The Colts will Teach you for not Buying Season Tickets
Color me embarrassed. Just a few hours after I wrote a piece defending the Colts marketing practices in an effort to sell preseason tickets - an article I still stand by - news broke that the Colts planned to blackout all home games with less than 100% sold tickets.
A year ago, this would have been a non-story, as 100% sales were the requirement to avoid local-market blackouts under NFL rules. Earlier this month, however, it was reported that, given a decrease in attendance during tough economic times, the NFL would relax its blackout policy to require as few as 85% of tickets to be sold to avoid local blackouts. It should be noted that teams who avoid a blackout with less than 100% of tickets sold will incur some financial penalties by being forced to share more revenue than normal with the visiting team for any tickets sold over the 85%.
So why would the Colts want to reject the opportunity to take advantage of these relaxed rules?
Larry Hall, the Colts' Vice President of Ticker Operations and Guest Services, gave these quotes to Fox59"
"We wouldn't have had season tickets available this time last year,"
"We understand what the NFL is doing and at the same time, as a small market team, we want to make sure that we protect that game day experience,"
"Every year we'll evaluate where we're at, but at this point in time after thinking through it, home field advantage is a big part of it. It's a competitive advantage on the field to have the stadium full."
The first quote from Hall seems to exude a complete lack of understanding of the situations. Yes, a year ago you would have been (or, you were) sold out. What has changed? It would be naive to expect no negative reaction from the fan base after their franchise quarterback, the reason the team never relocated, was unceremoniously cut due to injury - only to see him sign the follow week and apparently perform like his old self.
We won't continue to rehash Manning's greatness, the decision to cut him, or any of that, but you can't have this conversation without understanding just how much Manning meant to the Colts, the city of Indianapolis, and the fans. There was an emotional connection. Yes, most of us are Colts fans first, but Manning was ours. It's not very often that you get to cheer for the best ever. There is going to be an adjustment period as the team transitions from the Manning/Polian Era to the Luck/Grigson Era.
The best way to facilitate that transition? Let the fans see as many games as possible. How do the Colts expect fans to build that deep love and affection for this team of mostly new faces (no one is downplaying the importance of fan-favorites Robert Mathis, Reggie Wayne, and Dwight Freeney still being with the team) if their main interaction with the roster is catching the box scores - most of which will likely be displaying lopsided losses?
Let the fans see Luck's skill. Let them fall in love with Coby Fleener's personality and ability to run the seam route. Let them continue to be dazzled by Freeney and Mathis coming off the edge. Let them bask in the glory of the defense they've been clamoring for years, Chuck Pagano's 3-4 scheme.
The Colts justify the situation by saying they want to "protect the game day experience," that they want to retain home field advantage by having the stadium full. In saying that, they are admitting that punishing fans over 2,000 unsold season tickets is more important that reconnecting the Colts and their fans.
Since 1998, Hoosiers have gobbled up Colts football more than breaded pork tenderloin. With today's announcement, the Colts sent their fans to their rooms without dessert, until they learn their lesson.
The Colts are betting that they can sell every ticket. they are betting on their fan base. Kravitz is right. If you are going to hate anyone in this situation, hate the NFL. They "changed" very unpopular policy, and put the ball in the individual teams hands. Yet they made it a very dumb move for any team with even a remote chance of selling out every game to lower the blackout percentage. The Colts are already very close to selling out every game, so it would be an absolutely TERRIBLE business decision for them to lower the percentage at all.
That being said, the Colts did not handle the release of this news well at all. They should have explained why they made the decision differently than they did. They should have said they were confident that the tickets would be sold and that there would be no blackouts. The should have explained that it was a bad move for any team to lower the blackout restriction. They should have shined light on the brilliant PR move by the NFL to avoid the blame for blackouts.
That being said, I can almost guarantee that every game will be sold out and this will be a non-issue for Colts fans this year. If the general public does not buy every ticket, I'm sure the Colts will make sure they are sold some how, i.e. "selling" them to charities, compnaies buying them at discounted prices.
p.s. I really hope that cutting 18 will not curse this franchise. Irsay, you better hope Luck is a superstar because you cut the GOAT to get him. If he's Stafford or Ryan good, he will not be a bust, but that will sure make you look bad Jimmy.
Amen, amen, and AMEN. The team should be making fans fall in love with it, give them personalities and performance that makes people WANT to come to the stadium--not force them into it. The best way to do that is to "show a little leg", so to speak. I could go on and on, but you've already covered the point well.
Overreaction guys. I actually agree with Kravitz on this one. Bad timing, not a bad move.
@Kyle Rodriguez we can agree to disagree :)
At best, it's bad timing, and a bad way of delivering the news. I do believe there is a disconnect and lack of understanding of the situation.
By the way, I'm not emotional about this situation, I won't be affected either way.
@GregC I believe you, I won't either, but I was still angry initially. But then I read up on the NFL's rule concerning the blackouts, and it makes sense to me why the Colts did what they did. There definitely is a lack of understanding though, and their PR needs to get a better feel.
@Kyle Rodriguez @GregC See, now the truth comes out.
They could set the rate at 98%.
Instead of giving up 40% of the extra tickets sold, they'd be giving up 50%.
We are talking 10-20K a week extra.
@Nate Dunlevy @GregC It just makes sense. They've already got over 97% of the tickets sold. The only reason to set the blackout rate higher is because if they think they will sell that many, other wise, they wouldn't lose more money to visiting teams. That's what I assumed before Kravitz even tweeted it.
@Kyle Rodriguez @GregC I want to see that verified someplace else besides Kravitz before I believe it.
@Nate Dunlevy @GregC There shouldn't be any blackouts. The reason they made the level 100% because of 85% is because they think they're going to sell out.
@GregC @Kyle Rodriguez I'm with Greg 1000%. The money at stake is a pittance compared with the bad press and long-term effects of a blackout.
@GregC I think the move shouldn't alienate fans. IF it does, it's because of the way they announced it.
@Kyle Rodriguez I understand the money issue, but here's my point, and one I needed to, but failed, to make:
Yes, they may lose money in the short term, but if they alienate fans, aren't they losing more in the long term?
@SpencerFGray Seems like bungled PR. It would be a disaster if NONE of the home games sold out and the local fanbase didn't get to see any of the games this year (would the local channels carry away games?). Fans need to see the new players. There should be better explanations coming from the PR dept.
@SpencerFGray Oh, yeah, and if the Colts aren't on TV, fans will watch Peyton every week instead. That would just be ducky...
