The NCAA Tournament - Opinion

I do like this time of year - especially with the NCAA basketball tournament. But, I was thinking the other day: it's certainly not the same tournament that it was 20 years ago.

Hang with me on this one. First, 20 years ago, there were no "play-in" games. It was 64 teams, period. The NCAA selection committee chose the field of 64, and that was it. Now, it's up to 68 or 69. According to Wikipedia, there are 346 member Division I schools.

Twenty years ago, regional games were frequently played, although not always, in college arenas. Not so much anymore. Most of the regional matchups are in large, downtown arenas that house professional teams. I remember days when regionals were played at college arenas like The Pit at the University of New Mexico; or Thomson-Boling Arena at the University of Tennessee. It's been quite some time since I've seen either of those venues on the tournament lineup.

And, how about the Final Four itself? The 1985 Final Four, for instance, was at Rupp Arena at the University of Kentucky. The 1983 Final Four, which had one of the best game endings I've ever seen (who can forget the last-second NC State dunk by Lorenzo Charles to win the game) was at University of New Mexico's University Arena (aka "The Pit").

Several years ago, after the ticket debacle at the 1996 Final Four in East Rutherford, NJ, the NCAA made a decision that traditional arenas could no longer accomodate the Final Four. The 1996 Final Four was at the Meadowlands Arena (gone through several names over the years) which sat about 18,000.

After all the other tickets were handed out, there were only about 1,100 tickets for general public sale.

Since 1997, Final Fours have been played exclusively in domed stadiums. Back then, the "minimum" seating capacity to host a Final Four was 33,000. Which essentially rules out any traditional basketball arena.

Now, the NCAA requires a minimum seating capacity of 70,000. That pretty much rules the Metrodome out for future Final Fours. Click "The NCAA Tournament - Opinon" for a link to a Flickr photo I found for last year's Final Four, and what the setup looks like.

It seems to me the whole NCAA tournament is becoming more about TV dollars and selling tickets. Hence, the bigger arenas, more teams, etc. Take a look at this year: now we have games on four TV networks. That's great for people who want to see every game; but the entire tournament used to be on just one TV station: CBS.

The NCAA tournament is falling victim to neutralization all around. If you watch the games this year, all the floors in all the cities look exactly the same. The NCAA must have spent a fortune having a hardwood floor made for every city that hosted a game. The NCAA is plastering it's black and blue color scheme everywhere, from the floors to the banners to almost anything and everything that says "NCAA Tournament". About 20 years ago, all the NCAA would do was put a few decals over the home court logos. That was it.

And, advertising. If you go to an NCAA tournament game, you'll notice that blue tarps are placed over arena and stadium advertising. They probably don't do that as much anymore, since the advent of the LED digital "ribbon board" that can change advertisements. But, some of the older arenas that have permanent ads, are still covered up. One good thing is that it covers up beer ads - and alcohol is not sold at NCAA tournament events. But, this one really got to me, I had read about this in the Detroit Free-Press back in 2009. The 2009 Final Four was held at the new home of the Detroit Lions, which seats somewhere in the neigborhood of 66,000.

As with many new stadiums, the seats all have cupholders on them. At Ford Field, Aquafina "sponsored" all the cupholders. During the preparation for the Final Four, crews went to EVERY seat and put a blue sticker over the Aquafina logos. I guess Aquafina isn't an "official" NCAA sponsor. But, are TV cameras really going to pick up a little sticker? Seemed a little odd and a colossal waste of time to me.

People love college basketball because you don't have collective-bargaining agreements, or player contracts, owner lockouts or endorsement deals. College basketball wasn't supposed to be about the money. But, the way the NCAA is running the tournament these days, money seems to be the number one priority. I miss the old days.

Black is back for the Wolves

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

I had said in my last post that the Timberwolves needed some serious marketing help to promote yet another re-building team. They did one marketing move (which I had heard little about, until a few days later), and that was to unveil a new "alternate" jersey.

Many teams have three or more jerseys. There's a standard home jersey, and a standard away jersey. In the last few years, many teams find it fun to unveil a third jersey that is very different from the usual.

Sometimes the alternate jerseys look better than the standard ones. Sometimes the alternate jerseys are so unwelcomed by fans, that the team ends up scrapping them. One such instance was the NBA's Dallas Mavericks a few years ago. They had released an alternate jersey that had a very droll color scheme; and the fans showed their discontent in no uncertain terms. The team wore the jerseys once, and never wore them again.

The Wolves re-vamped their entire uniform a couple years ago. They had shortened "Timberwolves" to just "Wolves" on the front of the home jersey (from their early franchise days), and on the road jersey, exchanged "Timberwolves" for "Minnesota."

Just recently, the Wolves unveiled a black jersey. Everyone loves black. Black is a slimming color, and complements many other colors nicely. This is the second time in franchise history the Wolves have donned a black jersey. I liked the old black jersey better than the new black jersey.

Several years ago, the border on the jerseys was a black border with green pine trees, similar to the primary logo. With the latest uniform re-design, they scrapped the pine trees, and eventually took all the green out entirely. With the new black jerseys, a little green might improve things a bit.

At this link: http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/pressrelease_Wolves_Unveil_New_Black_Alternate_Uniforms_2010_11_23.html
you can see what the new jersey looks like. Personally, I think it's just a little too bland. Instead of complementing the colors, I think the black intermingles with them. There's no contrast.

Maybe that's in tune with the whole team's attitude, though. The Wolves have been nothing short of bland the last few seasons. Attendance has dropped, players come and go, there's more losses than wins. If the Wolves were looking to generate some excitement with this latest marketing ploy, I think they came up a bit short.

Kermit the Frog once sang, "It's not easy being green." In this case, a little green might help.

Thanks for reading.

Wolves need some serious marketing help

I have to admit, I've lost all interest in the Timberwolves. I can't even remember the last time I actually paid to go to a game. The last game I went to, I had received free tickets from the Timberwolves promotions department.

If you've watched any of the pre-season games on TV, there's empty blue seats everywhere. Not like it was when Kevin Garnett was here, there wasn't an empty seat in the house.

I was reading Patrick Reusse's column in the Star Tribune today (click post title to read full article), and he believes the T-wolves need some serious marketing to go along with the new shooters that are part of a team that seems to be in a constant state of re-building.

They've done their best in the past couple years in the area of branding: re-designed jerseys, a re-designed logo (which looks awful) and a new Target Center court. They've done some new things in the ticketing department as well. Last season, according to Reusse's article, the T-wolves had an abysmal season ticket base of 5,000.

When Garnett played here, I remember it being almost impossible to get a seat in the lower seating bowl of the arena. The lower level at Target Center seats about 8,300 people (total capacity is just shy of 20,000). What's even worse, is the team expected to lose another 10 percent of that base from last season.

It may not be the team, however. People still are loving the Minnesota Wild on the other side of the river; even though the Wild's consecutive sellout streak at the Xcel Energy Center has come to an end. And, let's not forget all the hype about the Twins this year with Target Field opening and the overall excitement that was re-generated for the Twins. An excitement, only to be squashed away in three games against the Yankees.

The T-Wolves started things off late last season when they decided to cut season ticket prices. I don't remember too much about that particular campaign, and I can't remember whether ticket prices were cut across the board, or just for new season ticket accounts. Even before that, the team has touted a season ticket up in the far reaches of the arena, that goes for about $300-some-odd a season.

And, apparently, it's worked. The Wolves, instead of losing another 10 percent of their season ticket base, have actually GAINED about 2,000 season ticket holders. Well, that helps, but for the most part still leaves the Target Center well below half-capacity.

If you have 7,000 season ticket holders (banking on the fact that they'd all show up for every game), and 3,000 unlucky fans decide to walk up to the ticket office ten minutes before the tip-off to snag a ticket, that's only 10,000 people. Which leaves the remaining 10,000 or so seats unoccupied.

Granted, the Wolves surprisingly had a decent pre-season. But, that's happened before. I remember getting so excited one year when the Wolves went 7-1 in the preseason. Hardly did anything after that, and to my recollection, didn't even win 35 games that season.

In seasons since Garnett's departure, it's felt very much like the expansion year of 1989 all over again. Only problem was, in 1989, people were so excited to have NBA basketball back in town after an almost 30-year absence, they didn't care how bad the team was.

Now, 22 years later, people do care, and they seem to be proving it by placing their allegiances elsewhere. Even Reusse commented that the one replica jersey he saw in the stands at the Target Center the other night was an Adrian Peterson Vikings jersey. But, if this Wolves team is really as good as it seems, or as Reusse postulates, then the Wolves need to get some serious marketing work done to make these lower ticket prices pay off.

T-wolves and Lifetime Fitness

Well, I think I've just about done the Target Field review thing as far as it can go. Now, I think it's time to get back to the main focus of the blog, sports and marketing.

The latest issue of the Twin Cities Business Journal had an article about an expanded partnership between the Minnesota Timberwolves and Lifetime Fitness. Lifetime has been a sponsor of the team for some time, as well as had its name on the Target Center's fitness club since 2006.

This latest phase of partnership will put Lifetime's logo on the team's practice jerseys, as well as other areas within the team's practice facility, which is within the in-arena health club, including the court, backboards and media backdrops.

Lifetime will also have naming rights of the practice facility.

Team members will wear the jerseys in post-game interviews, which will create more visibility for Lifetime Fitness. Coaches will also wear Lifetime apparel during post-game interviews.

This is a good, solid partnership for a team that hasn't performed very well either on the court or at the front gate.

Lifetime also has had some ticket promotions with the Timberwolves that have included a pass to a local Lifetime Fitness.

Standing Room Only

I decided I’d take in one more Twins game this season, and take them up on the latest ticket offering: standing-room only.

I went on Friday night, the day after the Twins unexpectedly swept the Chicago White Sox. I also went into the game thinking, ‘the Twins just swept the White Sox. Logic dictates, they’ll lose a game to the lowly Oakland A’s.’

It sounded like a fun thing to do, to have a ticket for the game and just be able to walk around our brand-new ballpark. A couple of the ushers told me that it’s very likely they could easily sell 1,400 standing-room only tickets.

I also wanted to be able to scope out different views of the stadium that I had previously not explored; predominantly out in the left field and center field area. I had started out in the main concourse before the game started. And my plan was, by the end of the game, to be as close to the main gate as possible, to promise a quick exit.

A note of caution if you decide to go the standing-room only route: avoid the main concourse. It is incredibly crowded and very noisy down there. I had my fill after about the second inning, and I went searching elsewhere. Also, with many of the standing-room locations on the main concourse, you will not be able to see the video board, as the club level overhang will block your view.

However, over between sections 101-103, you will get a much more open view of the action on the field. Of course, you’ll miss things, with people sitting in front of you and walking up and down the aisles.

The upper level was quieter, but the view isn’t incredible. One fun location was the Twins Pub, an enclosed “warming house” if you will. It’s a good place to get warm (or stay cool, depending on when you go). You get a relatively good view of the field from up there. It wasn’t a bad location.

The Twins Pub is also where the ballpark’s organist, Sue Nelson, sits.

The plaza out in right field is an OK spot to be. This is where Fox Sports Net does its pre-and post-game shows. I did catch a glimpse of Roy Smalley (and took his picture) getting ready for the broadcast. But, this is also where 85% of the people enter the ballpark. So, you’ll be pushing your way through quite a bit.

I spent a good chunk of the game up in the Batter’s Eye, which is in center field. It also is much quieter up there, as there aren’t many seats. You do get a nice view of the field and the game. Down below is another story. One level down is the big wall in center field, and you can stand back there, but you will find yourself peeking over the wall to get a glimpse of the action. Good place to pull aside and eat your hot dogs and cheese curds, but probably not to get a great view of the game.

Although I hadn’t planned it, I ended up down behind the Powerball Pavilion out in right-center field. Not a bad place to be. You’re just steps away from the exit, and you do get a very nice and surprisingly close view of the field. You will not be able to see the scoreboard from this location; however, there are LCD televisions mounted that have all the information right there.

And, making good on my plan, I actually did end up with a very quick exit from Target Field. It didn't take me more than two minutes, and I was out. Not like the Metrodome where you had to exit single-file out the revolving doors.

I am glad that the Twins added this ticket option for this year. Word to the wise, you'll feel sore by the end of the game. You might regret actually doing the standing-room only option. But for $22 (cheaper for mid-week games), it's not a bad option to get yourself into the game.

Reports are indicating that because of the Twins' great performance this year, and their road to a very good run in the playoffs, tickets could be even harder to come by next season. Especially would that be true if the Twins do in fact win the World Series.

Charley Walters from the Pioneer Press said last Sunday that season-ticket renewal is expected to be close to 100%. And, existing season-ticket holders have first dibs on buying extra tickets before everyone else.

Who knows, next season, standing-room only might be your ONLY chance to get a ticket into Target Field.

Click the title, "Standing Room Only" for pictures from the game.

Could Target Field be lonely?

I'm sorry it's been so long since I wrote.

I have been writing a lot of articles at allvoices.com ( http://www.allvoices.com/users/Lrasmussen )

I read an interesting article today about the Seattle Mariners and how their attendance is incredibly low this year for the first time since they opened their new ballpark in 1999.

Of course, they're in last place in the AL West. Seems that low attendance would follow suit.

With the Twins dismal performance as of late, and now that we are at the midway point of the season, could Target Field become a lonely place the second half of it's first season?

And then, throw in the Vikings and the apparent return of Brett Favre, that might pose even more trouble at the gates at Target Field. If the Twins aren't doing well, and September's colder air moves in, there might be a lot of empty seats at the ballpark those last few weeks.

I'm not sure the "honeymoon" period for Target Field is quite over, though. People might still be flocking to the ballpark, for the sake of seeing the ballpark. But, not too long from now, the ballpark will become less and less of a draw, and the bottom line will be putting a competitive team on the field.

It seems many newer ballparks in Major League Baseball eventually get to the half-full point. Ballparks in Detroit, Milwaukee, Texas and other cities have lots of empty seats to look at these days. Ballparks that were once big draws for fans, but now, not so much.

I'd hate to see that happen to Target Field; but the harsh reality is, it probably will and possibly sooner than later.

Did the Marlins make the right move?

Some of us have heard, and for some, it doesn't matter, but last Saturday, Roy Halladay of the Philadelphia Phillies (Major League Baseball) pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in Miami.

A perfect game in baseball is 27 batters up, 27 batters down. The feat has only been achieved in the MLB 20 times; however, it is the second perfect game this season (Dallas Braden had the other) and the third in the last calendar year.

It's what the Marlins are doing about this perfect game that has me a little confused. The game was played at SunLife Stadium. For those in Minnesota, it's like the Metrodome, without the roof. It's one of the few remaining "multi-purpose" stadiums that also serve as ballparks.

According to the Marlins website (click "Did the Marlins make the right move" for the article), the announced attendance was just over 25,000. To "commemorate" this occasion, the Marlins are selling the remaining tickets, online, for face value.
To me, this is a bad PR move by the Marlins. First, the Marlins didn't pitch the perfect game, the Phillies did.

Second, what is now likely to happen is that these "re-sold" tickets are going to go for a bundle on eBay and other online sites. Instead of creating a scarce memento, the Marlins are essentially crowding the market with tickets that were never used, and never sold for the actual game. If there's 58,000 tickets on the market, and 33,000 tickets weren't even used; it demeans the "rare" nature of a ticket for a rare occurrence.

Third, if anyone should get possession of the tickets, it should be the Phillies. I think the Marlins should have released the remaining tickets to the Phillies, and let them decide whether to resell them or not. Incidentally, because the Marlins are doing this, that will bump up the attendance for the game.
Marlins president David Sampson said this, "Any ticket revenue is part of revenue sharing and part of the local revenue. So it gets reported." So, essentially, they have to report these tickets as sold, even though more than half weren't even used for the game.

The ultimate solution, because a perfect game is such a rare occasion, the Marlins should have destroyed the remaining tickets, or left that decision to the Phillies, so as to put more of a collectible nature on the tickets that legitimately got people into the game; and weren't sold after the fact.

At any rate, there are now going to be 58,000 people who said "I was there when Halladay pitched that perfect game." And, unfortunately, they'll also have the ticket to prove it. What I am not sure of, is because of this, whether or not there was some sort of authentication given to the tickets that actually were scanned at the gates. Sometimes for special events or rare occasions, tickets can be stamped as a verification that they were in fact at the game.

As of right now, I am not sure whether the Marlins did this or not. Sadly, we will probably never know for sure.

Twins Ticket buying strategy

Just as I did on March 1...I spent a good twenty minutes in an online "waiting room" for tickets to the rest of the Twins games this season at Target Field. Might I say, buying Twins tickets through their Web site is one of the most infuriating experiences you'll ever have.

I sat with five browsers open, each for a different weekend game. Many times I saw messages telling me the transaction activity was too high or the number of seats I was looking for was unavailable in a particular section.

After much perseverance, I finally did score tickets in the Family Section on August 1 against the Mariners.
Please note, this will be my last time purchasing tickets through the Twins Web site.

However, there are alot of other reputable sites through which to purchase Twins tickets. I'd like to share some of them with you:

http://www.ticketkingonline.com/ - a Hudson, WI-based company who guarantees their tickets. They are pricey however. Tickets for the opening game against the Boston Red Sox are taking in anywhere from $200-$400 a ticket, and that's just in the upper reaches of the stadium. Team performance can sometimes affect the going rate for tickets here, and they can substantially go down during the season.

http://www.stubhub.com/ - A ticket broker service that, if memory serves correctly, is the "official" secondary ticket supplier for Major League Baseball. Note of caution, the "fees" and other charges associated with this particular service are rather high. Buyer beware.

http://www.ebay.com/ - I think everyone knows eBay. eBay is an online auction site, and I've seen several listings for Twins tickets in the last few days. Incidentally, my tickets for the Oct. 4 game last season were purchased via a contact I made through eBay looking for tickets to another game. Of course, with eBay, the highest bid wins, and shipping charges are usually reasonable.

Of course, there's always the old-fashioned way of going to the Twins ticket office at Target Field and purchasing tickets walk-up. Games this year are in very high demand however, and I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many tickets will be available for walk-ups once the season starts.

After two successful but irritating experiences buying from the Twins Web site, I have opted to stick with eBay and a "ticket exchange" group that is being started with members of a blog site I frequent which has been tracking the construction of Target Field since the funding bill was originally passed in May, 2006.

It still promises to be a great season, and I can't wait for my first game on April 14.

Twins ticketing procedures

I'd like to look for a moment at some of the new ticketing and seating procedures you will see from the Minnesota Twins, procedures that are different from what they have been at the Dome for so many years, and how the Twins are informing the fans about them.

The Twins have done a very good job on their Web site informing fans of new things that will be awaiting them at Target Field that have not been existent in the Dome.

First, it must be noted that not all 39,506 seats at Target Field will be the same. Some will be plastic seats, a la the Dome. However, others will be padded, some will have wooden seat backs, and some will be bleacher seats. The Twins put together this page (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/tf_seat_by_section.jsp) on their Web site to show you what parts of the stadium have what kinds of seats.

The Twins also have a 3D seat-simulator on seats3d.com which shows you section-by-section an approximate view from your seat. Just click on a section, and the simulator generates an image within seconds. This simulator can be found here: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/seat_view.jsp .

As I noted in an earlier post, the Twins are also informing fans that transportation around Target Field will be much different from the Dome. Target Field has been lauded as being one of the most accessible and transit-friendly parks in Major League Baseball. This portion of their website, http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/transportation/index.jsp tells you all of your options.

The team is strongly suggesting mass transit to get to the ballpark. There also is ample parking within just a few short blocks of the stadium. Be warned, rush-hour traffic could be a nightmare after some of those 12:10 starts start letting out around 3pm (my first game at Target Field on April 14 is a 12:10 start. I'm planning on taking the bus). Plan accordingly.

Target Field is a new stadium. Most fans might think, "Obstructed view seats? In a new ballpark? Perish the thought!" Indeed, there are some partially-obstructed-view seats at Target Field.

I must preface this by saying I won the opportunity, along with several other fans, to get first crack at purchasing tickets for the first regular-season series at Target Field against the Boston Red Sox. I was emailed a special password and had to wait in an e-waiting room for my chance to purchase tickets. After about 20 minutes and much patience (and 3 browser windows open) I had my chance. 2 seats, Section 111 Row 24. 62 bucks a pop. But, hey, it's worth it.

My seats, which are closer to home plate than first base are considered "partially-obstructed." Why? The seating level above section 111 overhangs the lower level. Because of that, a portion of the scoreboard in left field will not be visible. Also, because of the angle of the seats further down on the first base side, plays made in the right-field corner will probably be out of sight.

Being there is good enough for me. I won't be too concerned about that. But, I found all that out here: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ticketing/restricted_view.jsp .

Here is a new one, that I don't think the Twins have dealt with yet, but probably will soon enough. And that is the issue of rain outs. For the last 27 years, we haven't had to worry about rain outs. Now, it could pose a problem. I have seen a prototype of the tickets the Twins will be using this year, and towards the bottom of the stub are printed the words "Rain Check."

I have not heard or seen anything from the Twins in regards to rain/weather procedures. I'm too young to remember how they did it at Met Stadium. You'll probably be able to use the ticket for the make-up game, whenever that occurs, and go see the rest of the game you paid for. Of course, rain outs give us a fun little thing in baseball: doubleheaders.

Of course, it would be prudent to note that, if you have a ticket for Game A, and Game A is rained out and is played in a doubleheader the next day with Game B, you're only entitled to go to Game A, and not both. Unless of course you have season tickets; or purchased a couple games back-to-back. If you stay for Game B and only have a ticket for Game A, be ready to come face-to-face with an angry fan because you're sitting in their seat!

I'm sure within the next few weeks, weather procedures will be worked out.

It is hard to believe that Target Field will see its first Twins game one month from today, on April 2 (an exhibition game against the St Louis Cardinals). The Gophers baseball team will play at the stadium on March 27, mostly as a dry-run for ballpark staff, concession procedures, entry procedures and so forth.

So far, the Twins have done a great job in the PR department, gearing people up for a new experience in Twins baseball.

No More Dome Dogs ??!!??

Continuing my writings on the PR of the Minnesota Twins as they move closer towards baseball at Target Field (it won't be long now), here's an interesting one I heard today, Hormel won't be the hot dog supplier at Target Field.

According to an article in today's StarTribune (http://www.startribune.com/local/85210112.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr) Hormel is ending a corporate sponsorship with the Twins that has existed since 2001.

Personally, I had thought that Hormel might get the naming rights for the Twins' new ballpark. Hormel Field does have a nice ring to it. And, it is a local company.

If you've been to a Twins game, you see every once in a while promotional items from Hormel, stadium signage, and lest we forget the infamous "Hormel Row of Fame" in-stadium promotion where every fan in one lucky row, in a section picked at random wins a "Hormel hot dog treat," as the song goes.

With Hormel's departure, the Dome Dog will also depart from concession stands at the Dome. I have mixed feelings about that. First, the Dome Dog isn't one of those pre-cooked hot dogs that are placed in tin wrap and stuck in a warmer for three hours, making the bun soggy and the hot dog mediocre. Dome Dogs are placed on a fresh sesame seed bun (I believe the Our Family brand). Not only that, you also get a bag of chips.

While Hormel may not be the greatest hot dog on the market, I will miss the Dome Dog. Ever since its inception a few years ago, Dome Dogs are my meal of choice at the Dome, regardless of the event.

Apparently, according to the article, the parting was an "amicable" one. But, we are now left to wonder who will supply our hot dogs at the open-air Target Field in just a few short weeks. I have also read that the new concessionaire for Target Field, Delaware North SportService, specializes in hot dogs in the stadiums and arenas they service; so, maybe they'll come up with something better than the Dome Dog.

Maybe a hot dog and, cheese curds?

Too many sports teams?

I read the Twin Cities Business Journal on a regular basis, and this morning, I read an article that caught my attention; apparently, the Twin Cities has too many professional sports teams.

The study was conducted by Portfolio.com, and they tested 82 markets to determine the financial capacity of cities in both the United States and Canada to support professional sports. The professional sports they studied are teams in baseball, football, basketball, football and soccer.

Here in the Twin Cities, we have a Major League Baseball (MLB) team, the Twins. We have a team in the National Football League (NFL), the Vikings. A team in the National Basketball Association (NBA), the Timberwolves, and finally, a team in the National Hockey League (NHL), the Wild.

This is the second time the Twin Cities has had four teams, in four major leagues. This region had four teams from 1989-1993. The Twins, Vikings, Timberwolves and our old NHL team, the North Stars. Of course, the North Stars moved to Dallas at the end of the 1993 season.

So, we've done this before, and we've done well - in my estimation. The reason the North Stars left had nothing to do with attendance (having been in the Stanley Cup Playoffs a couple years earlier). The move had a little to do with the arena (the Met Center was getting old, and with the Timberwolves' new Target Center having opened a year earlier, made it hard for the Bloomington arena to stay competitive). The move had a great deal to do with Stars' owner Norm Green and personal issues he was dealing with, including his marriage.

I read somewhere that Norm's wife (I believe it was in Jay Weiner's 2000 book Stadium Games) gave Norm an ultimatum: either sell the team, or move to Dallas. And to the disappointment of many Minnesotans, Green chose the latter.

The Twin Cities got an NHL franchise back on June 22, 1997, to begin play in 2000, and we've been a four-team market ever since. The Twins stuck it out and waited 11 years to get a new ballpark to keep them competitive. The Wild sell out every game at the Xcel Energy Center. The Timberwolves are happy, just uncompetitive on the court.

This is just my opinion, but instead of complaining about having too many teams, wouldn't that be considered a good business model? A market this size, supporting four teams? The Twin Cities isn't the size of Los Angeles, and yet, we have an NFL team, Los Angeles doesn't. Saint Louis is a good-sized market, as is Kansas City; and neither has an NBA team. Kansas City had all four teams back in the 70s, but lost their NBA team to Sacramento in 1985; and their three-year-old NHL team to Denver in 1975.

I don't quite understand why soccer was thrown into the mix. Yes, we do have a pro soccer team here, the Minnesota Thunder, but they are in a minor-league type situation. They are not a member franchise of MLS (Major League Soccer), which sometimes uses NFL stadiums for their games; although, many teams are building smaller, soccer-specific stadiums.

With the stadium issue of the Minnesota Vikings once again waiting to rear its head in the 2010 Minnesota State Legislative session, and the NFL deciding to cut its revenue-sharing program for smaller-market teams (i.e. the Vikings), it will be interesting to see how much longer the Twin Cities will remain a market with four (five if you throw in the Thunder) pro teams. But, so far, I think we're doing well.

To read the article from the Twin Cities Business Journal, click here:
http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/12/14/story9.html

Thanks for reading, and have a great Christmas season.

Minnesota Twins PR Part 2 - Rebranding

In my second installment of analyzing the Minnesota Twins' PR, on the way to opening their new ballpark, I'd like to discuss their recent re-branding efforts, as they are headed into their 50th season of baseball in Minnesota.



The Twins re-branding effort does not have too many major changes. There are some small changes. The new primary logo is similar to what they have now, with the exception of the word "Minnesota Twins Baseball Club" added to it. This is a little strange to me. I think most people, especially those in Minnesota and neighboring states, understand full well that the Twins are a baseball team.



This is my opinion, but if your product is good (this applies to all business), if your company is respectable or if your company has been around for 50 years or more, you shouldn't have to tell people what it is. For instance, the big, cursive, capital G is the logo for General Mills. The logo says it all. People know the logo, they trust the products with that logo on it and they purchase products with that logo on it. General Mills' logo speaks for itself, they don't need to add to their logo "cereal company."



A good corporate brand should be able to speak for itself.



The Twins have also designed a commemorative logo to honor both their 50th season in Minnesota and their inaugural season at Target Field. Both were designed very well. The inaugural logo is maybe a tad overboard on the blue tones; but still looks nice. The colors on the 50-year logo blend very nicely together and create a sharp, distinctive image.



Lastly, there have been some more noticeable changes on the uniforms for the 2010 season. The road uniform seems to have undergone the most significant changes. It is a slightly lighter shade of grey (the Grateful Dead song is probably coming to mind right about now) than the previous road uniform that has been used since the 1987 season. The pinstripes on the road uniform are also gone. Instead of a block-letter "Minnesota" across the chest of the uniform, "Minnesota" now stands out in a very nice script logo.



The primary home uniform is virtually unchanged, but I've saved the best for last. Last season, the final season at the Dome, the Twins designed an alternate home uniform that replicated the uniforms the Twins wore the first year in the Dome in 1982. The Twins have designed another "throwback" home uniform that replicates the home uniforms worn in the 1960s at Met Stadium, when Twins fans cheered on Harmon Killebrew and Rod Carew. The color scheme, script logo and sleeve logo from the 1960s jersey is replicated in this new alternate jersey that will be worn for Saturday home games.



All in all, the Twins have done a good job in re-branding themselves for the next generation of baseball here in Minnesota. To take a look at the changes yourself, click this link: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/photogallery/year_2009/month_11/day_16/cf7673110.html

Thanks for reading.

The Minnesota Twins' moving sale

Again, I'm sorry for my absence in writing. It's just that I've waited for something to write about. I thought over my next couple entries, it might be fun to analyze the PR of the Minnesota Twins organization in getting ready for their move to Target Field next season. So, I will attempt to do that over my next few entries.

The first PR move that I thought would be good to talk about was last weekend's "moving sale." Not to be degrading or anything, (I think most of my readers will find this funny), do you want to know how to win a Minnesotan’s heart? Tell them there’s a garage sale.

I am technically not from Minnesota. I was born in South Dakota. But, being that I’ve lived in Minnesota since I was 6 months old, I do know that Minnesotans love garage sales. Last weekend, the Minnesota Twins had a "garage sale" – unloading 28 years worth of stuff accumulated during their tenure at the Metrodome.

Call it what you want – garage sale, moving sale, rummage sale (actually all of those terms were used to describe it) – the Twins did something I have not seen another team do before moving to a new stadium. I try to be very on top of who is getting new stadiums, arenas, ballparks; and this is the first time I’ve heard of a team unloading years worth of stuff for their fans’ benefit.

I thought the Twins organized this event very well. I got there early enough to be standing in line in front of Gate D (I’ll admit, the line went further back than that). The entry was Gate F. The Twins offered free parking in their surface lot, which as you can imagine was full. I arrived at the stadium at 9:30 and it still took me until 10:15 to get inside. They also made sure that everyone didn't enter at the same time. They did let people enter in shifts, so as to prevent over-crowding in the 22-foot-wide concourses.

The Twins had everything: pennants, baseballs, caps, shirts, posters, publications, banners…you name it, they probably had it. The strange part was that all this paraphernalia was inside the concourse. I thought, “why not have it on the field?” Well, the tape recording on the outside of the stadium told us why: there was an Augsburg-Saint Johns football game at 11.

Inside, while being crowded, was also very organized. At each table, you told the volunteers what items you wanted, they bagged it up for you, and you pushed your way through the concourse – table after table, until you got to the cashiers in front of Gate H. At least they didn’t make people pay at every table. It was hard enough trying to see over everyone’s shoulder trying to see what was there.

Some of the items were of no interest to me; I’ve never been a collector of bobbleheads. I know collectors love them and they go for hundreds of dollars on eBay, but I was after the “harder to find” things. For instance, I was able to snag a program from the groundbreaking of Target Field – the original date. The Twins had to move the groundbreaking ceremony back three weeks in 2007 in respect for the victims of the 35W bridge collapse. The program I got had the original August 2, 2007 date on it.

There were promotional items from the final season at the Dome I picked up, including plastic ticket holders (which, if you read a blog entry I did about the final Twins game at the Dome, you can understand why I got these). Also in the mix I got a Target Field calendar, a 2009 opening day pennant, a Kirby Puckett Weekend program, and some other small things.

This event was supposed to go from 10am to 4pm. A gentleman I spoke with in the line to pay told me he didn’t think the sale would go until 4pm, the way things were going. The Twins said that anything that wasn’t sold would be saved for other events like TwinsFest. And some items would be placed in a museum at Target Field.

Overall, as impromptu as this event was (I believe the full details were announced only about a week before the actual sale), it was a success; and really was a good PR move by the Twins. It provided a once-in-a-lifetime (for some) opportunity to get items that most teams would probably throw away. If the Minnesota Vikings ever get their new stadium built, hopefully they took notes on how well this event turned out for the Twins.

For November 7, the weather was nice for everyone standing outside waiting to get in. It was probably a major factor in why 15,000 people came. Amidst our ill-conceived idea to build a ballpark sans-retractable roof, it’s possible the weather gnomes will begin to show us favor. Either that or they’re gearing up to pull a real good one on us come April 12, 2010, the scheduled opener for Target Field against the Boston Red Sox, and dump six inches of snow about the same time Joe Mauer steps to the plate for the first time.

The Metrodome Gets a New Name

Imagine my shock today, when I looked at my daily email from the Twin Cities Business Journal saying that the Vikings have sold the field naming rights to the Mall of America.(http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/09/28/daily47.html?ed=2009-10-01&ana=e_du_pub)

Call it what you want, the Hump, the Dump, the Humpty Dumpty...this one does take me by surprise. I know why they named the place the way they did back in 1982: after Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. But, the Dome seems to be a mediocre tribute to a famous Minnesota politician.

The article cites reasons why the Vikings did it: they are the only tenant left in the Dome as of next Monday (Oct. 5). The Gophers are gone, and the Twins will be moving into their new Target Field next April; however, the transition of the Twins offices to the new ballpark will probably take place much sooner. This deal is at least one means of making some extra revenue for the Vikings - now that they don't have 81 guaranteed nights of revenue from concessions, tickets, advertising and so forth.

The article begs the question, why would the Vikings ink a deal like this, with only a year-and-a-half left on their lease? They've been telling us for years, at the end of the 2011 season, their time is up. So, will a naming rights deal with the Mall of America really make that much of a difference?

There seems to be a catch, however. The naming deal does not expire until February 2012. According to the article, "the [Vikings] described the arrangements as a short-term rebranding effort." The fact that it is a "rebranding effort" piques my curiosity. I know that there has been some light talk as of late about a renovated Metrodome which the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (the group that operates the Dome) touts as "Metrodome Next."

So, is this to suggest that the wheels are spinning for "Metrodome Next" to come to fruition; and the naming deal with the Mall of America is an inroad to the future of the Vikings and the Metrodome? I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a "short-term rebranding effort," usually, if you re-brand something, it's should stick for more than three years. Are the Vikings suggesting that a much larger re-branding effort is in the works somewhere?

The new naming rights deal will be unveiled on Monday Oct. 5 (the day after the Twins' final home game) during the Monday Night Football (R) matchup with the Green Bay Packers.

A 3rd jersey for the Minnesota Wild?

A ha, finally. an issue I love to write about: sports and corporate branding.

It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.

This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.

What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.

The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.

Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.

If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.

I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.

On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.

Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.

I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.

The Timberwolves' Pledge

I'm sure we've all seen it by now, the TV spot featuring Glen Taylor, owner of a beleaguered Timberwolves team, sitting center-court, in a darkened Target Center, telling folks about season tickets for next year. "Season tickets as low as $5 per game" is the marketing ploy for the 2009-10 season ticket campaign.

If you have turned on a Timberwolves game lately, there have been lots of empty seats. And, it's not just four seats here, three seats there that are empty; there are entire sections of seats that are empty.

Think back 20 years, when the Timberwolves, one of the newest expansion franchises in the National Basketball Association (NBA), playing in front of very large crowds at the Metrodome. As a matter of fact, in their inaugural season of 1989-90, they set an all-time NBA season attendance record of over 1 million people.

But now, the Timberwolves are changing things up for their 2009-10 season ticket campaign. In a letter penned by Glen Taylor (and also mentioned in the TV spot), the Timberwolves have reduced prices on 95% of the seats in Target Center. I looked on the Timberwolves website, they have reduced ticket prices dramatically. Glen Taylor's letter to the fans can be found at http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/tickets/200910_Glen_Taylor_Letter.html .

Don't get too excited, however. The $5-per-game tickets are way up at the top of the arena, on the ends. And, those are season ticket prices; not single-game prices. What's more, the "Early Bird" deal, as they are calling it, lasts only until July.

This might be a bad thought, but I wonder whether or not the Timberwolves are lowering ticket prices to match the product on the court. Gone are the days of the NBA Playoffs at Target Center. Gone is our beloved Kevin Garnett, who for so many years got us to the playoffs. Now. it seems as though they're starting all over again.

Perhaps, in this bad economy, which is cited as a main reason for the ticket price reduction, that's exactly what the Timberwolves should be doing from a PR standpoint. They aren't asking for a billion dollars to build a new arena; they are trying to get their fan base back. What's more, they are trying to do that amidst a bad economy and a poor team.

Another part of this new campaign is the "no-risk pledge." This confused me at first. The pledge was, that if you lost your job, you wouldn't have to pay for the season tickets; you'd get your money back. According to the letter and the website, folks who lose their jobs will be refunded the money from the unused tickets. It's unusual, if not unprecedented in professional sports. But, I'm happy the Timberwolves have made that pledge.

In this world of billion-dollar stadiums, skyrocketing ticket prices, and the increasing luxury that is professional sports, it is refreshing to see a professional team make a PR move like this. I hope that this campaign is successful for the Timberwolves. I also hope that it will set a standard for other teams to consider; instead of always wanting more from their fans, to give a little back.

In my opinion, that is what keeps a fan base.