Was this more of a personal decision relating to his chemo, etc.? or did it have to do with the restructuring, and the short shrift the soccers-die of the Kraft operations seem to be getting?
According to reports it was the latter. He seems to have won the early battle with chemo and is feeling better than he has in a long time. Insiders are saying that Smith was horrified that so many direct reports to him were laid off and he either did not have any say, or was not even told it was to happen. It is difficult to work in any sort of business when those type of control issues exist and I can see why he resigned. Andy
Yes this is true. I am sure they cut him some sort of deal to stay on until the cup instead of leaving immediately. It would also bode well for his own future career to show that he is willing to stick things out even in a poor atmosphere to achieve certain goals. Andy
What was Todd Smith's role, if any, in the "create demand" ticket strategy of the Revs? Does the departure of Smith and some of his staff increase the chance the Revs will come to their senses and realize it makes a lot more sense to sell midfield tickets on both sides of the stadium and not just on one side?
Maybe not. But if the "create demand" ticket selling strategy was the idea Todd Smith or one of his fired staffers, I'd say there's a lot better chance the Revs will dump that failed strategy than if someone still in the organization had come up with the idea.
Define "failed." The Revs have a higher attendance this year than last (by over 1,000 per game). I think you're confusing "failed" with "I don't like it."
With a new stadium and a mess load of new talent, the Revs should have expected to increase their attendance over last season by far more than 7%. Colorado's and New England's attendance last year were both around 16,000 and this season both started playing games in brand-new stadiums. What's Rapids attendance done in 2002? Up 23% to a 20,311 average. What's Revs attendance done in 2002? Up 7% to a 16,571 average. And it's not like New England is a bad market for soccer. During their first 3 seasons, Revolution attendance was in the top 3, averaging between 19,000 and 21,000 a game. While the "create demand" strategy may have have been somewhat successful in creating more season ticket sales, it's quite likely that walk-up sales have dropped substantially with it's advent. The Revs strategy of blocking off half of the best seats in the house may eventually help the Revs reach the state of frequent, artificial "sell outs", but I doubt it. Instead, it's my opinion that attendance will level off or even drop as the new stadium luster wears off and people grow tired of paying top price for a seat on the 20-yd line when the opposite side of the stadium presents of sea of vacant seats at midfield.
What crap. You're gonna have to bring more to the table this this load of manure. I've taken my shots at New England and their National Team overload, but this is gratuitous. Take out US/Mexico and 4th of July from Colorado. Now take out US/Holland and the CMGI opener from New England and re-run the numbers. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. There's plenty to complain about, but this sort of comparison is so bogus it's mind boggling.
So you think the Rapids 4th of July attendance should be tossed out of the averaging just because they run a great 4th of July promo and New England can't? What crap. And while the Rapids had a doubleheader with the USMNT this year, so did the Revs (who also happened to have one in 2001 as well). Face the facts, Mr. Mead. The Revs front office just didn't do a very good job of marketing their team this year.
No. "Create demand" was a side issue, although admitedly, it's a pet peeve of mind. My main point is that New England's attendance increase this season has been disappointing, particularly when compared to the gains seen in Colorado. It's my belief that the "create demand" strategy dampened the gains you'd typically expect to see when playing in a new stadium. But without ticket sales numbers (which I doubt MLS will let anyone in the public ever see) it's impossible to say whether or not my view is right.
Then come back in 12 months when New England's attendance is flat and Colorado's drops 15-20% and explain how Colorado's ticket sales force has gone from great to crap.
For what its worth, the "create demand" strategy was the last straw for me. In terms of whose idea it was, there is no question it came from the Krafts in terms of the budget. The budget was so small to run game day operations this year, the Revs staff came up with the idea of "create demand" in a way to try and minimize game day costs by not opening the other side of the stadium. Considering that the first game was "sold out" by Pats fans who could have cared less about the Revs and that they held the US Holland double header, a 1000 bump in a brand new stadium that got the Revs more press than they ever had in the existance is hardly anything to brag about IMO. Hopefully they can hold or improve on this level next year but I fear the days of consitently knocking out 20,000 are gone and may not come back. Andy
I disagree. If they keep TT (i.e. somebody they can build a marketing campaign around) and become a winning team, the crowds will respond. The fans of yore haven't disappeared altogether, they've just been voting with their feet on the most recent Rev teams.
Two big stretches for the Revs. In 7 years, they haven't had a winning team. As for building a marketing campaign around TT, I'm not sure they're smart enough to do that. If they were, it would have happened by the end of late May when it was obvious he was the real deal. Rev marketing campaigns are built around family fun, not the game.
And there's the rub. When was the last time the organization that brought you "soccer smiles" built a marketing campaign around anything that you would actually see on the field? Hint: He played the gee-tar, had long hair and a red goatee. The Revs marketing strategy has been "If we build it, you will come, or at least we think you will because we've got this thing that looks like the logo on the Houston Oilers' helmets, but we like to call it a lighthouse. Yeah, and we threw some extra rocks around it, so we can say it has a 'rustic New England feel' to it. Yeah, that's it." The thing they didn't realize is that there are only 2 places where the ballpark is more important than any team playing in it, and one of them is just up the road at Fenway. The other is Wrigley Field. 2 years from now, when all the hysteria has died down, people will realize that this place is nothing more than a nicer version of Comiskey Park, but with more luxury boxes. And it will only get worse with the Patriots in charge of the Revs. Even in the old dump they had little plywood boards painted with Rev logos to hang over the railings. There is nothing at all in the new stadium that will tell you the Revs play there, other than the flag on gameday. Tom
It doesn't matter how good of a July 4 promotion it is, the Revs aren't going to draw more than the season ticket/6 game pack crowd. There are too many other things going on in Boston/NE (Esplanade fireworks/Pops concert), various other holiday jaunts (Cape & Islands, etc.) for a stand alone Revs crowd to ever be real high on July 4. The too many other things to do situation will prevent high walkups, as well as keep those who normally don't go to the Revs, but may for a promotion, from going. Ditto for the "event crowd" or we'll go because it may be a cool thing to do. They're all doing other things then. Even the 1999 DH with the WWC semi on 7/4 didn't break 30K. Now, being in Colorado, I'm thrilled with the job the sales staff does with the July 4 match (lots of commercials too!), but anyone who thinks that the crowd this year wasn't added to because of the drought-caused, except-for-professional commercial presentation fireworks ban, is being slightly delusional IMHO. There had to have been handfuls of the fans who go for the fireworks that would have been elsewhere if not for the ban. That being said, my friends out here and I were thrilled at how involved the whole crowd was (which I understand is generally not the case on 7/4).
But do you attribute the relatively weak attendance to "create demand" or to the consistently crap product the Revs put on the field each year? For a die-hard fan like yourself, I can understand that the create demand thing would be the final straw, but for the so-called "casual sports fan" in Boston, doesn't their continued mediocrity play at least an equal part in it?
After being in the region for two seasons, I'm completely cynical about the Krafts. This is not a consolidation, it's a shutting down. The Patriots staff I'm sure will spend several hours a year on promoting the Revolution.
There are virtually no casual sports fans who follow the Revs. The TV ratings over the years have continually shown that it is an very small base of fans that watches the Revs. The ratings are next to nil for home games, and amazingly jump by around 15,000 for away games. That being said, of the small base of fans that the Revs do have, some are more die hard (I am not die hard, I am dead), and some are more the mini-van crowd. I am sure that both sets of fans are less than pleased about the on-the field product, however both sets probably disagree about the off-the-field product. I have heard some argue that the Revs fan base is almost identical in size to the base that attended in the glory days of Lalas and Zenga (hey at least they were fun to watch ), but that they simply go to less games now. There is probably a good bit of truth in that theory. Andy
I also don't think win/loss means much in the New England sports scene. After a few generations of the Sox, you just sort of expect to lose.