Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 29

Who pays for giveaways at ball games?

Giveaways at baseball games, if I understand the article right, are a great example of Below the line marketing. I have a question about how his is done in general; obviously, every way is different, but as a general rule, who pays for the middleman products.

By "middleman products" - and I suppose there's a better name - I mean a product that might not relate to the advertiser directly. For instance, say Geico decides to give away stuffed toy lizards. (And it would surprise me if they havne't done this. :-) yes, it relates in terms of the ad image, but they dont' sell stuffed animals, so it's not a direct relation. Would they buy the stuffed animals, they put little shirts with their logo on it? Would they pay the stuffed toy maker to do this and split the clost - after all, the toy manufacturer gets a bit of BTW promotion out of this, too. Most giveaways at ball games are, say, key chains that you can buy with no words on yet, I imagine. But, even there, does purchasing the products go into the marketing budget for the one giving them away?

Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the company being advertised via the giva-away is responsible for all costs. In your Geico example, they would source the give-away and arrange for the freebie to be printed with their company message... the toy company would not part fund the escapade ... the baseball owners would, of course, change Geico for the privilege, and may in addition offer logistical support, having been there & done that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the ball club would charge Geico anything, because the whole point of allowing the giveaway is to bring people into the ballpark, so it's totally to the club's benefit. That's something Bill Veeck discovered 50-60 years ago, and which other clubs slowly caught on to: Get someone else to give away something, they get free advertising, more people come to the park - everybody wins! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. IN the case of something like this - ING sponsoring the giveaway of 10000 baseballs, I suspect the club may well have organised the whole thing and then sought a sponsor ... whether all the costs are covered by the sponsor or not must remain a moot point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice from the writeup that the baseballs were to be given away after the game ended. Good idea. Except I wonder how they decide who gets them? First 10,000 to leave? Could cause a stampede. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that there are sometimes give-aways even at parks that are permanently sold-out, like Fenway. There's no point attracting more people to Fenway Park without putting in more chairs. APL (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. It's even possible the clubs do charge something for it, being the money-grubbers they are. But they have to be careful. Speaking of which, giving away baseballs, or anything else that can be thrown, has long been considered a very risky kind of promotion. That's why they are more apt to give away Beanie Babies than hard objects. There was a baseball giveaway in Milwaukee a few years back that resulted in several thousand of them being thrown on the field when an ump made a controversial call. Bad idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. I sorta remembered one remarkable incident in the past involving thrown records (those vinyl things we had before CDs). Wikipedia, of course, has a List of violent spectator incidents in sports, and there it was: Disco Demolition Night, July 12, 1979. In this promotion, fans could get into a White Sox double-header for $0.98 if they brought a disco record to be destroyed in a tween-games ceremony. The stadium sold out.

Unfortunately, the fans soon discovered that the records made good, if sharp, Frisbee equivalents. The destruction of the batting cage and the (literal) stealing of the bases soon gfollowed. The promotion was not repeated. Neither was the Ten Cent Beer Night at Cleveland five years earlier. Baseball is less fun these days. PhGustaf (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, man, you had to bring that up - one of the worst promotions ever (on the same order as "Ten Cent Beer Night" in Cleveland, on June 4, 1974); the absolute low point of Bill Veeck's career; and nearly the death-knell for the career path of his son, Mike Veeck, who was the brains, so to speak, behind this promotion. I recall watching it at a safe distance, on TV, and wondering, along with most everyone else, "What were they thinking?" In the middle of this past month, there were occasional little retrospectives on the 30-year anniversary of this disaster. Arrrgh! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a whole new tangent, and I hadn't realized there was effectively a "Curse of Rusty Torres", who was on the roster for both the 1974 and 1979 games, and also the last Washington Senator home game in 1971, also a forfeit. I wonder if he was in the stands for that 1995 game in L.A.? I'm also pretty sure there was a similar incident with the baseballs in Milwaukee, but the fans were told to stop or the game would be forfeited, and they stopped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In your example, Geico likely wouldn't do anything more than buy the stuffed geckos. There are companies that cater to this sort of thing. They have a wide selection of different little promotional items, e.g. key chains, stuffed animals, pens, notepads, etc. Each item has some place on it to print a logo. Again, in your example, the front of the gecko's shirt. So, they order 5000 of them and have them sent to the ball park. For a company as large as Geico, they can probably go to the promotions company and say, "You guys just have bears and raccoons but we want a gecko. Can you get geckos?" At which point the promotions company rings up their manufacturer in China, Hong Kong, or wherever and asks them to have 5000 geckos made including form fitting t-shirts. Geico may have someone at the park to give people rate quotes but the geckos are generally passed out by park employees. Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neat; I hadn't thought about there being actual promotions companies that make all those little products, but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks, all.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To get back to one of the issues raised earlier in the thread, in the case of a limited-supply but highly-desirable item being given away, the ball club will often give every spectator entering the park a little card. When opened, a certain number of these cards are vouchers for the coveted give-away item, and the others will offer something of lesser value (for example, discount on future tickets, or on concession items). The holders of the lucky tickets can then turn them in to receive their items. In the case of items likely to be thrown, such as a ball, the kiosks handing over the prizes can remain closed until the end of the game, and be located near the exits so that the items are not taken back into the stadium. Finally, the case of the balls being thrown en masse on the field was on August 10, 1995, in Los Angeles. The Dodgers had to forfeit the game as a result of being unable to stop the actions of their fans. See here. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that would make sense. Of course. This is why I'm not in the marketing field. :) It was in L.A.? I recall they used to throw seat cushions onto the field, but that was usually after the games were over. Now, don't tell me - they threw the balls in the field in the sixth inning, because everybody leaves by the seventh, right? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The game I was thinking of at Milwaukee was opening day, April 7, 1997. There's a reference to it in this blog, under "author": [1] They did not forfeit, so it didn't much matter, but I think that spelled the end of pre-game baseball giveaways. You'd think they'd have learned after the 1995 incident, but no. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a story I heard which must be either apocryphal, speculative or said in jest that claimed all-too-predictable consequences ensued when Little League-sized bats were distributed to the first X thousand kids to enter a game, perhaps a minor-league one. ¶ And there was a notorious weekend evening playoff game at Fenway Park in 1999 or 2000 where Boston Red Sox fans upset with calls rained an enormous amount of soft-drink bottles and other hard or semi-hard débris onto both officials and the visiting team, prompting delays and swift police action but not a forfeit. The team and the city issued a very quick and full apology the next day, unlike a rowdy hockey game at about the same time in another city where the mayor all-but-condoned his citizens' misbehavior. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." Yep. I still have a little league sized bat from a "bat day" giveaway many years ago. People were a little less rowdy then (maybe). In more recent years, bat giveaways have tended to be about the size of drumsticks. But the common sense rule still is, "Don't give away something they can throw and hurt somebody." Hence Beanie Babies, which probably wouldn't hurt even if fired from a cannon; and things like bobbleheads, which would probably be hard to get a good throwing grip on or wouldn't go very far, unlike a baseball. The practice at Wrigley Field, since adopted elsewhere, of throwing a visiting team home run ball back, is dangerous enough - but at least the fielders know it's coming. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some things are hard to avoid. Consider the (in)famous "Hail Mary (famous play)" play from December of 1975, when official Armen Terzian has conked in the head with a (presumably empty) bottle of booze. At least the ballparks don't have a "Thunderbird Day" or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Secular Humanism and World Government

If secular humanists don't want to establish world government, then how can you explain this statement in World Community, Twelfth, Humanist Manifesto II: "Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.".

You should look carefully to see what secular humanists support.

There is also this article called Humanism that you should look at.

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can explain it: Some people who self-identify as secular humanists want, apparently, to abolish nations and have a world government. That doesn't mean that secular humanists in general want to establish world government. I've seen that organization's logo around, but it doesn't mean they somehow represent all secular humanists.

In a similar vein, some Muslims want a world government running sharia law, and some Christians want to convert everyone in the world to their religion; but it doesn't mean you can tar all these people with the same brush. I'd add — though this is OR and I have no source to cite — that if you polled all the secular humanists on this political question, the answers would probably be more diverse than the results you'd get if you polled the Muslims and the Christians on their respective questions I just cited. Tempshill (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add something, as I just skimmed the creation wiki article that Bowie Huang linked to. The lie that's underlying the allegations in that article is the idea that the secular humanists are part of one big movement, like the Catholic Church, in which a large number of people have an (ostensibly) unified set of beliefs, and they follow marching orders given by their leaders. (Which allows them to exert undue influence over the United Nations, etc.) In my experience, it's the opposite. These people are not organized, despite the desires, apparently, of the American Humanist Association, the group that wrote those manifestos — their 2008 annual report notes their membership hit an all-time high of 10,000 last year. This is not a lot of people. So, if all 10,000 members were to endorse that document you cited, you could say there are at least 10,000 secular humanists who want a world government. But I don't think that world government is even in the top 10 priorities of most people who self-identify as "secular humanist". Tempshill (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We should oppose any attempt at a world government, because the current approach works so very well. Now, is there a real question in there someplace, or did someone mistake this page for Editorials R Us? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The OP does this kind of thing on a pretty regular basis. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the trillions and trillions of people who have been killed by war and trade blockades that cause famine and other rivalries since the dawn of mankind of course.--92.251.255.17 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but you should be aware that the number of humans who have ever lived is considerably less than a trillion. Algebraist 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowei Huang, your comment that one (who?) “should look carefully to see what secular humanists support” seems to represent a non-neutral point of view. Perhaps you should reexamine your motive for posting potentially offensive statements here. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Causes on Facebook

Have any causes on Facebook ever been known to actually accomplish anything besides some fund raising? I'm thinking of things external to FB, i.e. not the "Tell FB that you don't like..." causes. Most of the time, I don't see the point in joining them except for maybe a warm fuzzy in your heart over clicking a few links to say you support left-handed firefighters or whatever else the cause supports. Dismas|^(talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bra Wars. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly what causes someone to change their mind, but there are a number of campaigns that have organised using Facebook and achieved results. Fighting changes in Canadian copyright law[2]. Bringing the Wispa chocolate bar into production was partly due to a Facebook campaign[3]. Even less importantly on a global scale, but presumably due to an active Facebook-using student body, changing the branding at Vermont College[4]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read at least one claim that the Wispa/Facebook thing was deliberate viral marketing. I can't remember the source though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a wispa/viral claim, the first of many given by this google search. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel I'm being got at. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In Ontario, the government dropped proposed new restrictions on driving by teenagers after more than 150,000 people joined a Facebook group opposed to the changes. The media played up the Facebook angle, but it's impossible to know how much influence that had on the decision to withdraw the proposal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for reference: Two friends lost, dying in national park; one killed the other out of mercy, later rescued, charged with murder

I saw a true story on TV years ago but cannot find a reference to it. The story goes something like this:

Two college friends took a road trip after graduation. They stayed in a national park(?) overnight but were unprepared for the desert(?) heat. The next day, they were dehydrated and disoriented, and couldn't find their way back to their vehicle. One of them was in agony and seemed to be dying. The other friend thought they were both going to die and killed the first one, to spare his friend of the pain. The second friend was later rescued and charged with murder. It turned out that the two victims were only several hundred feet from their vehicle the whole time.

Do you have a reference to this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.141 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We do: Raffi Kodikian. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick. Thanks. --98.114.98.141 (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in simple English

Radio-frequency identification and Stock-keeping unit? Thank you, 117.0.15.161 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean Radio-frequency identification and Stock-keeping unit perchance? 62.78.198.48 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what the question was about, but in the case of Stock-keeping unit, the article is not a particularly easy read. I'll take a shot - A stock-keeping unit, or SKU, is an identifier primarily used for inventory management. As an example, a grocery store may have different SKUs assigned to milk, eggs, bread, and oranges. These could be as simple as 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004. They could then track how many of item 0001 they have on hand, how many of 0002 were sold each day, and how many 0004 they should order from their supplier at the end of the week. The SKU can be more complex - if the store sells bread from two different bakeries, then perhaps the identifier could be 0003A or 0003B. --LarryMac | Talk 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like to know about the Simple English Wikipedia [5]. There is an article about RFID there [6]. Unfortunately, there is no stock-keeping unit article there. Summarizing the regular English Wikipedia article on stock-keeping unit, an SKU is a unique identifier which a business uses to keep track of the items they buy, sell, and store. Each item the business thinks of as a "unit" gets its own SKU. For example, a single item may have one SKU, but a pack of ten items may have a different SKU. Likewise, if a product comes in different colors, each color would have its own SKU. Each business has their own way of giving items an SKU; there is no universal SKU system. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A given SKU, say 123456 might refer to one model model, size, and color of a product from one manufacturer. When the store no longer carries that item, the same sku might be reassigned to a different item. The bar code on the product has to be linked in the stores computer to the bar code on the item, so that when scanned at the checkout, the purchased product rings up as the right item. Edison (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

free digital photography online magazines

does anyone know of any free digital photography online magazines (to download in pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.100.69 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[7] Enjoy! This site looks good, actually, must try it myself. Fribbler (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hydrangea

Hi,

I'm thinking of purchasing some Hydrangea Macrophylia shrubs in all the appropriate colours for my front garden.

I need these shrubs/flowers to be about 4 to 5 foot high when purchased - is that possible?

If not can you point me in the right direction to purchase different coloured plants/flowers/shrubs that colour at 4 to 5 foot on purchase?

Regards

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkoufou (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do you live? It will help answer the question. Fribbler (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if you have the wrong soil, you will have to add some sort of iron to ensure you get a blue hydrangea. This forum thread may explain further: [8] --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gas prices

Is gas price in California jumping again?! In orange county I saw a 3.02 in June 2009, then they went down twenty cents to 2.81, then I saw a 5 cent-jump on few stations. is gas price going to go back to 3.50 anytime soon, or not till few years. Will we have 4 or 5/gallon again? Let's hope not!--69.228.145.50 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if only we could predict the prices of commodities! We'd all be much richer. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

At least we don't yet have hyperinflation, where the price of a loaf of bread may double while you wait in the checkout line to buy it. I have seen prices on a gas station change a nickle or so at a time 2-3 times in a day, so such fluctuations are not unusual. --Jayron32 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the commodity that's changing price that rapidly, I think it's the cost at the pump. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You should see what it's like in Britain. I used to think fuel prices in America were a lot cheaper, but they go up and down all the time too. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Between July 21 and July 28, the price of regular gas in Los Angeles rose 3.2%, and No. 2 low-sulfur diesel by 3.1%. See [9]. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)