View Single Post
Old
12-05-2012, 12:16 PM
  #23
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
If they wanted good PR, rather than overspend on stiffs, they should have said they were going to go with a homegrown youth movement and rolled back ticket prices from last year. Imagine the goodwill/positive press they would have gotten off that. Instead, you get them paying way more than is reasonable for has beens like Victorino, and keeping prices the same as last year when they had an enormous payroll. Talk about flawed logic. The answer to keeping ticket prices high is to arbitrarily/poorly spend money to justify said ticket prices? You're still getting an inferior product, why is that so hard to see? Maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing who that really benefits (aside from John Henry & Co), since the team is still going to be bad, and the prices are still amongst the highest in the league.
They don't need an "answer" to keep ticket prices high. They CAN keep them high. This is Boston.

If I own the Red Sox and your my PR Director, you lay out two options for me:

1. Fill the seats in my park, at the prices I have now, regardless of whether my team is a real contender or just appears to be through a string of marginal acquisitions. You suspect I can get away with this for the foreseeable future before I see a marked decrease in attendance.

2. Field a team of youngsters (most of whom I know are projected to be marginal MLB players on their best day), and try to score some PR points by cutting prices while filling an assumed lower % of seats. Maybe in a few years a few of my prospects pan out or a few difference-makers hit the FA market and I can get lucky enough to sign them.

I throw out Option 2 immediately, then I fire you for suggesting it.

bp13 is offline