I haven't read a good answer to this one - how could you abuse the old policy? I would guess this has something to do with the reduced capacity of the lower bowl this year. I guess I'll probably end up getting the full season tix anyway. I can always trade in unused ones and unload the new ones at the tailgate. Pain in the ass that you'll have to mail them in in advance, though. I was considering going with half season tix and a flex plan, but it costs the same as full season tix. And when you get right down to it, how many other sports teams offer any kind of exchange policy?
Just a couple of questions (and forgive me if they've already been answered): Last year, without the upper deck opened, RFK had a capacity of (I think...) around 24,600... How much is the lower deck's capacity going to be reduced by the new seating arrangement? (Going by the seating chart on the recent letter from DC United about ticket exchanges, I'm guessing 4,000 seats or so, but I don't know...) With the reduced capacity in the lower deck, does anyone here know for sure if DC United plans on opening a portion of the upper deck or not? (I know they save money by not doing so, and they may not need to anyway, but I'm just curious...)
It was my understanding that there is a very low chance of the upper deck being opened. Because there is some chance, I paid DC a chunk of my season ticket price and asked not to be assigned seats until the decision is made. I'll probably call them this week and see if there is a decision made. In fact, because of the new exchange policy, I'll see if I can convert my seats to a few flex packages. I really dislike the new exchange policy. I think it deters people from giving DC their money in Nov / Dec rather than on game day. What bothers me the most is that for a particular game you can only get a number of tickets equal the number of packages you have. With my one package, I have no way to take two friends to game at any point this season.
Thanks for the information, Neil. That's sort of what I had thought about the upper deck, but wasn't sure. I too am bothered about the exchange policy being limited to the number of packages one has, and only certain games at that... I really liked the old (and more liberal) exchange policy for its flexibility. For the last couple of seasons, I was able to exchange several unused tickets for a game near each season's end, which exposed a good number of my friends to DC United and live soccer. Several have bought tickets for games after that. Even if they only do so on occasion, that's still extra tickets sold for DC United.
If I thought that they'd open the upper deck, I'd disagree with me, too. I think it might help if we think about this from a different perspective. You gotta admit, the season ticket exchange program was a great, and unique, benefit. Down the road, as the attenance nears capacity, I expect them to drop the policy altogether. I've always expected this. Now it's happening. On the other hand, dropping the policy after we've bought our tickets is a legit gripe. It's fair to have expected close to the same deal as previous years unless told otherwise. DCU told us after we already paid. On the other other hand, I can understand that no one, not even the front office, knew what the seating would look like and how many seats there would be. I don't like the bait and switch, but I'm not ascribing dishonest motives here. I think DCU believes with 20K capacity, they would lose sales on expected high-capacity nights with ticket-exchangers showing up at the service window on game day. It sucks, but nothing will stop me from getting my 2 seasons tickets. Not 2000-2003, not CSC, and certainly not penny-ante ticket policies.
No one has shown yet how the team would "lose sales" under the old policy, compared to the new policy, unless a match is actually SOLD OUT, as opposed to "high-capacity," and I think people posting here have shown a willingness to accept an exchange policy that would not allow exchanges in the event of an expected or possible sell-out. It's what movie chains do all the time when they have sell-out movies: "No passes accepted." In that regard, I would even accept letting the team go a step further and say that for an expected sell-out (let's say the season opener), ticket holders HAVE to use their tickets and can't exchange them for any future game. Even under the new policy, me and my seven buddies can skip the opener, use the tickets later, and the team is out eight seats that went empty for a sell-out.
I just can't see what the problem is here. Think about what you get with season tickets; the same seats for all games, reduced ticket prices, reduced or free parking, special game tickets, the "Meet the Team" event, free gifts, e-mails, personalized customer service, an invitation only equipment sale, and I'm sure there are other perks I can't think of right now. Don't you think this is enough for your money? If you know you can't make all the games then buy a half-season or flex plan and buy individual game tickets for those extra games you can attend. That way there will be less people to stand in my way this season at the "Meet the Team" event. (I arrived at my scheduled time last year, stood in line for three hours and still didn't get to meet the team) Don't you expect the players on the field to live and die for DC United? Why can't the club expect the same type of loyalty and effort on the part of the fans? We all lament the salary cap and the limited funds available to buy talent but threaten to cancel our season tickets because the club is going to make us actually pay for them. Give me a break. Supporting your team means more than just screaming at a game. One of my Eurosnob friends said to me yesterday that MLS isn't a good league because they can't pay multi-million dollar contracts. That got me thinking about this thread again. We should do all we can to support our team and that means paying our fair share. As the team and the league grows in popularity don't y'all expect that policies will change? Look at the Redskins. You either have to be a season ticket holder or buy a ticket from a season ticket holder through a ticket service to attend a game. I paid $730 for four tickets this past year for one Redskins game (X-Mas gifts). Contrast that with the $568 I paid for three half-season ticket packages for DC United. Which is the better deal? Not only did I pay less for United but I had a much better time. I had more fun at United games during the years '01-'03 than I did at that Redskins game. We are all lucky to have a class act like DC United to support. If you want to bring a friend with you then buy them a ticket. Consider that your part in the campaign to grow the sport in this country.
Well, you're right. No one has shown this yet. That's why I said 'believes' not 'knows'. With 25K, DCU didn't sell out another game past the opener last year. But with 20K, it is possible. Think of it this way. Let's say that there are 3 games; Game: 1 2 3 Expected attendance: 15K 15K 20K Unsed Tickets 3K 3K 2K Want to exchange tickets 0 1.5K 4.5K Lost sales 0 0 0 - 4.5K With the old ticket policy, every ticket exchanged for game 3 costs a ticket sale that would have happened otherwise (assuming that 20K wanted to buy tickets for that game.) With the new policy, no sales are lost for game 3, while for game 2, it doesn't matter. Now, please note that this is my speculation as to why DCU has the new policy in place. I think that DCU believes that they may reach capacity in several more games this seasons due to the lower capacity and increased interest, and they don't want previously sold tickets being used to prevent new tickets being sold at these potentially high-capacity games. I still think that any new policy like this should be announced before we buy our season tickets, but does this scenario make sense?
And this is relevant how? I don't see how season ticket revenue recognized at the being of the season or incrementally during the season is a factor in determining whether DCU should return to the prior Ticket Return Policy. After all, all season tickets that are sold will be recognized by season's end. These "obligations/liabilities" are not perpetual.
The problem is the very thing your suggesting. In other words, if you don't think you can make ALL the games downsize to a 1/2 season, flexplan or day of game. The value of season tickets to DCU is that they are a definite. The tickets have been sold; its a done deal. The further you move people to day of game sales, the greater the risk people for one reason or another will decide not to attend. Over time this is the exact opposite sprial of attendance DCU should be encouraging. One other item, I could have sworn that someone in the FO said they were going to open the seats right above the press area in the upper deck where they use to have season ticket back a couple of years ago. This was to make up for the lost seats due to reconfigurating the stadium for baseball. Does anyone have an update?
Indulge me, I'm actually an accountant right now.... Every time someone redeems a season ticket, the team's liability is reduced. Exchanging the ticket doesn't create a new liability. What it might do is reduce ticket revenue, if the recipient of the ticket would have bought a ticket otherwise. But that's not always the case. This decision has to do with profit and loss, not the balance sheet.
Well, they could buy tickets. Since I didn't buy season tickets to exchange them, I can't really complain. It was nice while it lasted but I don't think it's an entitlement.
I like the old policy because it made me buy at least one extra season ticket (giving DCU upfront operating revenue). I couldn't always bring one new person to each game, but I could bring 3 people to a game with three of those tickets, and many came back later and bought their own tickets the second or third... anyway - I understand the policy, I have no problem with it - the timing just reeks of bait and switch. I did know it was going to be much more restrictive this year so I only bought one extra ticket. We'll see how it turns out, but I think this will COST DC money, not make any extra for them - not as easy to bring new people. Guess MLS has the exact right number of fans.
I don't think it was an intentional bait and switch. I think it was more that they just didn't have their ******** together.
That's the point. This new policy may push people away from buying full season tickets and into half/flex plans. That will mean reduced profits for DCU. How exactly is that good? This isn't an argument about whether DCU season tickets are a good deal vis-a-vis other professional teams. It's an argument about whether this policy is going to help DCU increase profits. My guess is that it won't. And quit yer Meat the Team day whinin'. All of us are in the same boat on that.
I also am not happy with the the ticket policy! That means I will be giving more tickets away this year, free if I cant go.
I've only taken four weeks of classes so far...I was trying to throw out a hypothetical to maybe help explain the policy change. I'm not a lawyer and obviously not an accountant so I didn't know how to correctly frame this next thought - Isn't a season ticket package a kind of contract between the club and the actual season ticket holder? This was why I thought about liability. The club owes admission to the person that actually bought the ticket and not those that weren't involved in the transaction. In my fuzzy logic I was trying to say that the club is trying to limit how the contract can be altered by the season ticket holder. Does that make any sense?
The policy changed to restrict the amount of exchanges for a game to the number of season tickets held. It is relevant in that the team seems to recognize ticket sales on a game to game basis and not as a lump sum at the end of the season. People are complaining that they can't bring friends "for free" anymore because extra seats are not allowed. I didn't even realize that the club allowed full season tickets to be exchanged because that just doesn't make any business sense, IMHO.
How can you argue for increasing DC United's profits and argue against the policy change because it doesn't allow you to bring people to a game(s) for free? If your concern is DC United's profit margin then buy the season tickets and buy tickets for your cheap friends. No one here is compelled to buy anything from DCU. If you don't like the policy then ask for a refund. Just don't veil your complaints as concern for United when you only care about value for your money. I included a Smilie to let you know I was being sarcastic.
I think the biggest mistake/risk United runs is alienating/pushing away the season ticket holders who may not fit the die-hard (I want to support DCU/MLS/US Soccer regardless of the cost, etc) fan mold. I started coming to games in the late 90's, buying the least expensive ticket just to get into the stadium and made it to about 3-5 games a year. About three years ago, after having lived in the metro area for more than two years, I became a plan holder and split games with a friend as a way to force myself and add incentive to come to more games, however there was no real financial risk if I couldn't attend a game or five for whatever variety of reasons may have come up (family event, work, etc), because any ticket could be exchanged for any game, I could bring other friends, come to games I wasn't originally planning to, etc. Now while I enjoy the game atmosphere and enjoyed going to 8-12 games a year, the thought of potentially having to eat 5 or more tickets this season with nothing gained in return means I have asked for a full refund of my season ticket plan. Now I'll probably just buy individual game tickets, and I'll probably only end up getting out to 4-6 games and watch the rest on TV. I suppose this makes me a bad and disloyal fan, despite the fact that I watched a mediocre at best product on the field for the majority of the time that I was a season ticket holder. But the bottom line is this (I'm sure this will generate plenty of negative replies), while soccer is improving on the national level and the MLS is developing into a more respectable league (in the eyes of the world, most in the states are barely aware it exists), it is not close to receiving mainstream attention and falls well behind the major leagues and most big time college sports on the Amercian sportscape (consider the coverage, or lack of, DC's MLS cup run received in the local media and the gaping number of empy seats visible on television during the championship match). So with that being said, it seems that to encourage those, who enjoy soccer and DCU, but don't want to build their spring/summer and fall schedules around it, the club should bend over backwards to accomodate those "casual" fans (families with young children, young active professionals who aren't soccer diehards) who see DCU as a great value relative to other sports that, as a general rule, take their fans for granted. Instead they've decided to go the way of the Big Time sports leagues and assume that fans will come back regardless of the way they're treated. I used to be worried that if the team moved to Maryland I wouldn't want to renew my season tickets, who knew the team would push me away first. Though I'm sure most diehards would say good riddance to the casual fans, like me who don't want to just make a cash donation to DCU, but in the end I don't see how this policy change truly helps United or MLS in terms of growth or fan retention.
I don't see how you'd be a disloyal fan, but I question buying a season's ticket package without the intent of at least trying to make it to each home match. The idea is that you're in the same seat for each and every home match, it's not a 18 game flex plan.
The person who shows up with the ticket is the person to whom the team has a liability. That is, to be let into the stadium to watch a game. And once the ticket is used, the liability is discharged. It's then considered revenue. At least, assuming that this is actually how they do their accounting. Well, yeah. That's exactly what they're doing. But the alteration isn't because they want to reduce their liabilities; it's because they want to reduce the revenue lost due to the liberal policies of the past.
First, we are NOT bringing people in for free. We have already paid for the ticket that is being used. My familiy member or friend may not have paid for the ticket but I sure have. A family member got to see a game in exchange for the price of the ticket. Second, it does make business sense to allow the ticket exchange. DCU is still in the early stages of growing its market and selling to the game to the DC area. In those cases where DCU can differentiate itself in a positive fashion from other sport teams, that represents just one more reason for sports consumers to follow United. One of the best ways to have people become fans of the game, and United in particular, is to bring them to a game and have them soak in the atmosphere and feel the passion for the sport. Not everyone falls under the spell but enough do that the core attendance for DCU is steadily increasing. And that over the long term is the key to DCU's success.
While many agree with you in principle, and I'm sure the United Front Office is with you on this as well, there are certainly logistical considerations that we can only speculate upon ( in addition to the various accounting speculation). What we do know is that United is ahead of last year in terms of season tix sales. They can expect 10k-12.5k as sold tickets per game. The average crowd is somewhere around 18k. The lower bowl down-sized capacity for RFK was approximately 24k...with the deletion of the north-side stands, we can expect around 20k. Last season, United could handle about 50% of it's season tix base (about 6k)to exchange tickets and still have some seats for them (18k + 6k = 24k). In years past, when the whole stadium was open, the team never had to worry. What happens if that same scenario presents itself this year? If 6 thousand tickets are expected to be echanged, and United has two thousand seats for them? Do you turn four thousand people, who were expecting to get in, away? That seems like a really bad customer service move.
Regardless, I think (along with other extenuating circumstances) that they're going to lose some percentage of their season ticket sales because of this policy. Whether or not they make this revenue up by people buying "new" tickets at the end of the season for bigger games rather than those seats being occupied by tickets already paid for is another story.