All things Lions Marketing/Promotions 2014

[sj-roc]

The Lions marketing braintrust has elected to hitch its wagon to that domestic violence campaign with in-stadium spots and advertising signage around the field. I get that this is a serious social issue and it is noble of the Lions and they are to be applauded, but let's be honest. It's a real debby downer of a topic and isn't conducive to the entertainment escape that attending a sports event is, presumably, supposed to be about. I'm not saying don't do it, by all means it's an important social issue...but it seems to point the finger at the very fans they're trying to attract. That's the uncomfortable subtext: If you are involved in football or a fan of it and probably a male, you, more than the rest of the general population, need to heed this message about violence against our female population. They don't seem to have thought through that this is not a fun thing to be reminded about constantly during a game. There needs to be some sort of balance struck.

Your comments remind me of when Don Cherry took umbrage at those PSAs aimed at overzealous hockey parents, shaming them for tarring all the parents, although it must be said Grapes has rarely come close to choosing his words as carefully as you have here to make a valid point.

In fairness the message of these spots is less "check yourself" and more "call others on their crap", which is captured in the name of the program: Be More Than A Bystander. Having said that, any advertising message repeated sufficiently often, no matter how noble the intent, runs the risk of growing stale. Accordingly this one may now be approaching such point; AFAIK this is at least the third season of the Lions' involvement with this initiative. I recall just after Lui retired he worked with ICBC to promote their anti-DWI message. At games they'd trot him out in front of a teed up football, outfit him with special goggles that simulated drunkenness and have him fruitlessly flail away, trying to kick the football off the tee. I found it kind of entertaining for a while but it eventually ran its course and ended quietly, much I suppose as this current one will at some point, perhaps even at the end of this season.

A bit O/T but your debby downer angle reminds me of a rather awkward Grey Cup party I attended at a friend's place in 1995. The room was almost nothing but couples. Pretty much every ad break, over and over they ran the same tease for the lead story on that evening's CBC newscast, which was how society was reaching epidemic levels of marital infidelity.

Every time it aired the room was just DEATH. *WORST* GC party ever. And watching a soon-to-be-defunct American team cart away the loot did nothing to squelch the situation. Certainly no one hung around long enough to watch the news.

[David]

The Lions marketing braintrust has elected to hitch its wagon to that domestic violence campaign with in-stadium spots and advertising signage around the field. I get that this is a serious social issue and it is noble of the Lions and they are to be applauded, but let's be honest. It's a real debby downer of a topic and isn't conducive to the entertainment escape that attending a sports event is, presumably, supposed to be about. I'm not saying don't do it, by all means it's an important social issue...but it seems to point the finger at the very fans they're trying to attract. That's the uncomfortable subtext: If you are involved in football or a fan of it and probably a male, you, more than the rest of the general population, need to heed this message about violence against our female population. They don't seem to have thought through that this is not a fun thing to be reminded about constantly during a game. There needs to be some sort of balance struck.

I suspect it has to be shown 'x' number of times on the in-stadium scoreboard as part of their agreement. But I agree. It's a noble cause but a bit of a buzz kill juxtaposed to all the other fun things for which the scoreboard is used throughout the game. In terms of Cause Related Marketing, it earns the club points with women, although as we noticed with Chad Johnson, it paints the club into a corner. Recruits have to be squeaky clean as far as VAW goes, and no margin for error for existing players either (not that I'd want any players on the team who engage in that activity anyway, but if ever there's a he said, she said situation, I think they would need to immediately distance themselves from the player due to their heavy involvement in this cause).

As for the actual campaign, I'm curious about the actual message here. If someone does "stand up" for this sort of thing (armed with some of the tactics they suggest like "knock it off," "that's not cool, man" etc.) and it doesn't end well (i.e. a punch in the face....or worse), what then? Is the club potentially opening itself up for litigation? I get the campaign is about "breaking the silence," but in none of the PSAs do they say anything about "reporting it." It's about dealing with the aggressor.



DH

[Hambone]

Just as an aside, I believe I saw that beer was priced at $8.50 or $9.00 at BC Place Friday.

It's $5.50 in Ottawa. Somebody's making some coin.

Speaking of beer, I see the concessions are back to selling can beer. Wasn't there an issue a few years back about fans throwing empties onto the field ?

Both Rogers Arena and BC Place started doing that again last October. I made comment "Cans? Not cups?" to one of the servers at the main beer serving station at Rogers during the Leafs game last October when Bure's number was going to rafters. Hey told me there were two main reasons. In his opinion the first benefit was speeding up the process thus shortening the lineups by eliminating the pouring. They can serve more people faster = more sales. The second factor was eliminating the wastage of approximately 17000 plastic cups per game so there's a bit of an environmental aspect. If I remember correctly the price at the little can kiosk outside my section at BCP dropped $.25 when they eliminated the cups last October.

[TheLionKing]

It certainly speeds up the process by eliminating the pouring. Methinks it's just a matter of time before they go back to serving them in cups. All it takes is some drunken yahoo to throw the cans onto the field.

[sj-roc]

With the wider seats installed in 2011, a lot of rows now have an odd number of seats, hence the many singles available in the middle of rows. End zone sections went from 18 seats to 17. Some sideline sections have 23 seats.

Interest point re: isolated singles. I've noticed a lot of them tend to be in the very centre of a row where the section number changes abruptly, so you might have a 17-seat row with 8 seats in one section all sold and then 8 of 9 sold. I've even noticed sometimes two seats left vacant at the boundary (perhaps 9 and 9 with 8 sold in each). My impression is that the TM seat selection tool isn't smart enough to know that these are physically adjacent and won't pick them out automatically, rather only if the buyer hand picks these.

On the other hand I recall games in the lower bowl-only era (still blue seats) that were billed as only singles left. These might have been from tapered sections near corners where the seat count per row can change, alternating even for a few rows, then odd (one more or one less) for a few more, then even again, etc. There's also the matter that not every sale necessarily occurs in pairs but most probably are.

If so, then an 18-seat row should allocate 10 seats to one section and 8 to the other instead of 9/9. Not sure if they're so numbered but this would best facilitate sales in pairs, not just for the Lions but for any event. Either that or make TM smarter.

[sj-roc]

It certainly speeds up the process by eliminating the pouring. Methinks it's just a matter of time before they go back to serving them in cups. All it takes is some drunken yahoo to throw the cans onto the field.

I sit in cheaper seats where I still see people drinking from cups. Maybe there's some "profiling" going on whereby high rent folks are deemed a low security risk and get cans?

[sj-roc]

If the Lions want to drive up ST holder numbers and make a Lions game a go to event, they have to drive up demand. There are many ways to do this, but one of them is limiting available seats. Yes, you could possibly be turning away people and take a small gate hit. The idea is you limit the available seats and then the casual who comes to a game only once or twice a year, tries to buy a ticket to discover the nearest game is sold out. This puts the person in the mindset of "I'll need to buy my ticket ahead of time next time." This makes people commit to a ticket long before the date. Currently you can buy a ticket at the door with no worries. This removes the financial obligation to attend for someone who prebought a ticket. Currently you can wait till the last minute and if someone comes up (which often does during our summer months) there is no negative for them to not go to the Lions game.

The Lions need to limit the available seats so they get the "fake" sell-out and NOT raise prices. they do not want to have just enough seats available, they need to have just not enough available until that forces the demand to open some more sections that will also sell-out.

Supply & Demand 101. Lions need to create a demand, but currently the supply is too high

Bob Lenarduzzi was on with Sekeres 11a-1p today to start Presidents' Week (Skulsky is up on Wednesday) and talked about how the Whitecaps do it. Sekeres pointed to their 21k "sellouts" and asked (paraphrase) "What's the plan on expanding capacity? How much longer will you turn fans away when you have all these seats you could be selling?"

He responded that turning fans away happens just two or three games a year against popular rivals while the few other games that sell out usually do so only within hours of kickoff, so the turnaway factor is minimal there. He says they want to grow their ST base first and even get a waiting list going. Then once that list gets big enough they'll start lifting tarps and let in some folks from the front of the list. He added that they're content to maintain the 21k status quo as late as 2020 before growing capacity (obviously willing to start sooner if they can), and that this is the way the Seattle FC have built up their crowds.

[notahomer]

....Do you have seats for Sept. 5th? Are you doing the Lions travel thing? If not, tickets are at a premium. As of last Friday the 18th, there were only singles available for Greenwhites, and very much the same for Lions and Edmonton on the 15th.

We have extra seats squirelled away if you need a seat and can tolerate being in with R Nation in rabid Southside. PM me if need be.

PS: Northside sucks.

Yup, but not in my hand. Doing the Lions travel thing (Operation Orange). IMO, I think its a thing that would sell for most CFL teams (once/twice year?).
Problem is I bet the Lions got Northside seats! But, I'm there to see the stadium and city. And see the new/OLD team. I'll be able to say I saw the Redblacks play in Ottawa before I saw them play here.....

Thanks for the offer of the seat, though. Ottawa WAS ALWAYS my second favourite team growing up (I'm a political junkie so thats probably why, I'm dying to see the House of Commons.....).

[Hambone]

With the wider seats installed in 2011, a lot of rows now have an odd number of seats, hence the many singles available in the middle of rows. End zone sections went from 18 seats to 17. Some sideline sections have 23 seats.

Interest point re: isolated singles. I've noticed a lot of them tend to be in the very centre of a row where the section number changes abruptly, so you might have a 17-seat row with 8 seats in one section all sold and then 8 of 9 sold. I've even noticed sometimes two seats left vacant at the boundary (perhaps 9 and 9 with 8 sold in each). My impression is that the TM seat selection tool isn't smart enough to know that these are physically adjacent and won't pick them out automatically, rather only if the buyer hand picks these.

On the other hand I recall games in the lower bowl-only era (still blue seats) that were billed as only singles left. These might have been from tapered sections near corners where the seat count per row can change, alternating even for a few rows, then odd (one more or one less) for a few more, then even again, etc. There's also the matter that not every sale necessarily occurs in pairs but most probably are.

If so, then an 18-seat row should allocate 10 seats to one section and 8 to the other instead of 9/9. Not sure if they're so numbered but this would best facilitate sales in pairs, not just for the Lions but for any event. Either that or make TM smarter.

The thing with the BC Place numbering is that they aren't seats 9 & 9. When you get to the middle between the aisles you're usually talking different sections and seat number schemes. Where I sit in seat 7 the seating to my immediate right goes Section 242 Seat 8, Section 242 Seat 9 then Section 241 Seat 109. For someone unfamiliar with BCP's numbering scheme they'd have a hard time believing 242 seat 9 and 241 seat 109 really are a pair together.

My buddy whose company has seats 5 & 6 beside me also has a pair of Canuck season tickets. They had them reallocated last season because of the same sort of thing. They had a pair of seats together down in the corner near the ice in Row 5. One seat was in one section and the other was in the next section. No big deal with him or his 2 business partners but it caused confusion for clients when given a pair of tickets that looked like singles in different sections as opposed to a pair together. So they moved last year just so the two seats could show looking like they were side by side.

[Toppy Vann]

If the Lions want to drive up ST holder numbers and make a Lions game a go to event, they have to drive up demand. There are many ways to do this, but one of them is limiting available seats. Yes, you could possibly be turning away people and take a small gate hit. The idea is you limit the available seats and then the casual who comes to a game only once or twice a year, tries to buy a ticket to discover the nearest game is sold out. This puts the person in the mindset of "I'll need to buy my ticket ahead of time next time." This makes people commit to a ticket long before the date. Currently you can buy a ticket at the door with no worries. This removes the financial obligation to attend for someone who prebought a ticket. Currently you can wait till the last minute and if someone comes up (which often does during our summer months) there is no negative for them to not go to the Lions game.

The Lions need to limit the available seats so they get the "fake" sell-out and NOT raise prices. they do not want to have just enough seats available, they need to have just not enough available until that forces the demand to open some more sections that will also sell-out.

Supply & Demand 101. Lions need to create a demand, but currently the supply is too high

Bob Lenarduzzi was on with Sekeres 11a-1p today to start Presidents' Week (Skulsky is up on Wednesday) and talked about how the Whitecaps do it. Sekeres pointed to their 21k "sellouts" and asked (paraphrase) "What's the plan on expanding capacity? How much longer will you turn fans away when you have all these seats you could be selling?"

He responded that turning fans away happens just two or three games a year against popular rivals while the few other games that sell out usually do so only within hours of kickoff, so the turnaway factor is minimal there. He says they want to grow their ST base first and even get a waiting list going. Then once that list gets big enough they'll start lifting tarps and let in some folks from the front of the list. He added that they're content to maintain the 21k status quo as late as 2020 before growing capacity (obviously willing to start sooner if they can), and that this is the way the Seattle FC have built up their crowds.

This is what Dennis Skulsky says he will let fans vote on.

Be careful what you wish for. Vote for a wonderful game day experience with 21,000 fans or so and no walk ups as you force either ST buying or stay home.

[sj-roc]

The Lions marketing braintrust has elected to hitch its wagon to that domestic violence campaign with in-stadium spots and advertising signage around the field. I get that this is a serious social issue and it is noble of the Lions and they are to be applauded, but let's be honest. It's a real debby downer of a topic and isn't conducive to the entertainment escape that attending a sports event is, presumably, supposed to be about. I'm not saying don't do it, by all means it's an important social issue...but it seems to point the finger at the very fans they're trying to attract. That's the uncomfortable subtext: If you are involved in football or a fan of it and probably a male, you, more than the rest of the general population, need to heed this message about violence against our female population. They don't seem to have thought through that this is not a fun thing to be reminded about constantly during a game. There needs to be some sort of balance struck.

I suspect it has to be shown 'x' number of times on the in-stadium scoreboard as part of their agreement. But I agree. It's a noble cause but a bit of a buzz kill juxtaposed to all the other fun things for which the scoreboard is used throughout the game. In terms of Cause Related Marketing, it earns the club points with women, although as we noticed with Chad Johnson, it paints the club into a corner. Recruits have to be squeaky clean as far as VAW goes, and no margin for error for existing players either (not that I'd want any players on the team who engage in that activity anyway, but if ever there's a he said, she said situation, I think they would need to immediately distance themselves from the player due to their heavy involvement in this cause).

As for the actual campaign, I'm curious about the actual message here. If someone does "stand up" for this sort of thing (armed with some of the tactics they suggest like "knock it off," "that's not cool, man" etc.) and it doesn't end well (i.e. a punch in the face....or worse), what then? Is the club potentially opening itself up for litigation? I get the campaign is about "breaking the silence," but in none of the PSAs do they say anything about "reporting it." It's about dealing with the aggressor.



DH

I've taken it upon myself to collect all the comments on the bystander PSAs so far into a new thread in the pub. I think this could be discussed in its own right beyond the scope of this marketing thread.

[sj-roc]

The thing with the BC Place numbering is that they aren't seats 9 & 9. When you get to the middle between the aisles you're usually talking different sections and seat number schemes. Where I sit in seat 7 the seating to my immediate right goes Section 242 Seat 8, Section 242 Seat 9 then Section 241 Seat 109. For someone unfamiliar with BCP's numbering scheme they'd have a hard time believing 242 seat 9 and 241 seat 109 really are a pair together.

My buddy whose company has seats 5 & 6 beside me also has a pair of Canuck season tickets. They had them reallocated last season because of the same sort of thing. They had a pair of seats together down in the corner near the ice in Row 5. One seat was in one section and the other was in the next section. No big deal with him or his 2 business partners but it caused confusion for clients when given a pair of tickets that looked like singles in different sections as opposed to a pair together. So they moved last year just so the two seats could show looking like they were side by side.

Oh yeah, for sure... I was aware of that 9/109 business, I was just using 9/9 for counting rather than numbering purposes. Although whether they go 9 & 9 or 9 & 109 in the numbering the confusion you outline would remain.

In the example you give it might have made more sense to have had the seat S241-st109 assigned instead as S242-st10 right from the outset in 2011. This gives 5 pairs in one section and 4 in the other along that row, instead of 8 total pairs and 2 "singles" as is presently the case.

Incidentally there is a very good logistical reason why they number the seats so the section numbers changes abruptly as in your example. I'm sure you'd know why but for benefit of others who've never thought it through, I'll mention.

They could continue numbering all 18 seats in your row 1-18 to make it all S242 with seat 18 at the far aisle. Problem is, when the late Larry with the S242 seat 18 ticket shows up, he'll come in the same 242 entrance you did and have to disrupt everyone sitting in that whole row to cross all the way to the other side when he could have just come in the 241 entrance and gotten directly to his aisle seat without inconveniencing anyone. The status quo precludes this nuisance so that nobody getting to and from their seat ever has to disrupt more than half of his row mates (or slightly above half, by my directive).

[Ballistic Bob]

Speaking of late Larrys does your usher do a good job of holding people back when Lions are on Offense. I have people walk right by thinking its their right to block your view. Contrary Ive heard Canuck ushers painfully keep people back till a stoppage. Thnx BB

[Hambone]

It certainly speeds up the process by eliminating the pouring. Methinks it's just a matter of time before they go back to serving them in cups. All it takes is some drunken yahoo to throw the cans onto the field.

I sit in cheaper seats where I still see people drinking from cups. Maybe there's some "profiling" going on whereby high rent folks are deemed a low security risk and get cans?

Depends on the product. Draft is still available at many of the food concessions and the Beer Innovation stands. My first wobbly Friday was a Shock Top draft from Beer Innovation then it was Kokanee cans the rest of the way. I think where cans are offered the customer may still request a cup if they prefer.

[sj-roc]

Speaking of late Larrys does your usher do a good job of holding people back when Lions are on Offense. I have people walk right by thinking its their right to block your view. Contrary Ive heard Canuck ushers painfully keep people back till a stoppage. Thnx BB

They used to be pretty good with this but I have to admit now that you mention it, they've slipped lately.

Part of the problem is that the game pace can often be fast from when one play is blown dead to the next snap. Depending on how many rows above/below the concourse and how deep into this row one sits, it can leave relatively little time to get to one's seat. So I don't think holding people back at the concourse access works as a one-size-fits-all approach. If the play is in progress, perhaps what they should do is proceed along the stairs until they get to their row. Once the play is dead, then and only then, should they get people shifting around for them.

When I chose my current seat location I specifically requested two criteria:

(1) I wanted it as close as possible to the middle of the row, i.e., as far from the aisle as possible. I never get up from my seat except for halftime so I didn't want to be right on the aisle, always having to shift around for folks who keep wandering from their seats.

(2) I wanted it in a row as close to the concourse access as possible, one with either a high single letter or low double letter. This means that the few people who I do need to shift around for, they're more likely to get themselves quickly re-seated. There's an added benefit that when the game ends, I myself can GTFO pretty quickly. I used to sit in almost the front row and I swear it took an extra 5 minutes to leave as I waited for all the folks ahead of me file out.