Monday, June 16, 2008
State of MLB
Maury asked some heavyweights to offer their opinions. Fun game: read their opinions without reading their names, and try to figure out what kind of person wrote it. Clue: any lead-in that talks about finances is an MLB exec or a reporter (i.e., not the fan position).
When you were a kid and playing ball, was there anything better than playing double-headers and triple-headers? When you were a teenager, weren’t you looking for double-headers from your home team, reasoning you are getting a 2-for-1, plus it’s a great time too? Have you watched Olympic hockey, where you get to watch three action-packed hockey games in six hours? Show of hands please. Yes, that’s what I thought. Me too.
Now, is there anything you dread more than the four-hour Yanks/Sox game on ESPN? Show of hands please. C’mon, I asked for a show of hands. Lift your elbows a bit. No? Nobody?
This is the state of MLB. Its success is measured from the non-fans perspective based on how much money they can get from its customers and advertisers, and how much they can get from public financing. Unless you sell the core of the game, this kind of “success” is not sustainable. Basketball, probably hockey, and soccer naturally, have a larger following (if you include human beings outside of America), even though baseball is such a beautifully perfect game. MLB is not that game yet.


Well, isn’t money a pretty good measure of how much the fans are getting out of it? Advertisers only play to get the eyes and ears of fans. Corporations only pay to get the eyes and ears of fans. If the product gets worse, that means fewer fans, and less money.
Of course, it could be that MLB was undergouging its customers previously. By not trying to squeeze in an extra commercial between innings, they were not making as much money as they could, thus giving the fans a free gift. But if the extra commercial was pissing off the fans too much, ratings would drop to the point where the extra commercial would no longer be profitable.
What I’m saying is: economically speaking, there should be no difference between what’s best for the profit-makers and what’s best of the fans—you only make money by pleasing your customers.
That argument doesn’t apply to squeezing money out of governments, of course. And you could argue, perhaps, that MLB’s strategy seems to be pleasing fans in the short run but not the long run.