Sensory Overload at Comerica Park

Last week I went to a Tigers game in Detroit at Comerica Park. I played hooky from work and went alone, because I really wanted to watch a good baseball game without non-baseball related conversation and distraction, even from friends. I had a great time, the weather was beautiful and the Tigers won. (Final score: Tigers 8, Nationals 3.)

But a couple of things stood out during the game that made me start wondering about the value of the huge advertising expenditures at Comerica Park. One was the fact that so few people seemed to be concentrating on the game. Many people, as one would expect, were deep in conversation with one another, and not really taking time to glance at the scoreboard (and the ads next to the scores), or to watch at the game, (and the ads posted on the edges of the field), or to just look around (and seeing the ads everywhere). Many people were focused with their own pods of friends, having a great time among themselves, rather than taking-in the world around them.

The other thing I noticed was the unbroken chain of noise. Crowd noise is to be expected, but every moment between innings was filled with audio messages over the public address system, as were most of the moments leading up to the game. I had to wonder if the intended audience just tends to shut it all out, and how seriously, if at all, sensory overload is taken into consideration by advertisers who pay for messages at the ballpark.

In baseball’s golden era, advertising was as much part of the experience as the Crackerjack. But instead of hundreds of ad messages to absorb, there were dozens, at most. And they didn’t rotate, blink, or share space with other messages. And they were probably very, very effective at selling.

A media buyer today might argue convincingly that with millions of sets of eyes even just glancing at a logo during the season, or millions of pairs of ears hearing an ad over a summer in the ballpark, the ad buy is effective. And with so many smart people making such buys, it’s hard to argue that ads in ballparks are indeed not good buys. But as each message at the ballpark is watered-down buy other competing and beautifully designed sensory messaging, I’m not sure there aren’t better buys elsewhere. When it comes to advertising exposure, attending a professional baseball game today is a bit like attending a trade show, where booth after booth is competing for your attention until in the end they all seem to blend together in your head.

There has always been advertising at baseball games, and always will be. But I have to wonder if the advertising in the old baseball parks (signs in the outfield, and maybe a few scattered other messages during the game) was more effective than the cascade of ads and the constant barrage of sponsored messaging of today. With so much distraction and so many competing advertising messages in the American ballpark of 2010, are the advertising expenditures at the game a great value, or less than completely effective?