreak as that 60's teams almost made it a couple of times (hell, I remember my grandma crying when Frankie Robinson was traded!).

That said, I fit your demographic of being in my mid to late teens, early 20's when the BRM took its place in history. It was great, but that was then. Times have changed, but it can't hurt to celebrate that tradition, not to mention the great players who have played for the Reds over the last 137 years.

And how come you're so narrow in what the present should be that you only include fathers and sons in that dream? What am I supposed to tell my wife (who grew up on baseball herself - Cardinals fan) and my two daughters who I dutifully took to ballgames because that was our family's tradition. They'd take umbrage at such narrowness. And what about my sister who believes that throwing like a girl means you throw the right way and you throw it hard? Please, this is the 21st century.

Emphasizing a team's heritage is part of moving fans in the total continuum of its history. Certainly market to the new generation! How do you think we got to be fans. But don't throw away the history while you're at it. That's just short sighted, to say the least.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 02:37 PM
I don’t know how powerful it is, at least not to the young fans who the Reds need to be attracting. Me? I like the idea of Cincinnati being the home of professional baseball, and I like knowing that some of the greatest teams in history wore our uniform. But those nods to the past aren’t enough to separate me and my family of four from $170 for three hours of entertainment. If I cared that much about the past, I’d gladly go to the Hall of Fame instead and save money in the process.

Celebrate the past? Sure. But build upon it. Give fans of today—and of all ages—something in this team to call their own. Or continue to preach to a choir of 60-year-olds.

You raise some interesting points. Here are just some random unconnected thoughts in responce.

Why market to 60 somethings instead of teenagers and 20 somethings? Money. 60' somethings generally have it (and more of it). Teenagers and 20 somethings generally don't. But smart orinizations market to the older fans AND the younger fans. It's not an either or situation.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with trying to attract the older demo since they have the bucks to spend (unless you just don't like anyone older than yourself)....AS LONG AS they are also marketing to other groups to build a sustaining market base. You can do both at the same time...it's pretty simple actually.

Harkinging back to the glorydays of the BRM (ie. Power of tradion) doesn't imply that anyone under 35 is excluded. See $5 bleacher seats. See discount dog nights. See the family discount package (4 tickets, 4 drinks, etc...I forget the name). You can market to many groups while still using the "past" as a starting point.

The "family of four can't afford a game" argument is baloney IMO. If you want to sit in the best seats, eat a full meal, get lots of snacks and souvineers and park in the garage, yes, it will be expensive. If you use some common sense and choose wisely the price you pay for 3 hours of entertainment is a fantastic value.

At the end of the day, building a solid baseball team is what will maximize revenues. Period. Quibble over marketing slogans all you want but if BC wants to maximize revenue he needs to put a winning ball team on the field.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 02:43 PM
Yikes! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Redsland's diatribe against anyone older than himself (or her) rings a bit hollow.... And how come you're so narrow in what the present should be that you only include fathers and sons in that dream?... They'd take umbrage at such narrowness.... That's just short sighted, to say the least.
Yes; how hollow, narrow-minded, and short-sighted of me to point out that the Reds' marketing strategy is irrelevent to the young fans the team should be nurturing.

vaticanplum
10-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Break for personal anecdote (which you should feel free to skip):

A couple of weeks ago, I spent the weekend with three of my younger cousins, ages 14, 12 and 9. None of these kids have ever had too much of an interest in baseball despite having a Reds-nut dad (they love football and basketball), but we were watching the playoffs on and off all weekend. And my 12-year-old cousin got pretty into it. (When their parents called to check in during the final ALCS game, she told her dad excitedly, "And Dad guess what we're watching baseball and it's actually interesting. Kinda." She talks ten miles a minute, BTW.) I realized something that I had never really thought about before, though, and I wonder if any of you will agree with me. I'm not sure that anyone ever really just falls in love with a sport. I think there almost HAS to be a gateway team. That people fall in love with a team -- which may not even in all cases be the team they love forever (although usually it is) -- but that they fall in love with the team first, and then fall in love with the nuances of the sport itself. Or you fall for a "moment" that you happen to see, but that usually means you fall in love with that team anyway. Which is one reason these kids have never really been baseball fans. In theory they support the Reds, and they love Ken Griffey Jr., and the youngest likes the Yankees because I bought him a hat one year, but the Reds have sucked basically their whole lives and they've never been to Yankee Stadium so they've never really fallen in love with the team or the sport. Not that you have to fall in love with a WINNING team, but you do have to fall in love with a team. And a winning team helps.

So once she started noticing a team, due to uniforms and such, she started to want to hear more about the game. Crap, it is tough explaining baseball. You think it's so simple, but it's not. If you sit down at the dinner table to go through the basic rules, that's probably simple. But if you sit down to watch a game and explain the rules as it goes along, it's a mess. Because then you have to go through a million details that you wouldn't in a basic explanation. Why that catcher needed to block the ball with his chest. Why the batter is fouling off as many pitches as he wants when the first two were bad. Why that guy gets to score from a fly ball, but this guy doesn't. Why the team wearing white can have a walk-off home run but the team in gray can't. Why the guy holding the ball is the defense (the 9-year-old: "Well, that doesn't make any sense. They should change that." And then you have to explain that that is precisely what makes it the game it is, that you couldn't change it; I mean, how do you explain the fundamental invention of the game?) It gives me even more of an appreciation of what a perfect game it is to explain it, but it must come across as massively confusing, because to explain one thing you have to go back and explain ten other things first. I guess it just takes a long time to learn all the nuances of the game. Of course it does -- I'm still learning.

Anyway. My cousin's new favorite team ("besides the Reds")? The Oakland A's. She went bananas for them and was quite bummed when the Tigers won. She's all about them now; she want to buy the team someday. Kid was a baseball fan for two days and she already voluntarily picked a losing team to love. Her favorite player? Huston Street. I predict a long, hard life for my darling cousin, both romantically and baseball-y.

My point is this: no marketing is as effective as building a good team. Pour the better part of your money into the latter rather than the former, and the former will happen by itself.

If the Reds build a winning team, the kids will get interested. The kids get interested, their parents put it in the budget to take them to a game, and the less we hear about ticket prices. The kids get interested, they start to want to hear about the team's tradition, the great players, how it came to be and what things were like when they were good, and they start to want very much for the team to be good again. This interest was born literally in a matter of hours for my cousin, because she was watching a good team in contention for an exciting championship. It really is not hard to do.

My opinion on this marketing campaign? Stupid and backward. I have as much respect for the tradition of the Reds as anybody, but the only reason I was ever interested in it at all is because I was already a fan. I will always go to games and I will always support the team. Are they trying to get older folks and lapsed fans to remember what the Reds once were, become nostalgiac and go to the ballpark? They'll be mightily disappointed when they see the sorry team that's there in comparison to the team they remember. Are they trying to get in new, young fans? They have to do that by building a good team, and then tradition will mean something to the young fans. That's youth, folks. I don't care how old you are; all of you remember rolling your eyes at your parents' stories of their beautiful, innocent youths at some point ("Things were different when I was a kid...none of this [insert "recent" social evil here]".) Then when something happened that you could relate to, you had respect for this tradition. If the "power of tradition" the Reds are pushing refers to a dang good team, then the slogan means jack squat in relation to the current team they're trying to get people to see. Unless, of course, they build a good one.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 03:18 PM
My opinion on this marketing campaign? Stupid and backward.

I think people, and perhaps yourself VP, are making the mistake of thinking a marketing slogan means that the only people the Reds are going after old people.

I doubt all the local bands that play concerts after Friday and Saturday home games are aimed at older people. I doubt the MDX crew is aimed at old people. I doubt that Gapper, Mr Red, Rosie Red and whatever weird mascots they dream up are aimed at old people. I don't think the bobble head promotions of current players are aimed at old people since they are more likely to view a current player as "one of them spoiled, overpayed jerks".

As mentioned in my earlier post, all of the family discount packs, bleacher seats and dollar dog nights are not aimed at old people. Neither is having current players at Reds fests. Having the local school children on the field for the player line ups isn't aimed at old people. Neither is having the guest PA announcer.

You can successfully market to different groups at the same time. You want the older folks with the disposable income. They are more likely to spend more at the ball park, buy premium seats and season tickets, etc. You want the younger folks because while they woln't spend as much now, they will spend a bunch over the course of their lives.

You need both demographics.

RANDY IN INDY
10-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Those of us old enough to remember the Big Red Machine also remember the teams of the late 60's that were plenty talented but never made it to the World Series. It took some time to build that team into a winner. It didn't happen overnight.

Baseball is loaded with tradition. It's part of the glory of the game. The great teams and players of yesteryear connect us with the present. My son is full of questions about the players and teams of the past. It's what connects grandfathers, fathers, sons and daughters. I haven't ran into too many little league kids who don't enjoy hearing about the great players of yesterday. They ask you if Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were as good as Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. Don't fool yourself. If you put it out there for kids that love baseball, they are going to be interested. Some folks are never going to be interested.

Baseball is about the long haul. A lifetime. It's about comparing players and era's. It's the things that baseball fans love about the game. It doesn't have to be void of the past. It is all connected. It is a great game with a wonderful history and a great future. It is our pastime.

Roy Tucker
10-25-2006, 03:21 PM
I'm 54. Are the Reds marketing to me?

I sure as heck didn't notice it if they were.

In general, I'm outside of the age ranges that anything sports-related tries to market to. About the only one interested in me any more is AARP.

But I also understand the reasoning behind it. The older I get, the tighter I am with a buck. As my wife says, I'm so tight, you can't pull a pin our of my rear with a tractor.

vaticanplum
10-25-2006, 03:27 PM
I think people, and perhaps yourself VP, are making the mistake of thinking a marketing slogan means that the only people the Reds are going after old people.

No, quite the opposite. I think they're TRYING to aim at young people, and the slogan they're using is one that in no way relates to young people. And like I said, the older people to whom it might appeal are not likely to see much of the team they loved in this team.

Like I said, I think the only truly successful, long-term marketing answer is to build a good team. But as far as marketing strategies go, what's wrong with playing up their current players? Do they not have faith that anybody on the team (besides Griffey) can evoke enough excitement to bring people in? Why not play up the fact that Dunn is one of the most powerful hitters in the game instead of dragging him through the mud all the time? Why not show off Freel, Arroyo, Harang, Edwin, and even my adorable Hatte? (Mario-Rijo made that great Cat in the Hatte icon. Now that's clever marking. Maybe.)

Reds fans need to understand something: Johnny Bench does not play for this team anymore. I love him very much, and I feel that he is such an important part of the history of the team I love and of baseball itself. But I'm not going to see him at the ballpark, nor ever anyone like him. I'm going to, hopefully, see players who are just as exciting in completely different ways. So I think those players should be on the banner at the top of reds.com. Otherwise, when people go to the ballpark (if they ever make it there, because I don't know what will motivate them if the team isn't good and they don't know who plays on it), they will be comparing. And they will be disappointed.

The "POWER of tradition" is what, exactly? That power doesn't seem to have propelled this team to a winning season for the last six years. Smart management and money seem like slightly more powerful tools to me for this team at the moment. Once those are used, maybe we can incorporate that slogan into the current, good team, but until then that tradition isn't coming across as very powerful. It's rad as heck and I feel fortunate that it's part of my team. but it's only powerful in my mind, not on the field at Great American Ballpark.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 03:33 PM
No, quite the opposite. I think they're TRYING to aim at young people, and the slogan they're using is one that in no way relates to young people.
Agreed. :beerme:

Tradition appeals to those of us who are already Reds fans.

To those "young fans" Baseball keeps claiming it can't attract? Not so much.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 03:45 PM
The "POWER of tradition" is what, exactly? That power doesn't seem to have propelled this team to a winning season for the last six years. Smart management and money seem like slightly more powerful tools to me for this team at the moment. Once those are used, maybe we can incorporate that slogan into the current, good team, but until then that tradition isn't coming across as very powerful.

"Smart management and money" makes for a horrible marketing slogan. That's likely why they chose something a little more flashy.

You are right that the best marketing is a good product. There is no agrument there.

But using a "tradition" based maketing campaign isn't new. Auto manufacturers call on tradition when they make cars like Chargers, Mustangs and PT Cruisers. Harley Davison has rebuilt an empire by calling on tradition. Cadillac didn't choose a Led Zeppelin song for an ad campaign to attract high school kids. Fantesy baseball camps bring out older players to attract the kind of person who can actually afford to go play baseball for a week.

You have to reach out to the older fans and one of way doing that is recalling the days of old. At that same time you want to reach out to a new generation of fans in a number of ways. You have to be able to think in two different modes at once.

I agree they should do a better job pushing the Dunns, EE's and Freels but at the same time, why ignore the great former players that are the essence of what we want our future players to be like? To me it's a goal to aim for, not an achor from the past.

Yachtzee
10-25-2006, 03:56 PM
I think the slogan is a bit misunderstood. I think the goal was to try to bring back some of those Reds fans they've lost over the years because of the '94 strike and the bad teams as of late. I don't think the idea was strictly limited to trying to play on the BRM era. The graphics try to tie in Kluszewski and Dunn and Eric Davis and Junior. I suppose that the idea behind it is to try to reach out to those fans who had been driven off by past regimes. Taken as one piece of an overall marketing scheme, I have no problem with it. It's not as if they're trying to "turn back the clock" by trotting a bunch of clean-shaven guys out there in the old double-knit pullovers. I took it as if they were trying to say, "hey, if you were a fan of Big Klu as a kid, maybe you should check out Adam Dunn" or "Hey, remember Eric Davis? Well then check out Ken Griffey, Jr.!" I just gathered that the new ownership realized that the past regimes had alienated a lot of longtime fans and were reaching out to them while trying to put a winner on the field. Did it work? Well, who knows. But I respect that they were mounting some sort of campaign to get the Reds back into the consciousness of its fanbase.


I suppose they could always go back to "Baseball Fever, Catch It!"

RedsManRick
10-25-2006, 03:59 PM
This is so classic. We're such a self conscious culture that instead of simply doing and being, we actively try to make ourselves appear a certain way. I'm all about valuing and recognizing the past, but what makes life interesting is today. Don't sell me on the BRM, sell me on who we are and where we're going. I'm not going to attend/watch a game because we won a WS 16 years ago, had a great run 10 years before I was born, or because Big Klu hit homers.

If you want want to reference history and tradition, that's great. But do it in the context of today. A disjointed a reference to home runs and past accomplishments seems like they hired a freshman marketing student.

Sure, you want to spur people to remember how much they used to enjoy the game by referencing great moments in Reds history with the hope it will reinvigorate them. However, don't appeal to their previous interest. Appeal to the exact same things that got them interested back in the 50's, 70's, 1990, etc and the reminiscing will fall in place.

vaticanplum
10-25-2006, 03:59 PM
I think the slogan is a bit misunderstood. I think the goal was to try to bring back some of those Reds fans they've lost over the years because of the '94 strike and the bad teams as of late. I don't think the idea was strictly limited to trying to play on the BRM era. The graphics try to tie in Kluszewski and Dunn and Eric Davis and Junior. I suppose that the idea behind it is to try to reach out to those fans who had been driven off by past regimes. Taken as one piece of an overall marketing scheme, I have no problem with it. It's not as if they're trying to "turn back the clock" by trotting a bunch of clean-shaven guys out there in the old double-knit pullovers. I took it as if they were trying to say, "hey, if you were a fan of Big Klu as a kid, maybe you should check out Adam Dunn" or "Hey, remember Eric Davis? Well then check out Ken Griffey, Jr.!" I just gathered that the new ownership realized that the past regimes had alienated a lot of longtime fans and were reaching out to them while trying to put a winner on the field. Did it work? Well, who knows. But I respect that they were mounting some sort of campaign to get the Reds back into the consciousness of its fanbase.

Yeah, that's fair.

I'd go with the slogan "Hott like a tamale" but that's probably just me.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 04:05 PM
If you want want to reference history and tradition, that's great. But do it in the context of today. A disjointed a reference to home runs and past accomplishments seems like they hired a freshman marketing student.

But I think they are doing this by having mixed marketing messages. While they reference Bench they have a LaRue hat give away. While they reference Big Klu they have an Adam Dunn bobble head night. While they reference Morgan they have Ryan Freel doing local events, local promotions, etc. While they reference Nuhxie they have Bronson and his flowing locks out playing gigs, doing Reds fest, etc. While they reference Mr. Red they have Gapper running around acosting every thing in sight.

You have to reach out to both groups (and others besides just "young" and "old") or you miss out on revenue streams you would have otherwise attracted.

And trying to boil their entire marketing approach down into the slogan is a bit silly. You reach out to fans in many different ways.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 04:14 PM
I think the goal was to try to bring back some of those Reds fans they've lost over the years because of the '94 strike and the bad teams as of late.... I just gathered that the new ownership realized that the past regimes had alienated a lot of longtime fans and were reaching out to them while trying to put a winner on the field.
I'll buy that as the motivation behind the theme, and it makes a lot of sense as one component of a marketing strategy. The problem in my mind is that there are no other marketing messages out there attempting to generate interest among non-former fans.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 04:16 PM
Don't sell me on the BRM, sell me on who we are and where we're going. I'm not going to attend/watch a game because we won a WS 16 years ago, had a great run 10 years before I was born, or because Big Klu hit homers.

I think they are telling us excatly where they intend to take the team in the future. They intend to build a team that reminds everyone of the great teams of old. To me, it's a very clear road map.

You might not agree with how they are going about building that team, but I think its clear that they want to rebuild winning teams. Teams that might just remind people of teams from the past.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 04:23 PM
I'll buy that as the motivation behind the theme, and it makes a lot of sense as one component of a marketing strategy. The problem in my mind is that there are no other marketing messages out there attempting to generate interest among non-former fans.

The Reds Community Fund spent a boatload of money fixing up ballfield in urban areas so kids could play on a decent field. Both a nice gesture and a move to create more future baseball fans.

The Reds Hall of Fame has brought in many local schools for tours (I think Redsmetz may have reported this). Bringing kids in to see the past...gasp. It might just spur intrest in the game for the future.

Having the youngsters on the feild for the game line up announcements (I think Meijer sponsers the program) You don't think that is aimed at creating fans of the future?

And as posted earlier, MDX crews, Gapper, late night concerts, fire works shows, some promotional item give aways, are all aimed squarely away from the older crowd.

Check out this link for more ways the Reds are reaching out to the "fans of tomorow" as well as other groups beside baby-boomer men. There are many demographics the Reds should be persuing in an attempt to increase their fan base. Youth is great for the future but until they have real money to spend they woln't really increase the revenue the team sees.

http://http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cin/community/index.jsp (http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cin/community/index.jsp)

Yachtzee
10-25-2006, 04:25 PM
I'll buy that as the motivation behind the theme, and it makes a lot of sense as one component of a marketing strategy. The problem in my mind is that there are no other marketing messages out there attempting to generate interest among non-former fans.

"No other marketing messages"? Surely you jest! :) They've got the MDX crew out there to say to the male fans out there..."Come to a Reds game, see Hot Chicks in Spandex!" They've got the "Build a Bear" thingy going for the kids. Goetta Burgers and Skyline for those who wish to have their heart attack served on a plate....The list goes on!

But seriously, I think it's a decent slogan for the short term. I'd agree that it would be silly for the Reds to make it their motto, because it lends itself to ridicule if the team doesn't start making the playoffs soon. Look at the Oakland Raiders whole "Commitment to Excellence" mantra to see how dumb a team motto can sound if the team isn't doing well. But as a one-two year slogan to signal a regime change? I think its fine.

Chip R
10-25-2006, 04:27 PM
If you look closely, you will see that the slogan is not only emphasizing "tradition" but ""power" as well, as in the Reds have had a long tradition of power hitters. If you were going to market anything about the 2006 Reds before the season started, power would be the thing. It's a good thing to market if you can't market winning since we all know that fans come out to see power hitters. They certainly weren't going to market the fact that most people at the time thought they would finish last.

Is it a dumb slogan? Maybe. But it's better than "Come out and watch us lose 90 games" or "Come see Eric Milton get whiplash". I realize that they should market to their younger fans but they aren't the ones who buys the tickets. It's their parents who do that. I agree winning should draw fans and revive interest but Bob had to cut ticket prices in half and sell $1 hot dogs to get people to come out to the park to see the Reds battle the Cards for 1st. Those games should have been sold out for a week or two beforehand. Scalpers should have been getting twice as much as face value for the tickets. But instead we got 2 sellouts - one for a bobblehead giveaway - and a couple of 30-35K crowds. We had people saying they weren't for real and that's why they didn't come down. It wasn't all their faults. They had been beaten into submission by losing teams and ownership that valued the bottom line over winning. But why not live for the moment and enjoy the best team they've had in 5 years while they have it?

I think the Reds are on the right track with the marketing they are doing now. But it's tough to market to everyone. If you market to the young people with rock music blaring over the PA between innings with cheerleaders dancing on the dugout and the team dressed in black or orange or whatever color is hip these days you're going to turn off the older crowd with the disposable income who just want to see a good game and hopefully a winning team. I heard something several years ago that still rings true to this day. I think it was on an ESPN game or it was something I read but the guy said that no city holds on to a certain era more than Reds fans do. You don't hear Yankees fans waxing nostalgic about the 50s or you don't hear Cards fans say, "Yeah, those 60s teams were something else." Sure, they remember those times fondly but they don't dwell on them like the people around here do the BRM. The Reds aren't stupid. They know that and they market the team as such. I will bet if Reds fans had to vote in 2000 on which player the Reds should trade for A-Rod or Jr. it would have been Jr. hands down since he has those BRM ties with his dad.

Personally, I like Power of Tradition a lot better than "It's a whole new ball game" that they brought out every 2-3 years. If I hear that one again it will be too soon.

Yachtzee
10-25-2006, 04:30 PM
Good Point Chip. Maybe they should have use the slogan "A Tradition of Power" instead.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 04:36 PM
I realize that they should market to their younger fans but they aren't the ones who buys the tickets. .

And that's key. It's the older folks who are both going to have and spend their disposable income. I've said several times you can market to both and should do so but you put your most resources into the demographic that will produce the best return.

It's the same reason why getting out the youth vote in political campaigns is usaully a waste of resources since it's the "youth" demographic that has the worst voting turnout of any group.

And what's wrong with attracting former fans? Why not go after the "low hanging fruit" first? It's far easier to convince a former fan to come back than it is to attract a non-fan for the first time.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 04:40 PM
The Reds Community Fund spent a boatload of money...The Reds Hall of Fame has brought in many local schools...youngsters on the feild...
Re-read the quote of mine you posted and look again at the text that you yourself bolded. Marketing messages. Marketing messages are advertising. They are the words you promulgate to tell people who you are and what you stand for. They are found in print ads, television and radio commercials, billboards, and direct mail. Paid media placements. They have nothing to do with the activities of third parties like the Reds Community Fund, and they have nothing to do with outreach programs or PR placements or discounting or any other parts of your promotional mix.

Think ads. What are the words above the logo? Right now, they're "The Power of Tradition," and nothing else. That's their marketing message.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 04:50 PM
Re-read the quote of mine you posted and look again at the text that you yourself bolded. Marketing messages. Marketing messages are advertising. They are the words you promulgate to tell people who you are and what you stand for. They are found in print ads, television and radio commercials, billboards, and direct mail. Paid media placements. They have nothing to do with the activities of third parties like the Reds Community Fund, and they have nothing to do with outreach programs or PR placements or discounting or any other parts of your promotional mix.

Think ads. What are the words above the logo? Right now, they're "The Power of Tradition," and nothing else. That's their marketing message.

A marketing campaign consists of far more than advertisments. Advertising is just one of the many functions that falls under the general title of "marketing". But Marketing is far more emcompasing than just the singular function of advertising.

And I'd argue that the REDS Community Fund is precived by most people as part of the Reds. Same with the REDS Hall of Fame found at the Reds stadium. Thus they are just as much part of the Reds marketing message as is Adam Dunn doing a meet-and-greet at the local elementry school.

So to narrow down a marketing campagin to only advertisements is a faulty premise.

And what's getting lost is that the only thing that will really attract non-baseball fans is a winning team. That doesn't happen overnight. So the Reds have to attract fans that will come to the ballpark until the Reds really start winning and doing so consistently. The best group to target to get to GABP in the short term is former fans. They are the most cost effective group to pursuade to come to the ballpark even though they haven't in 25 years. And the best way to inspire them to take a trip to GABP? Remind them of the thrill of baseball from their youth.

Again, you have to do BOTH at the same time: attract fans in the short term and fans in the long term.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 05:10 PM
Ltlabner,

You think I said "marketing=advertising." I didn't.

You think "promotion=advertising." It doesn't.

Your lack of understanding is clouding the issue. I'm talking about advertising. You're talking about promotion.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 05:25 PM
Your lack of understanding is clouding the issue. I'm talking about advertising. You're talking about promotion.

Actually I'm talking about marketing, which encompasis both promotions, advertising as well as several other functions. It's the totality of the marketing program that communicates a message to a consumer not the small segment of marketing known as advertising (print, TV, radio, mass mailings, etc).

But ok....lets talk advertising a bit so we can increase understanding. Advertising would be the WORST way to attract non-baseball fans. Period.

Advertising is only really effective in pursuading purchases by those already inclined to purchase the product or feal they have a need for it. So if you want the Reds to advertise to non-baseball fans...well, that would be a spectacular waste of resources. If you could care less about baseball, a slew of advertisements, no matter the medium, would really only irritate people (oh god, this commerical again?!?). There is a reason femine hygene products are not advertised during the Super Bowl.

The best, most cost effective ways to reach non-baseball fans is to either expose them to the game when they are young and have no pre-concieved notions about the game (it's boring, it's slow, they cheat, etc) OR to show the consumer that baseball is an effective use of their disposable income resources. How to do this....? By building a winning baseball team.

The simple problem is that both of these approaches take lots of time to produce results. So in the short term you have to get people back to the game with the least amount of resources. THAT is where they should advertise. To former fans who haven't been in a while. That is where there "message" should be. And the best message to trumpet is success. Unfortunatley there isn't any success in the orginization for the past too many years. So they have to call on the BRM and others as a message to attract people who haven't been to the park in a while.

So you can focus your advertising dollars on non-fans which is pretty much useless. Or you can focus your advertising on where it will produce the best return, past fans (and the most effective adds will call on the past). Your marketing message includes advertising but also encompasis many other areas. Marketing to non-fans is the most effective way of reaching out to them and building a long term fan base. Fortunatley I'm willing to bet BCast understands the difference.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 05:39 PM
Actually I'm talking about marketing, which encompasis both promotions, advertising as well as several other functions.
No, you're not.

Marketing entails four things: product development, product distribution, pricing strategy, and promotion. You're only talking about one of those things, namely promotion.

Promotion is in turn composed of four elements: personal selling, sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Of those, you're discussing sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Usually all at once.

That fundamental misunderstanding about basic definitions is why this thread has turned into such a mess.

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 05:53 PM
No, you're not.

Marketing entails four things: product development, product distribution, pricing strategy, and promotion. You're only talking about one of those things, namely promotion.

Promotion is in turn composed of four elements: personal selling, sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Of those, you're discussing sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Usually all at once.

That fundamental misunderstanding about basic definitions is why this thread has turned into such a mess.

You copied my post that cleary stated that marketing is made up of different functions besides just advertising and promotions. You stated that the Reds had no marketing messages to the non-fans, I've shown that they do, through developing a better team, promotional efforts, etc which you agree falls under the umbrella of marketing message. You yourself posted, "Marketing messages are advertising. They are the words you promulgate to tell people who you are and what you stand for." Which is clearly false.

So I'm not sure what is so confusing there.


You should to reread the totality of my posts on the subject because I've addressed every one of those areas except product distribution. I've also adressed why touching on tradition (the topic of the thread) is, in fact, a very effective tool.

+ They need to build a better team to reach non-fans effectivley (ie product development).
+ They need to continue to use family discounts, 1/2 off nights and $5 seats to reach new fans while continuing to promote season tickets and premium ticket packages to current and past fans (ie. pricing strategy)
+ They need to continue to use give aways, community out reach, and targeted advertising (amoungst others) to reach fans and non-fans alike (ie. promotions).

Product distribution could be the most interesting of the bunch (employing the web, pod casts, emerging technolgies) but I would think MLB would have far more controll over that than the Reds.

Redsland
10-25-2006, 06:04 PM
+ They need to continue to use family discounts, 1/2 off nights and $5 seats to reach new fans while continuing to promote season tickets and premium ticket packages to current and past fans (ie. pricing strategy)
Again, you don't know what you're talking about, which is making it difficult to carry on a coherent conversation. For example, in the quote above, you claim to be discussing pricing strategy, but you're not. In the first half of the sentence, you're discussing sales promotion. In the second half, you're discussing promotion generally.

If it would be helpful, I could point you toward a few good books on the subject.

GAC
10-25-2006, 06:09 PM
Do the Reds accept either the Golden Buckeye or AARP Cards in buying tickets? ;)

Ltlabner
10-25-2006, 06:13 PM
Marketing messages are advertising. They are the words you promulgate to tell people who you are and what you stand for....they have nothing to do with outreach programs or PR placements or discounting or any other parts of your promotional mix.


You think I said "marketing=advertising." I didn't.


Marketing entails four things: product development, product distribution, pricing strategy, and promotion. You're only talking about one of those things, namely promotion.

So marketing messages are advertising and not promotions, PR or discounting....then you claim you never said marketing = advertising.....then you say that marketing includes promotions, discounting, PR, etc.

I think perhaps you should step back and think about what it is you mean to say before you type it because you are clearly sending out mixed messages. Seems to me that is where the confusion is.

But since you are patently out of bullets since you've started resorting to personal attacks I will leave the discussion and get back to more interesting and constructive tasks.

vaticanplum
10-25-2006, 06:20 PM
But since you are patently out of bullets since you've started resorting to personal attacks I will leave the discussion and get back to more interesting and constructive tasks.

Honestly Ltlabner, I don't see any personal attacks here, nary a yo mama joke in sight (really though -- I don't see any). i'm actually enjoying this and learning a little from both sides.

Hooray debate!

redsmetz
10-25-2006, 07:56 PM
Do the Reds accept either the Golden Buckeye or AARP Cards in buying tickets? ;)

Actually Business Day Specials are also a Senior Discount rate day too, but I think you've got to be about 60 or so. That leaves youngsters like me out (hey, remember, I'm the one with a 99 year old neighbor - at 52, she keeps calling me young man!).

Ron Madden
10-26-2006, 05:20 AM
I respect the long tradition of the Reds and the tradition of Baseball in general.

I never intended my original post to have anything to do with marketing, advertising or any silly slogans.

I''m afraid I faied to make my point clear but that's my fault. Never was blessed with the ability to accurately put thoughts into words.

It just seems to me that this organization has not changed it's method of operation very much at all in the past 40 years.

Some old methods are tried and true and worth holding on to. It is possible to mix old ideas with new ideas. Seems to me like this franchise is very opposed to any new ideas. I hope that changes very soon.

Like I said in the first post I want my children, my grandchildren and every young fan to feel the same way I did in 1976.

GAC
10-26-2006, 07:12 AM
I''m afraid I faied to make my point clear but that's my fault. Never was blessed with the ability to accurately put thoughts into words.

I think you did fine Ron.


It just seems to me that this organization has not changed it's method of operation very much at all in the past 40 years.

I think you could say that about a majority of the organizations in baseball. They are either afraid of change or don't really know how to adapt. And some are being left behind.

And there is also that economic aspect that is really making it hard on alot of teams to try and compete. Their geographical location/market may not be their fault; but what is their fault is not finding the inventive ways to adapt and overcome.


Like I said in the first post I want my children, my grandchildren and every young fan to feel the same way I did in 1976.

Let me ask you a simple, and respectful, question.....

Which is first with you personally? A love of the game of baseball, or a love for the Reds?

My love for the game itself is what gives me balance. Even during some of the very pitiful years within this Reds organization.

It's how I am able to go to a game in Cincy when I know my team, which is 15 games out of 1st place and doesn't stand a chance, and still feel the excitement and, yes, enjoyment. Not enjoyment, nor an attitude of complaceny so much in my struggling team; but just simply watching and "participating" in the game.

Yeah, it's alot better when your team is in the hunt and vying for that post-season spot. There is obviously no comparison. But why have the Reds been able to average around 2 Mil in attendance every year, even during these very "dry" period?

Die-hard baseball fans, for the most part, are still going when the "casual fan" is staying away.

We're sick individuals and need help.

I'm thinking of checking myself into the Whitey Ford Clinic. ;)

RANDY IN INDY
10-26-2006, 07:54 AM
Good post, GAC!:beerme: Sick, we are.

GAC
10-26-2006, 08:12 AM
Good post, GAC!:beerme: Sick, we are.

Like me, I bet you were one competitive ballplayer when you were younger. Right?

I was a 2Bman/SS. When Rose (my idol) first came up he was a 2Bman. I "identified" with Pete because, like him, I was a small player who had to prove himself to others that I was worthy enough to be on that playing field.

Lets be honest.... on that sandlot field, when it came to picking players, the small ones were the last to be chosen unless they knew you.

So that fired my competiveness even more. And I got it from guys like Pete Rose. It's why I liked Morgan later on too.

My memories of playing Little League baseball are some of my finest. Thank God Dad was always there with his Kodak Brownie camera filming me and my brothers. I've transferred those over to DVD.

But I see a difference between the competiveness THEN, with what I am seeing in today's youth. And maybe it is because I am getting old.

Sure, I wanted to win, and hated to lose. Butting winning wqasn't always what fueled my competitive "fire". It was disheartening ad discouraging when we lost; but it didn't cause me to pout or go nutso as if it was the ONLY THING and the "end of the world".... with both the players AND the parents.

And as a coach, it seems that is the ONLY THING that matters with today's generation of young players/parents.

Am I seeing it wrong?

RANDY IN INDY
10-26-2006, 12:35 PM
Nope. I have kids crying every time they make an out, and going bonkers when we lose. My fall team is 10-3, and you would think these kids are playing for the Little League World Series title, every time we play. I think it is the same with kids in school. There is so much pressure being put on these kids to perform that they are not allowed to just be kids anymore. My son, who is 9 years old and in 4th grade, has at least 1 1/2 hours of homework every night. I don't get it. I ask him what they are doing in school every day, and it seems like the teachers are not using the time that they have them in school, wisely, ane are loading them up with homework every day.

I may be wrong, but it is seems crazy to me that a 9 year old is having homework every night. Likewise, it is crazy that 9 year old kids are being expected to perform like big leaguers. Don't get me wrong, I like to win as much as the next guy, and the games are where you see if your teaching is getting through, but at the expense of tears on every mistake? It's getting crazy.

RANDY IN INDY
10-26-2006, 12:43 PM
He is Just A Little Boy

He stands at the plate,
with his heart pounding fast.
The bases are loaded,
the die has been cast.

Mom and Dad cannot help him,
he stands all alone.
A hit at this moment,
would send the team home.

The ball meets the plate,
he swings and he misses.
There's a groan from the crowd,
with some boos and some hisses.

A thoughtless voice cries,
strike out the bum.
Tears fill his eyes,
the games no longer fun.

So open your heart
and give him a break.
For it's moments like this,
a man you can make.

Please keep this in mind,
when you hear someone forget.
He is just a little boy,
and not a man yet!

Ltlabner
10-26-2006, 12:56 PM
It just seems to me that this organization has not changed it's method of operation very much at all in the past 40 years.

Some old methods are tried and true and worth holding on to. It is possible to mix old ideas with new ideas. Seems to me like this franchise is very opposed to any new ideas. I hope that changes very soon.

I don't know about the last 40 years but certinally since the fall of the BRM. There has definatley been a lot of talk about building a winner and little delivery (with a few exceptions of course).

Marge said it while she eliminated the internal operations staff. Lindner said it while he generally ignored the business and left it in incompetant hands. Bowden said it while he wore leather pants and collected 5-toolers. DanO said it while he did.....um.....whatever the heck it was he did.

So from that aspect, yes, I agree Ron, that they definatley have to find an MO other than promising big and delivering small.

GAC
10-26-2006, 02:41 PM
Nope. I have kids crying every time they make an out, and going bonkers when we lose. My fall team is 10-3, and you would think these kids are playing for the Little League World Series title, every time we play. I think it is the same with kids in school. There is so much pressure being put on these kids to perform that they are not allowed to just be kids anymore. My son, who is 9 years old and in 4th grade, has at least 1 1/2 hours of homework every night. I don't get it. I ask him what they are doing in school every day, and it seems like the teachers are not using the time that they have them in school, wisely, ane are loading them up with homework every day.

My wife and I went through the same crap. My kids were coming home with tons of homework, and alot of it was "in class" assignments that weren't finished. I asked them what this is, and what's going on? Basically, the teachers hand out the daily assignments, some come off the internet even, and then after that, most everything seems to be "self paced" in the classrooms. I found out that alot of times the teachers then leave the classrooms and trust the kids to be working on their assignments.

My kids would come home and talk about kids acting up and doing all kinds of stuff in class, and we'd ask "Where's the teacher at? How can these kids do this stuff?" It seems they were either down in the lounge or hanging out at the office with other teachers.

The unfinished work then comes home and we, the parents, are suppose to help them complete it.

I raised the dickens over it. I told them that I didn't have a teaching certificate AND my wife and I both work and don't have the time to be working on homework 2-3 hours a night.

And what really bugged me was that if kids didn't finish/turn in those in-class assignments, no one is told about it. That is until the end of the grading period when you see that your kid is failing. And during the parent-teachers conference I was told it was because my kid didn't turn in numerous in-class assignments. I responded (sarcastically) "Whose job is it to see that they are turned in? You the teacher are the only one who has the ability to track it."

Their response was that they expect the kids to be responsible enough to finish them and turn them in. I said that's fine if they are doing it. But when a kid isn't, then you, the teacher, need to take the bull by the horns and at least let us the parents know in time to do something about it. But not at the end of the grading period.

RANDY IN INDY
10-26-2006, 02:50 PM
Exactly.

RANDY IN INDY
10-26-2006, 02:53 PM
Sorry. Two dads hijacked the thread. Now back to your regularly scheduled Power of Tradition thread.

Yachtzee
10-26-2006, 06:37 PM
It just seems to me that this organization has not changed it's method of operation very much at all in the past 40 years.


Actually, I think its mode of operation has changed a lot in the past 40 years, much to the deteriment of the big league club. I'd say that up until about the late '80s, the Reds were one of the best in baseball at drafting and developing talent. I can remember as a teenager reading the Sporting News and Sports Illustrated, where they would consistently rave about the Reds and Dodgers having the top two farm systems in baseball. Sure the Reds might have a few down years, but it always seemed like they could rebound once the young talent came up from AAA and started producing. The farm system was such a strength that the Reds could afford to trade away young talent for a few veteran arms for the pennant run. Then, Marge Schott decided to get rid of all the scouts. The Reds no longer had the great talent evaluators they had had in the past. They also started giving out coaching jobs to the lowest bidder. The farm system has never been the same since.

registerthis
10-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Marketing entails four things: product development, product distribution, pricing strategy, and promotion. You're only talking about one of those things, namely promotion.

Promotion is in turn composed of four elements: personal selling, sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Of those, you're discussing sales promotion, public relations, and advertising. Usually all at once.

Whoah there. Someone's been breaking out their Marketing 650 textbooks.

vic715
10-26-2006, 07:41 PM
I'm 54. Are the Reds marketing to me?

I sure as heck didn't notice it if they were.

In general, I'm outside of the age ranges that anything sports-related tries to market to. About the only one interested in me any more is AARP.

But I also understand the reasoning behind it. The older I get, the tighter I am with a buck. As my wife says, I'm so tight, you can't pull a pin our of my rear with a tractor.

You hit it right on the head Roy. I'm 54 too and The biggest problem in targeting us Old Guys is we are now paying 30 bucks for a ticket we were once paying 6 bucks for back in the glory days.So hell yes I'm tight with the buck and I'm sure a lot of us are.So maybe if they are targeting the 50 and 60 year olds they are probably wasting their time.
As far as tradition goes its very important and I say its a great sales tool For all ages. I'm sure the Yankees have no problem using it.

GAC
10-27-2006, 04:28 PM
Sorry. Two dads hijacked the thread. Now back to your regularly scheduled Power of Tradition thread.

Actually... talking homework is right up this thread's alley.

This organization needs to do theirs. ;)

Ron Madden
10-28-2006, 06:08 AM
I think you did fine Ron.



I think you could say that about a majority of the organizations in baseball. They are either afraid of change or don't really know how to adapt. And some are being left behind.

And there is also that economic aspect that is really making it hard on alot of teams to try and compete. Their geographical location/market may not be their fault; but what is their fault is not finding the inventive ways to adapt and overcome.



Let me ask you a simple, and respectful, question.....

Which is first with you personally? A love of the game of baseball, or a love for the Reds?

My love for the game itself is what gives me balance. Even during some of the very pitiful years within this Reds organization.

GAC,That's a very good and very fair question.

I'd have to say my love of the game is top priority. There is something about the game of baseball that grabs hold of you and never lets go. Many of my fondest childhood memories revolve around the game of baseball.

Yes, I do love the game.

I also grew up as a Reds Fan can't honestly say which came first, kinda like the chicken or the egg question. ;)

Ron Madden
10-28-2006, 06:37 AM
Actually, I think its mode of operation has changed a lot in the past 40 years, much to the deteriment of the big league club. I'd say that up until about the late '80s, the Reds were one of the best in baseball at drafting and developing talent. I can remember as a teenager reading the Sporting News and Sports Illustrated, where they would consistently rave about the Reds and Dodgers having the top two farm systems in baseball. Sure the Reds might have a few down years, but it always seemed like they could rebound once the young talent came up from AAA and started producing. The farm system was such a strength that the Reds could afford to trade away young talent for a few veteran arms for the pennant run. Then, Marge Schott decided to get rid of all the scouts. The Reds no longer had the great talent evaluators they had had in the past. They also started giving out coaching jobs to the lowest bidder. The farm system has never been the same since.

Very good point and very well said. :thumbup:

RANDY IN INDY
10-28-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by M2

Because they come from a metropolitan area that ranks 18th overall in the U.S., behind Minneapolis and San Diego (and not much larger than Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh). St. Louis also has a really small secondary market if you look at what's around it.

They don't spend like a small market because they've done such a fabulous job of building on 85 years of sustained success, but let's not forget that it wasn't that long ago the Reds were a big spending small market team that was able to convince players to stick around and sign for less because Cincinnati was a little slice of baseball heaven.

I think this quote from M2 has a great message on the power of tradition, and what it can do for a franchise. I'll post a message that I sent to Ron Madden as well. Good post, M2.

RANDY IN INDY
10-28-2006, 09:43 AM
I agree, the Reds do need some new heroes to take them forward, but I don't think it hurts that they, as well as the new generation of players and fans, identify with the heroes of the past, and that those legends play a part in the Reds future. Bring 'em back for an "Old Timers' Game" once a year, and bring them to Spring Training every year. Let them have access to the clubhouse when they are in town to share with the new heroes. It builds a tradition of Reds family which may influence free agents and younger players to want to be a part of the great tradition of baseball in the Queen city. Cincinnati, once again, needs to be a "destination location" for baseball. A proud and historic organization with a great appreciation of its past and a clear plan for its future is paramount. Enthusiastic fans that support the team and wear the wishbone "C" with pride and knowledge play a huge part. "The Power of Tradition."

The Reds franchise has a storied history. The Wright brothers and the first professional team. The first night baseball game. World Series Championships in 1919, 1940, 1975, 1976, and 1990. Great Hall of Famers and unique players to the area like Joe Nuxhall, the youngest player ever. Great announcers like Red Barber, Waite Hoyte and Marty Brennaman. An Opening Day like no other. Historic highlights like Rose's 4192, Browning's perfect game, Johnny Vandermeer's back to back no hitters, Lombardi's snooze in the 1939 World Series, Bench's homerun in the 1972 playoffs, and Piniella's Wire to Wire overachievers to name a few. A fan base that I feel is very good and knowledgeable and a city and region that has always loved the Reds. Add the greatest baseball team of all time, (And I truly believe it) "The Big Reds Machine," and you have quite a history to call on.

I think it is wonderful that Bob Castellini has called upon that tradition, not as the new building, but as a strong foundation block or "Cornerstone" for the future.

Baseball is a game of tradition, and the Cincinnati Reds franchise has one of the richest and most glorious in all of baseball.

GAC
10-28-2006, 10:05 AM
A proud and historic organization with a great appreciation of its past and a clear plan for its future is paramount.

That says it all in a nutshell for me Randy. Balance. It should be this forum's "signature" under the Redsone banner (name).

It's just, IMHO, alot of fans get too "hung up" on the past to the detriment of the future. All teams have their "icons". Players that become very popular with the fans (i.e fan favorites). And there is nothing wrong with that. We, as fans, live for that.

My problem with Cincy fans is that they get so "attached" to these icons and popular players that they don't know when to let go... "let go" meaning not that we shouldn't appreciate and value what they contributed and gave the game and to us as fans. That you always hold onto and cherish that. It's refusing to let go when it's time for that particular player(s) to hang it up, or to see that player(s) traded away or wearing any other uniform then a Red's simply because of their association with this organization.

It's great to reminiscence and think fondly of the "glory days". But not to the detriment of the future.

But excellent post Randy overall. :thumbup:

Ron Madden
10-12-2010, 06:23 AM
I'm thankful that the Reds ownership and front office has delivered on the promise of "The losing stops now". Finally we have a winning team again with a new set of heroes.

I respect and love the history and tradition of the Reds, I really do, but I love rooting for a talented winning team just as much.

:thumbup:

George Anderson
10-12-2010, 11:25 AM
One of my favorite moments from Sunday night (obviously there weren't many ) was to see Joe Morgan throw out the first pitch. If I recall back in 90' or even 95' the Reds did not use Reds greats from the past to throw out ceremonial pitches like so many teams like the Yankees or Redsox have done over the years. It just is a cool way to remind people of the glorious past of this franchise.

Chip R
10-12-2010, 11:58 AM
One of my favorite moments from Sunday night (obviously there weren't many ) was to see Joe Morgan throw out the first pitch. If I recall back in 90' or even 95' the Reds did not use Reds greats from the past to throw out ceremonial pitches like so many teams like the Yankees or Redsox have done over the years. It just is a cool way to remind people of the glorious past of this franchise.


I'd have liked to have seen that. It is a cool way to do that.

However, I think the Reds organization - at times - tends to use the BRM as a crutch.