Maybe my wife should handle U marketing.

Donate To GopherHole
R

ruppertflywheel

Banned
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
12,226
Reaction score
0
Points
36
My wife owned an advertising agency in Duluth for many years. One of her accounts was UMD. She took the athletic department from red to black in two years. Having coffee this morning here were her thoughts. "The U is pushing the ticket increase before there is a actual " demand " for Gopher tickets. If there was a demand the Ohio State game would've sold out What the U should do for existing season ticket holders is create a lock in for 3 years at the same prices. Allow the season ticket holders to make payments on either a monthly or quarterly basis.This would allow the U to pickup the additional revenue/interest to cover the increase they need to keep the program competitive. The U should then apply an aggressive marketing program for new season ticket holders based on two successful seasons. Student ticket prices should remain the same because
there is still no real demand as yet and that revenue is a drop in the the bucket in comparison too
premium/regular season ticket holders. For next season you offer the " lock in " for new season ticket holders. If they only want for the current season you apply the first year increase they're proposing with an option to lock into those prices for the next two years"
 

Interesting perspective.

But what does AJ Barker's mom's best friend think?

;)
 

ruppertflywheel said:
My wife owned an advertising agency in Duluth for many years. One of her accounts was UMD. She took the athletic department from red to black in two years. Having coffee this morning here were her thoughts. "The U is pushing the ticket increase before there is a actual " demand " for Gopher tickets. If there was a demand the Ohio State game would've sold out What the U should do for existing season ticket holders is create a lock in for 3 years at the same prices. Allow the season ticket holders to make payments on either a monthly or quarterly basis.This would allow the U to pickup the additional revenue/interest to cover the increase they need to keep the program competitive. The U should then apply an aggressive marketing program for new season ticket holders based on two successful seasons. Student ticket prices should remain the same because
there is still no real demand as yet and that revenue is a drop in the the bucket in comparison too
premium/regular season ticket holders. For next season you offer the " lock in " for new season ticket holders. If they only want for the current season you apply the first year increase they're proposing with an option to lock into those prices for the next two years"
Click to expand...

Seems like a solid plan. The part in bold is what would keep anything like this from happening though. The U just doesn't market football as a priority over the other sports, maybe they will finally change and start but historically they have been far too concerned with keeping everyone happy as opposed to putting the focus on the sports that actually make money for the department.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Seems like a solid plan. The part in bold is what would keep anything like this from happening though. The U just doesn't market football as a priority over the other sports, maybe they will finally change and start but historically they have been far too concerned with keeping everyone happy as opposed to putting the focus on the sports that actually make money for the department.
Click to expand...
That's why UMD hired my wife to ramp up there top revenue program hockey. At that time they played in the DECC and it was not selling out. As my wife said about the U: " Administration/Athletic
Departments are clueless when it concerns marketing"
 

MrC said:
Interesting perspective.

But what does AJ Barker's mom's best friend think?

;)
Click to expand...

It's a coldly rainy day where I live. I was AJ Barkers moms best friend would share some movie suggestions.
 




The U should never have had a single chair back in the stadium that didn't require a donation - even if it was $50. That's just one of the things making this worse now.
 

ruppertflywheel said:
My wife owned an advertising agency in Duluth for many years. One of her accounts was UMD. She took the athletic department from red to black in two years. Having coffee this morning here were her thoughts. "The U is pushing the ticket increase before there is a actual " demand " for Gopher tickets. If there was a demand the Ohio State game would've sold out What the U should do for existing season ticket holders is create a lock in for 3 years at the same prices. Allow the season ticket holders to make payments on either a monthly or quarterly basis.This would allow the U to pickup the additional revenue/interest to cover the increase they need to keep the program competitive. The U should then apply an aggressive marketing program for new season ticket holders based on two successful seasons. Student ticket prices should remain the same because
there is still no real demand as yet and that revenue is a drop in the the bucket in comparison too
premium/regular season ticket holders. For next season you offer the " lock in " for new season ticket holders. If they only want for the current season you apply the first year increase they're proposing with an option to lock into those prices for the next two years"
Click to expand...

Smart Lady you have there. And i think a smarter AD would have figured that out. Norwood I believe is tired of the U of M and is looking for a way out. he figures this will fail and he will still look good as he was trying to do what is thought to be the best for the U to be competitive.

problem I see is that it will be a long time before he makes up for the losses in loyal fans this change has done, that will eventually cost him his job and he can go to a place he will be happier at.
 



badgergopher said:
The U should never have had a single chair back in the stadium that didn't require a donation - even if it was $50. That's just one of the things making this worse now.
Click to expand...

that is probably correct but when you build a stadium and dont have a winning team on the field and you are looking to get a fan base to follow your team you have to do something.

I am in a chair back and am willing to pay something but in year three i will be paying 2 x as much in donations as my seats? seriously for a team that potentially could be a great team but has only shown progress and 8-4 seasons. even if we were 10-2 2/3rds of my money going to a scholarship that technically the U controls the actual costs. yes they pay for food etc.. but schooling is a write off for them as they just hike up other students cost to pay for the 750 fee educations they are giving. housing is another cost they have as well as the trainers and facilities etc.. those costs are going up but most of those are operational costs rather than scholarship cost. there are other ways to control operational costs.

every business reviews operational cost and can have increases in cost for the product. tripling the cost will have an affect on the demand for the product no matter how good the product is.

maybe the BT should revisit the BTN contract? they have done a subpar job from a Gopher perspective (really all schools that are not MSU OSU MichU have a complaint)

I would pay modest fees for my privilege to spend $6 for soda and 5.50 for a hotdog while watching a decent team on the field.
 

Ruppertflywheel (I love that name - I wonder how many know its origin), your wife's idea is a good one. This looniness is coming from a consulting firm, out of state, so just what Norwwod thinks is slick (by the way, I hear he is looking around for another perch). I wish your wife were in charge of this project, but it seems Kaler and Teague are solidly behind trashing their fan base and wildly overcharging for a product that is up against five pro teams in the Twin Cities.
 

So in this thread we have Teague tired of Minnesota, figures the price increase will fail and still make himself look good, price increase will cost him his job which will allow him to go to a place where he will be happier. Followed up with "...he is looking around for another perch" and Teague and Kaler are out to trash their fans.

Was all this true before the ticket price increase or only after it was announced? Secondly, if Teague is tired of Minnesota and "looking around for another perch" why would he need the price increase to fail, lose his job to be happier and out to trash Gopher fans?

Teague and Kaler must really hate Gopher fans.
 

scools12 said:
Teague and Kaler must really hate Gopher fans.
Click to expand...

Gopher fans aren't happy if they aren't being victimized...apparently add Teague and Kaler to the list of oppressors (reusse, barreiro, btn, the vikings, etc, etc)
 



Even if the ticket increase ends up being a good idea (future attendance and revenue numbers should tell us if it is), I am always shocked at how bad the U is at marketing and PR. Even if our PR guys are volunteers, they are being paid too much.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Seems like a solid plan. The part in bold is what would keep anything like this from happening though. The U just doesn't market football as a priority over the other sports, maybe they will finally change and start but historically they have been far too concerned with keeping everyone happy as opposed to putting the focus on the sports that actually make money for the department.
Click to expand...

Digging into the Accounting the football program does not make money from operations. They make money after the allotment of Student fees, which was approximately 8.6 million last year. This is not uncommon, only 20 teams in the country made money without a subsidy last season.

Revenue 90,185,603
Student Fees 8,101,066
Total 98,286,669

Expenses 96,427,623

Note: Numbers are courtesy of USA today

My guess is they're looking to remedy this outright, with the ticket increase as opposed to massaging it a bit, as Ruppert's wife suggests. I'd go with Rupprt's wife on this one, as the converse is built on a foundation of sunk costs.... but at least this might explain it a bit better.
 



ruppertflywheel said:
My wife owned an advertising agency in Duluth for many years. One of her accounts was UMD. She took the athletic department from red to black in two years. Having coffee this morning here were her thoughts. "The U is pushing the ticket increase before there is a actual " demand " for Gopher tickets. If there was a demand the Ohio State game would've sold out What the U should do for existing season ticket holders is create a lock in for 3 years at the same prices. Allow the season ticket holders to make payments on either a monthly or quarterly basis.This would allow the U to pickup the additional revenue/interest to cover the increase they need to keep the program competitive. The U should then apply an aggressive marketing program for new season ticket holders based on two successful seasons. Student ticket prices should remain the same because
there is still no real demand as yet and that revenue is a drop in the the bucket in comparison too
premium/regular season ticket holders. For next season you offer the " lock in " for new season ticket holders. If they only want for the current season you apply the first year increase they're proposing with an option to lock into those prices for the next two years"
Click to expand...


I agree completely. In addition to everything you mentioned is the fact they announced their increase before their bowl selection to the first New Year's Day bowl appearance since 1962.

The announcement will also reduce the number of fans that will travel to Orlando.

You can tell they are new to success, went all in on their first good hand instead of playing poker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The idea that you cannot raise prices without demand is as asinine as they come.

Add in that none of you know whether or not this increase will not come with some sort of decrease on the other end seems to be lost in the conversation. Often an attempt to take "rate" is often smoothed out by increased discount/promotion. Our lack of "aggressive marketing for season ticket holders" was likely parred with the fact that we were operating in the red. This price increase may be parlayed with discounts and other options, we don't know, but the assumed increase in margins would lead to greater flexibility on discounting.

My background is in consumer products so my view is definitely slanted on how and when to take rate. But some of the opinions lobbed out there, and the loudest one being you cannot raise prices if there is no demand, are quite simplistic.

Lets face it, in the eyes of the consumer, there is never a good time to to pay more for the same thing.
 

DoubleB said:
Smart Lady you have there. And i think a smarter AD would have figured that out. Norwood I believe is tired of the U of M and is looking for a way out. he figures this will fail and he will still look good as he was trying to do what is thought to be the best for the U to be competitive.

problem I see is that it will be a long time before he makes up for the losses in loyal fans this change has done, that will eventually cost him his job and he can go to a place he will be happier at.
Click to expand...

Bwahaha. Where do some of you rubes come up with this stuff? Honestly.....it is some of the most ridiculous stuff I have read on here.
 

Maximus said:
Gopher fans aren't happy if they aren't being victimized...apparently add Teague and Kaler to the list of oppressors (reusse, barreiro, btn, the vikings, etc, etc)
Click to expand...

This, a thousand times this. Some of the stuff posted on here in the last week or so has been of the absurd.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom