Cubs, Nationals Launch Another Trademark Opposition Over A 'W' Logo

from the wins-and-losses dept

Back in 2015, we wrote about a really dumb trademark dispute between a financial services firm and two Major League Baseball teams, the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs, over the letter "W." This insanity went on for years, with the MLB teams claiming there would be some sort of customer confusion in the public between professional baseball teams and a company that provided money management.

Well, in case you thought that this was insanity of the one-off variety, both baseball clubs are back at it with an opposition for the trademark of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, whose logo is, you guessed it, a "W."

At the end of November, the Nationals and Cubs filed an opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. The Nationals and Cubs are apparently upset with Starwood’s pending trademark application to register “W” in connection with “Entertainment services, namely, planning, conducting and hosting music festivals, concerts and performances by musical groups and individuals.”

Starwood claims to have started using “W” in connection with the aforementioned services as early as January 2005. The Nationals and Cubs could care less. They say that if Starwood gets its wish of registration, then Starwood will be given permission to confuse people into thinking that its services are in some way approved, endorsed or sponsored by the Nationals and/or Cubs.

This is the type of situation that calls for people to recognize the subtle differences and to keep their eye on the ball for trademark law, which is customer confusion. Yes, all three trademarks in question are versions of the letter "W." Yes, all three entities in question are in some segment of the entertainment industry, two being baseball teams and the third wanting to use its trademark for music concerts and performances. That, however, doesn't equate to Starwood's use somehow resulting in public confusion. Just to be clear, this is one of the many iterations of hotel logo we're talking about.

Really makes you think of the Cubs and/or Nationals, right? And, with just a brief moment of thought put into this, it becomes clear that fear of confusion makes no sense. A member of the public is going to go to a Starwood property to see a concert, see the "W" logo, and... what? Think the Cubs are affiliated with the concert? Or maybe the Nationals? Both? These baseball teams are somehow putting on concerts at Starwood properties?

Fortunately, the general consensus appears to be that the MLB teams aren't going to prevail.

This seems like a stretch of a case for the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs, since Starwood is very widely known for its “W” brand of hotels and no reasonable person is confusing said hotel brand with the baseball clubs. Further, Starwood already owns trademark registrations for the “W” brand, including one in relation to providing hotel services, food and beverage and bar and cocktail lounge services. Unless the Cubs and Nationals are also going to attempt invalidating those registrations, this new opposition seems half-hearted and destined to fail.

So, strike two?

Filed Under: baseball, entertainment, hotels, trademark, w
Companies: chicago cubs, starwood hotels, washington nationals

Stupid Copyright: MLB Shuts Down Twitter Account Of Guy Who Shared Cool MLB Gifs

from the you're-not-helping dept

Another day, another story of copyright gone stupid. This time it involves Major League Baseball, which is no stranger to stupid copyright arguments. Going back fifteen years, we wrote about Major League Baseball claiming that other websites couldn't even describe professional baseball games. There was a legal fight over this and MLB lost. A decade ago, MLB was shutting down fan pages for doing crazy things like "using a logo" of their favorite sports team. And, of course, like all major professional sports leagues, MLB has long engaged in copyfraud by claiming that "any account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited", which is just false. MLB has also made up ridiculous rules about how much reporters can post online at times, restricting things that they have no right to actually restrict.

The latest seems particularly stupid. Following on some sort of silly spat in which a guy named Kevin Clancy at Barstool Sports (the same brainiacs who wanted to sue the NFL for having sorta, not really, similar merchandise) got pissed off at a popular Twitter account called @PitchingNinja run by a guy named Rob Friedman, who would tweet out GIFs and videos of interesting pitches from MLB games. Apparently, the dudebro Clancy from Barstool sports pointed out that Friedman was violating the made up rules that MLB has on how much someone is allowed to share on social media, leading a ton of Clancy's fans to "report" Friedman. Twitter shut down Friedman's account -- leading said dudebro, Clancy, to celebrate.

In a podcast interview with that very same Barstool Sports, who got his account shut down, Frideman notes that "there's such a thing as fair use." Indeed, his use of images and videos appears to be fairly obviously fair use. Since we can't see his account while it's suspended, we'll go off of the Yahoo Sports description of the @PitchingNinja account:

Nearly every Rob Friedman tweet arrives offering four things: a baseball player’s name, a pitch he has thrown, an adjective to describe that pitch and a short video clip to illustrate it. Changeups are “ridiculous,” and fastballs are “absurd,” and sliders are “nasty,” and sometimes they’re “disgusting” and “filthy” and “obscene” and every other sort of visceral descriptor, too. Friedman is best known as @PitchingNinja, and his nearly 50,000 followers relish his ability to curate baseball’s deep cuts – the sort of physics-bending pitches average fans may not notice but ones in which pitching nerds luxuriate.

So, going through a quick four factor test -- Friedman is adding commentary, using a tiny amount of a game, not doing this for any commercial advantage and, if anything increasing the market for MLB's product. It seems like a pretty clear cut fair use situation. MLB has told Yahoo that they expect to come to some sort of agreement to let Friedman back on Twitter:

League sources told Yahoo Sports that they expect to “quickly and easily” reach a resolution with Friedman that would allow him to continue posting pitching GIFs. In a letter to the league official who filed the DMCA complaint, Friedman, a lawyer by trade, outlined his argument on how what he does benefits the league.

But, of course, it's bullshit that they should even need to do this in the first place. The whole point of fair use is that you don't need permission, and you don't need to reach an agreement. And yet, according to Yahoo, MLB seems to think it needs to come to an agreement with Friedman over what is fair use:

MLB plans to contact Friedman in the coming days, if not sooner, at which point they are likely to agree on what constitutes fair use.

But, they don't need to agree. The law says what fair use is, and MLB doesn't get to change that to suit their own whims.

Friedman also told Yahoo the following:

“I also understand that MLB has every right to protect its product,” he wrote in the email, which he shared with Yahoo Sports. “I’m most certainly not trying to deprive MLB of any value, instead I’m trying to create value by helping pitchers have a sense of community, learn, and appreciate the game. Rather than debate the legal matter, I am more than happy to give MLB all of my gifs for free or work out some other content deal that just allows me to use MLB content, as permitted, for fair use, to help pitchers, coaches, and fans understand the game. I would be happy to donate any content for free and execute a copyright license ensuring that MLB owns any gifs I create.”

That's... weird. MLB already owns the copyright to the videos. Fair use is what lets Friedman make use of them without needing a license. So I'm not sure what he's talking about licensing them back to MLB. That doesn't really make much sense. But, you still see the underlying point that he's making, which is that he's building more interest in the game, and he's not trying to claim any ownership or make any money from what he's doing, it's just for the love of sharing the game and educating people. Which, you know, is the kind of thing that fair use is explicitly designed to enable.

And, of course, no one should take Twitter off the hook here for suspending Friedman's account. Twitter could have (and should have) rejected the DMCA notices and pointed out that the @PitchingNinja account was engaging in fair use. Instead, it shut down the account, and once again showed how copyright is regularly abused for censorship, rather than any legitimate purpose under the Copyright Act.

Filed Under: baseball, censorship, copyright, fair use, gifs, kevin clancy, pitchingninja, rob friedman
Companies: barstool sports, mlb, twitter

NY Mets Oppose Trademark For Medical Exam Tracking System (METS) Claiming Potential Customer Confusion

from the swing-and-a-miss dept

Look, dear reader, I live in the real world. I see a great many people genuinely confused about a great many things that shouldn't be confusing, so I'm aware of how many morons in a hurry occupy this planet. Still, I'm struggling to imagine anyone being confused by the trademark application currently being opposed by the New York Mets baseball team.

Comprehensive Health Services, a source for workforce medical services, registered a “METS” trademark for its proprietary Medical Exam Tracking System, trademark records show. The Cape Canaveral-based METS, according to the trademark application, provides “online non-downloadable cloud-based and client-server software for generating, managing and exchanging medical information.”

The Flushing, NY, Mets, in a notice of opposition filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office on July 24, are objecting to the award of the trademark to the Florida outfit. The baseball Mets claim both companies are practically in the same business and the public could be confused.

The "practically in the same business" claim rests on the Mets noting that the team provides "online non-downloadable software online for the purpose of facilitating organization of information about baseball games, events and venues." Practically in the same business appears to be a gross exaggeration on par with my claim that I am the beacon of sexual charisma for North America. I'm trying to picture the reaction of the person examining this opposition, hoping they had the same mind-halting moment at reading this.

The only other claims in the opposition appear to rest on the fact that the Mets have held their own trademark for half a century and yet another strange claim that the logos for both companies would be confusing, because apparently the public can't differentiate between the New York City skyline and a heart rate monitor line.

Apparently that’s enough for the MLB team, whose logo includes a backdrop of Gotham’s skyline, to take further issue with a METS’ mark that depicts what its application calls a “stylized heart rate line.”

Here's the proposed logo. Try not to go into a blithering stupor over your own confusion.

This is normally where I'd come up with an arguably witty retort to how silly this all is, but I shouldn't have to. This opposition by the New York Mets is bonkers.

Filed Under: baseball, likelihood of confusion, medical exam tracking, mets, trademark
Companies: comprehensive health services, ny mets

AT&T Settles With DOJ Over LA Dodgers Channel Collusion Allegations

from the competitors-playing-too-nicely dept

In 2013, Time Warner Cable (since acquired by Charter Communications) struck an $8.35 billion deal with the LA Dodgers to create LA SportsNet, the exclusive home of LA Dodgers games. To recoup its investment, Time Warner Cable demanded exorbitant prices from competing cable providers if they wanted access to the channel. Unsurprisingly, all of Time Warner Cable's competitors in the region balked at the $5 per subscriber asking price.

Several years later, a massive portion of Los Angeles still can't watch their favorite baseball team, since Time Warner Cable's asking price not only kept competing cable operators from delivering the channel, but prohibited over-the-air broadcasts of the games.

Last November, a new wrinkle emerged in the standoff after the Department of Justice sued AT&T (now owner of DirecTV) for being a "ringleader" in a collusion effort involving the channel. The DOJ effectively claimed that DirecTV, Cox, and other regional cable providers violated antitrust law by sharing private company data during their coordinated effort against Time Warner Cable's exclusive arrangement and higher rates. The original complaint stated that this "unlawful information exchange" violated consumers' rights to fair channel price negotiations:

"As the complaint explains, Dodgers fans were denied a fair competitive process when DIRECTV orchestrated a series of information exchanges with direct competitors that ultimately made consumers less likely to be able to watch their hometown team,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sallet of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Competition, not collusion, best serves consumers and that is especially true when, as with pay-television providers, consumers have only a handful of choices in the marketplace."

Fast forward a few months and a new administration, however, and the Department of Justice has announced that it has settled its lawsuit against AT&T. According to the DOJ, AT&T has agreed to monitor its employees so they do not illegally share information about sensitive contract negotiations with competitors. This, the DOJ states, should wind up being a boon for consumers:

"When competitors email, text, or otherwise share confidential and strategically sensitive information with each other to avoid competing, consumers lose,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s settlement promotes competition among pay-television providers and prevents AT&T and DIRECTV from engaging in illegal conduct that thwarts the competitive process."

And yes, it makes sense to enforce existing antitrust law prohibiting covert collusion between companies. The problem, of course, is that nothing in the settlement fixes the original issue of Los Angeles residents being unable to actually watch these games due to Charter's exclusive deal with the Dodgers. Nor does it address the fact that cable providers increasingly pad consumer bills with "regional sports fees" that pay for these networks (which they often already own), but are designed to help providers falsely advertise a lower rate at the point of sale (something regulators truly couldn't care less about).

So while the settlement slaps the wrists of companies that technically broke the law to do battle with Charter's exclusive arrangement, nothing about it really makes things arguably better for the consumer. And with the DOJ's new incoming antitrust boss having formerly lobbied for both AT&T and Dish Network (he's previously supported AT&T's $85 billion plan to acquire Time Warner) the all-too-familiar anti-consumer dysfunction bone-grafted to the cable and broadcast sector isn't likely to evaporate anytime soon, even with the added benefit of streaming competition.

Filed Under: baseball, collusion, la sportsnet, merger, sports, tv
Companies: charter, dodgers, time warner cable

DOJ Sues DirecTV, Calling It A 'Ringleader' of Collusion Over Regional Sports Programming

from the room-full-of-villains dept

Back in 2013, Time Warner Cable (now Charter Communications) struck an $8.35 billion deal with the LA Dodgers to create LA SportsNet, the exclusive home of LA Dodgers games. To recoup that money, Time Warner Cable began demanding exorbitant prices from competing cable providers if they wanted access to the channel. Unsurprisingly, all of Time Warner Cable's competitors in the region balked at the $5 per subscriber asking price for the channel. As a result, for three years now a massive portion of Los Angeles hasn't been able to watch their favorite baseball team, since Time Warner Cable's asking price not only kept competing cable operators from delivering the channel, but prohibited over-the-air broadcasts of the games.

Fast forward to this week, when the Department of Justice announced it was suing DirecTV for being the "ringleader" in a collusion effort involving the channel. According to the full DOJ complaint (pdf), DirecTV (now owned by AT&T), worked covertly in concert with local competitors Cox, Charter (before it owned Time Warner Cable) and AT&T (before it owned DirecTV) to coordinate a refusal to pay Time Warner Cable's high prices. The DOJ's statement notes that these companies engaged in "unlawful information exchanges" to coordinate this refusal in violation of antitrust law:

"As the complaint explains, Dodgers fans were denied a fair competitive process when DIRECTV orchestrated a series of information exchanges with direct competitors that ultimately made consumers less likely to be able to watch their hometown team,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sallet of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Competition, not collusion, best serves consumers and that is especially true when, as with pay-television providers, consumers have only a handful of choices in the marketplace."

Right, except calling any of this "competition" is being rather generous. It's an interesting case in that Time Warner Cable had been broadly considered the bad guy in this equation for the last three years by Dodgers fans, 70% of which couldn't watch their favorite team despite living in Los Angeles. And even after the DOJ lawsuit was filed this week, outlets like the Los Angeles Times were perfectly willing to ignore the illegal behavior, claiming that collusion was ok because it punished Time Warner Cable's cash grab to the indirect benefit (sort of) of consumers:

"At a time when there’s open rebellion against soaring pay-TV prices, these companies were clearly acting out of self-interest. The last thing they wanted was to give people another reason to cut the cord. Whatever their primary motive, though, they also were defending their customers’ interests. That’s rare and welcome behavior from an industry that all too often regards consumers as ATMs from which it can make frequent withdrawals."

And while some of that may be true, collusion is still collusion, and the fact that Dodgers fans still can't watch their favorite team can hardly be seen as a win. For whatever it's worth, AT&T, currently trying to sell its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner (not to be confused with Time Warner Cable) to regulators, was quick to remind everybody that it didn't own DirecTV at the time this occurred:

"The reason why no other major TV provider chose to carry this content was that no one wanted to force all of their customers to pay the inflated prices that Time Warner Cable was demanding for a channel devoted solely to LA Dodgers baseball. We make our carriage decisions independently, legally and only after thorough negotiations with the content owner. We look forward to presenting these facts in court."

It's an amazing case where in reality everybody is the bad guy, and despite companies colluding and covertly exchanging sensitive data, nobody really wound up benefiting. Well, except perhaps those that were able to cut the cord because they don't watch baseball.

Filed Under: baseball, collusion, doj, prices, tv
Companies: at&t, charter communications, directv, la dodgers, time warner cable

Chicago Cubs: With Success Comes Trademark Lawsuit Against Street Vendors

from the cubby-blues dept

As a lifelong Cubs fan with a resume that includes going to my first game at Wrigley when I was four months old and living in Wrigleyville for several years, I can at the very least claim some expertise on the culture around the team and the stadium. For those that have not been lucky enough to visit baseball's Mecca, the walk about up to the park consists of bar-laden streets on either Addison or Clark, with the sidewalks spilling over with fans, bar-patrons, and street vendors. Those street vendors offer innumerable wares, including t-shirts, memorabillia, and food. It's part of the experience.

An experience suddenly under fire by the team and Major League Baseball, which have jointly filed a federal lawsuit against some forty street vendors for trademark and counterfeit violations.

The Cubs and Major League Baseball filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday against a vendors hawking allegedly counterfeit and trademark-infringing merchandise.

"Defendants are a group of vendors who are deliberately free riding on the success of the Cubs and trading — without a license or permission — on the substantial goodwill associated with the Cubs' trademarks and trade dress," the team and the league claimed in the lawsuit, alleging the vendors "flooded Wrigleyville and the Internet with all manner of unlicensed products."

They're not wrong, of course. These vendors are everywhere. As I said, it's part of the experience. And it got to be that way because it's gone on forever. That the team is suddenly taking this action on the eve of a playoff run is within its rights, certainly, but doesn't otherwise make a great deal of sense. Were this the problem the filing appears to claim it is, it should have been a problem during last year's playoff run, or in 2007 and 2008 when the team also made postseason appearances.

While much is made in the Tribune post about how the internet has exacerbated this problem, the vendors targeted here sell solely on the street around the ballpark. Something they have surely done for years now. The team must surely have considered the question of whether forty street vendors posed a true threat to its trademark rights and the insane merchandise revenue it collects from its own sales, and whether or not that threat was of greater importance than an ambiance and culture that has always been central to the team's commercial success.

The Cubs clearly think the threat is real, but it's tough to see how that makes sense. Other avenues besides a federal lawsuit could have been pursued in order to protect the team's trademark rights, but the Cubs didn't go that route. Instead, street vendors will be brought into court, even as the team makes its run. The friendly confines feel a little less friendly all of a sudden.

Filed Under: baseball, competition, counterfeit goods, trademark, vendors
Companies: chicago cubs

Texas Rangers Oppose Bacardi's Logo For Green Tea Spirit Because Of The 'T'

from the texas-tee dept

More alcohol industry trademark news for you folks, except this time the ridiculous party in the story is not in the alcohol industry. This particular dispute revolves around a new liquor from Bacardi called "Tang," and if you thought the most likely party to object to Bacardi's trademark application for the new brand was from a soda company, you aren't alone. Unfortunately, the Texas Rangers, who I'm fairly certain are still in the baseball business, beat everyone else to the punch.

Bacardi’s Tang is a liquor distilled from fermented Chinese green tea. It’s applied to the Patent and Trademark Office to register its “Tang” logo for a tea distilled spirit and alcoholic beverages except beer. The ball club is fighting Bacardi’s registration because, it says, the “T” in Bacardi’s Tang logo looks too much like the “T” in the Texas Rangers logo.

And here are the logos in question, side by side.

Now, while the letters "T" in both logos do look kinda-sorta similar, there's a slight chance that's because it's a single freaking letter in the English language and there are only so many ways to depict a capital "T" in a recognizable way. The only real stylistical similarity in the two "T"s is the outjuts in the mid-section of the stem in each letter — known as "median spurs" and found on lots and lots of typefaces. Other than that, the letters are actually fairly distinct in style. And, of course, the rest of each logo has a shit-ton of other components which all severely demonstrate the source of each logo. This makes customer confusion laughably unlikely, particularly given that the Texas Rangers are known by the public to be in the sporting industry, even though the team claims it holds trademarks on its logo for use on beverages and food services.

Still, the Rangers have claimed that the public might think Tang is affiliated with the team. Which is ridiculous. And yet... it looks like settlement talks are already in the works.

So far, not much has happened in the cancellation proceedings. But one item on the case docket indicates that the matter has been suspended while the parties engage in settlement negotiations.

I'm a bit surprised that Bacardi, a company with the resources to defend itself, is even bothering with the settlement talks. The only way it would make sense to me is if the "settlement" was light on any monetary exchange, because the Rangers don't have much of a chance on this one.

Filed Under: baseball, drinks, t, tang, trademark
Companies: bacardi, texas rangers

Baseball Equipment Makers In Trademark Spat Over The Word 'Diamond'

from the play-ball dept

Everyone should know by now that language is ever evolving. New, cultural, or colloquial words get added to the dictionary. In addition, existing words attain new definitions, typically contextual definitions. Like the word "diamond", for instance, which has a different definition when spoken in the context of baseball. In baseball lingo, the diamond is in the filed, or infield, and the term is as common as "bat", or "ball", or "single." And, yet, two makers of baseball equipment are now in a trademark legal spat over the word "diamond."

Cooperstown Bat Co. has asked U.S. Magistrate Judge David Peebles to declare that its use of "Pro Diamond" on its bats doesn't infringe on the trademark of a California sports-equipment manufacturer. Cooperstown Bat Co. sued Diamond Baseball Co. in federal court in Syracuse in response to Diamond Baseballs' demand that Cooperstown Bat stop using the name. Diamond Baseball sent a "cease and desist" letter to Cooperstown Bat in December, demanding that it remove "Pro Diamond" from its web site and send all of its bats with that mark on it to Diamond for destruction.

Complicating this is that Major League Baseball has a rule for bat manufacturers that an ink dot must be on any bat constructed of maple or birch wood, in order that players and teams can better see the quality of the wood grains, which is an indication of the strength of the wood. Cooperstown Bat began using a diamond for its ink dot because, again, baseball. Shortly after, Cooperstown Bat began marketing these professional grade wooden bats under the "Pro Diamond" brand, after which Diamond Baseball sent out its C&D notices.

But, in the context of baseball, how in the world is "diamond" not generic? Cooperstown Bats brings this up in its filing.

"The word 'diamond' has been used generically to refer to a baseball field, and more specifically, the four-cornered part of a baseball field in which the corners are the three bases and the home plate, for well over 100 years," Cooperstown Bat's lawsuit said.

Adding to the silliness of this is that the two companies don't even make the same equipment. Cooperstown Bats makes -- you guessed it -- baseball bats. It also sells a few accessories and apparel as well, but it's a baseball bat company. Diamond Baseball makes baseballs, softballs and catchers gear. Both are in the baseball business, but they don't make the same products and, again, in the baseball business the word "diamond" is as generic as "field."

It's high time the trademark office began a stricter policy on these types of generic marks. Sadly, we've seen little to indicate its willingness to do so.

Filed Under: baseball, trademark
Companies: mlb

Yankees, Comcast Engage In Public Pissing Match Because They're Incapable Of Adult Negotiations

from the Titanic-deck-chair-rearranging dept

For many years now we've seen a dramatic spike in programming contract disputes between broadcasters and cable operators, usually resulting in consumers losing access to TV content they're paying for. These feuds usually begin simply enough; with a broadcaster asking for a programming rate hike cable operators don't want to pay for. But instead of sitting down and hashing out a new deal that satisfies both parties like grown ups often do, the companies take their feud into the public sphere, punishing paying customers in the process.

This involves blacking out content users are paying for (without giving any refunds), annoying customers with ads and on-screen tickers blaming the other guy for being a greedy villain, sometimes cutting off user access to online content, and making an endless series of snippy comments in the media. After months of annoying customers, the two sides will usually strike a confidential deal, and the rate hike will get passed on to consumers whose cable bills are already skyrocketing at four times the rate of inflation. It is, to be kind, an unsustainable death spiral of dysfunction given the looming threat of Internet video.

The latest fight of this kind is between Comcast and the Fox and Yankees-owned YES Network. Comcast pulled the network from its lineup last November after YES asked for a 33% rate bump. Comcast has spent the last few months publicly complaining that nobody watched the network. YES Network has spent the last few months calling Comcast gutless, and with the new baseball season approaching has launched a new ad campaign using Yankees players like Alex Rodriguez and a new website that urges customers to switch to another cable operator while mocking Comcast:

"The most recent American Consumer Satisfaction Index ranks Comcast among the lowest of the more than 300 companies it tracks, calling out Comcast Xfinity for suffering one of the largest drops in customer satisfaction in the pay-TV industry. In a 2015 poll conducted jointly by 24/7 Wall St. and Zogby Analytics, Comcast finished dead last for the second straight year in terms of quality of customer service among 151 of America’s best-known companies across fifteen industries...Now Comcast is depriving fans of watching Yankees games on YES, even as it continues to force price hikes on its customers and charge more money for less service."

The problem is that with the amount of money broadcasters are demanding, and the apathetic, dysfunctional nature of cable companies (Comcast is a broadcaster itself no stranger to rate hikes), these are feuds many people wish both sides could somehow lose. Again, customers are paying for content they're not getting, being refused refunds, being harassed with on and off screen marketing, and -- once Comcast and YES strike a secret deal just before the first pitch is thrown -- customers will be pounded with a shiny new rate hike anyway. Regulators have thus far responded by implying these fights are just boys being boys.

It would be in the cable and broadcast industry's best self interest to get these deals done without pissing off any more customers, but the industry's incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Such as the fact these fights only accelerate piracy streams, cord cutting, and the downward-sliding satisfaction ratings of the least liked industry in America.

Filed Under: baseball, carriage, tv, yankees, yes network
Companies: comcast, yankees

Yankees' Dumb Ticket Policy Turns Soccer Match At Yankee Stadium Into A Ghost Town

from the papers-please dept

You may recall that we discussed the New York Yankees' bumbling attempt to institute a new ticket policy for Yankee Stadium that disallowed print-at-home tickets. Dressed up as a policy designed to combat fake tickets being sold by scalpers, the policy was actually designed to be a warm hug to the team's partner Ticketmaster and a slap to Ticketmaster rival StubHub, as well as all of the other secondary market resellers out there. Still, some people probably shrugged, assuming that this would only have an effect on Yankees fans, a group that might find the soil of sympathy barren.

But of course that assumption isn't true. Aside from representing a potentially virulent precedent that could be adopted by other teams, the Yankees aren't the only team that plays in Yankee Stadium. The local soccer (football) team, New York City FC, not only plays there as well, but the team hosted a match recently, and that match was likewise governed by the new ticket policy. So, how'd that work out exactly?

Thanks to member [Albany] for the pic. 8 minutes out! pic.twitter.com/wqaKJ9UmQ2

— NYCFC Forums (@NYCFCForums) March 13, 2016

Now, it's a bit confusing from the tweet, but that picture was taken shortly before the match was to begin, during warmups. It was not, as some had interpreted, taken with eight minutes left in the game. Which isn't to say that the results of the new ticket policy were anything short of disastrous.

Entry to the @NYCFC game at @Yankees Stadium is a DISASTER. Everyone in line has a paper ticket and is being turned away. @YankeesPR — Daniel Roberts (@readDanwrite) March 13, 2016

Yankee Stadium doesn't care about its customers, the ticket-holders. overtly disrespects them. @Yankees @NYCFC pic.twitter.com/pQOCmT0Jud

— Daniel Roberts (@readDanwrite) March 13, 2016

And the Deadspin post has a rolling series of tweets, including more pictures of crowded lines of pissed off fans, with reports that getting in was a massive problem, fans were being turned away, and everyone involved was generally aggravated.

Now, some will retreat back to the safety of the assertion that any new policy will breed some confusion and take time before all things go seamlessly. And, hey, that's true. However, this fustercluck also is a wonderful reminder of just how full of crap the Yankees were when they rolled out this policy. Were fraud to be a massive issue in need of addressing, why then is there so much overwhelming demand from fans for the use of print-at-home tickets? If the secondary market were a cesspool of fraud and abuse, that demand would cease to be. Yet, there was so much of that demand for this NYCFC match, that the ticket gates were mobbed by the angry. Not the best of starts for a fan-friendly ticket policy, methinks...

Filed Under: baseball, lines, printing tickets, secondary market, soccer, tickets
Companies: yankees