Charity or Calculated, Bottom Line Opportunism?

by Diamondhacks on Dec 8, 2007 5:44 AM EST Comment 8 comments

Has this Dbacks' season ticket giveaway raised any eyebrows around here? Like most of you, I'm delighted when disadvantaged folks get to enjoy games through the kindness or sacrifice of others, but a few wrinkles here strike me as curious.

First, if priority consideration is given to current ST holders, how "disadvantaged" are they? We may likely be talking about people with deteriorating health or families who "lost" a breadwinner, so I dont mean to be flip or disrespectful towards their personal hardship in any way. I guess what I'm asking is, how disadvantaged are they in terms of attending lots of baseball games? Presumably, these are not proverbial newbies entering a stadium portal for the first time, awed by the sea of green, transported by the resonant crack of the bat. These folks, the priority folks, are regulars.

Second, does anybody really neeeed season tickets? Besides shoewizard, I mean. Arent they more of an indulgent luxury than a need? I dont deny beneficiaries will enjoy the gift, up to a point, but if we're talking about people worried about paying the mortgage, or how to get to their next doctor's appointment, isnt gifting ST books pretty disconnected from their "need"? Tons of underprivileged kids in the valley grow up without ever attending a single game, yet the Dbacks are donating, not single games, but entire ST books, to stadium regulars.

I get the part about doing something nice, something fun, above utilitarian "needs", for people in trouble. Honest, I do. But if a kid is sick and wants to go to Disneyland, do you send her eighty one times? Does she get utility out of that? At what point does it stop being about her and start being about the conspicuous largesse of her benefactors?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. We may get some real tear jerking stories that could change my mind, win me over. But right now, there's two things about the tone of this program I dont like. One is this perception that the Dbacks are fulfilling a genuine need. There are people with needs, certainly, and they will be receiving something of value over and over and over again, but how this rather ostentatious, recurring gift matches their need just isnt clicking with me. Second, is the perception that the Dbacks are providing this at considerable sacrifice. Per below, I've made 9 assumptions about the program that call this idea into question. I dont know if they're all true, but I believe they're reasonable. Feel free to challenge them.

Assumptions:

Ordinary "paying" ST holders will not be relocated to accomodate this program.
Existing ST holders who qualify for hardship will be relocated. (We know this because Hall already identified the allocated seats as "nice seats" in November, before hardship applications were even solicited.)
The allocated seats(40 or 50?) will have negligible impact on new ticket sales. (ie people who were going to buy tix will not be discouraged by these occupied seats, unless there is a sellout).
Since the allocated seats are not in current ST seat locations, it's unlikely they would sell out otherwise, across 83 games, on a game by game basis. Depending on location, this fraction of 83 could vary considerably, but many upper and middle deck seats, for example, sell for less than a third of games. If you feel that's low, consider that Derrick Hall (of all people) recently characterized the upcoming 2008 single game price hikes as "a big increase", which should further suppress single game sales.
When the Dbacks assess this "charitable donation" for tax purposes, the write off will not be valued on that fractional "lost revenue" (ie the true cost to the Dbacks); the write off will be for the full 83 game value(the fictional "cost" to the Dbacks, for seats that otherwise wouldve been empty much of the time).
The net cost to the Diamondbacks will be negligible. Depending on seat location, overall attendance and how 4 and 5 play out, it's entirely possible the tax gains could offset lost revenue and this charitable exercise actually results in a net gain.
We will hear about this "act of generosity" again and again and again. On dbacks.com. On "Playin' Hardball". On local TV news and in the AZ Republic. On blogs and message boards. Todd Walsh will interrupt live game action to ask a woman how her husband died. "Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, are you enjoying the game?". Walsh will give a little speech about the Diamondbacks' "unprecedented generosity" and then spoonfeed several "questions" to grateful beneficiaries about the Diamondbacks' "unprecedented generosity". Daron Sutton will say "Great stuff, Todd". Derrick Hall will "pop in" to the booth and remind listeners of the Diamondbacks' "unprecedented generosity".
The Diamondbacks will tangibly benefit again from this strategy, repairing their brand and selling more tickets.
Other teams have considered similar strategies, "donating" season tickets in emptier areas to realize tax and brand advantages, but have aborted these plans due to ethical or legal concerns.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yawn

Hack, you were doing so well. You just can't let your hatred of the new and better FO go now, can you?

by unnamedDBacksfan on Dec 8, 2007 12:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Two things, well actually 3

1.) If by publicizing the charitable works they engage in creates good will towards their business organization, which in turn helps create greater revenue and profits, that therefore allows them to engage in even greater charitable works, then I don't have a problem with that.

2.) Private business have a right to seek ways to increase their profits. This is what they SHOULD do. So long as they do so in a legal and ethical way

3.) Hack, your criticisms of EVERY move this ownership group makes will NEVER have any legitimacy because they are always broadcast through the lens of hatred and bias.

It's possible, even probable that SOME of your criticisms have merit. Clearly nobody is infallible and far be it from me to infer that this ownership group and their management has never made any mistakes. But we'll never be able to use your writing as a utility in helping discern what is legitimate criticism, because you have forfeited your objectivity in a torrent of hateful and vengeful rhetoric for years, all "disguised" as conscientious dissent. Fortunately, almost everyone who has read your opinions can see through the disguise quite easily.

by shoewizard on Dec 8, 2007 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily one thing or the other

Or, perhaps, a bit of both. Truly unrequited, utterly selfless gifts of charity are kinda rare; anyone who has claimed a tax-deduction for a charitable donation largely loses the right to criticize any enterprise for doing the same. There is no doubt the Diamondbacks will benefit from this, in ways both tangible and intangible, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing; the families that receive this tickets will certainly benefit as well.

Some of your assumptions are valid, but others are perhaps not [can you tell us about the other teams that did this, and the "ethical or legal" concerns that prevented them?], or are at least premature. I imagine these will not be premium seats, and I would be somewhat disturbed if they were, on a variety of levels. I must admit, I was similarly concerned as to whether this was the best way to help those in genuine financial hardship, but again, this is the front office's way of connecting with their core fans, the ones for whom baseball (and the Diamondbacks) is a central part of their way of life. This disarms the 'Disneyland' criticism you make: this is allowing the recipients to continue life as it was before.

Sure, perhaps a mortgage payment might be more directly helpful, but you seem to be missing the most obvious point: this is a baseball team here, not a bank or a finance company. As a parallel, when we get charity requests at trashcity.com, we send them beads, because that's what we do. We don't pay their electric bill or make a payment on their car. And, as another parallel, we are more likely to help if the request comes from one of our customers, who has contributed to our business in the past; this seems reasonable to me too. Charity begins at home, after all.

I do have qualms about the potential for exploitation here, though at this point that remains purely hypothetical. The team will hopefully avoid this, and there's nothing wrong with publicizing charitable work, especially when it's done with the intention of encouraging others to likewise contribute. Maybe the team could have some kind of program whereby regular season ticket-holders could contribute unused tickets to a charitable pool, or even sign up to donate some of the proceeds from sales through outlets like stubhub.com to charity. The D-backs could reward participants in some way too. A program in which everyone can take part - like the United Way donations, where fans donated by buying tickets - would send a more undeniably positive message.

by Jim McLennan on Dec 8, 2007 4:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Appreciate

such a thoughtful reply and resisting any temptation to shoot the messenger.

I do have qualms about the potential for exploitation here, though at this point that remains purely hypothetical.

That's mostly what I'm trying to say, by way of listing assumptions.

We all recognize the basic quid pro quo of corporate giving. You make a legitimate donation, blow your own horn, and cultivate the brand on the back end. While that might not be Jesus' idea of charity, and the Dbacks can blow harder than Dizzy Gillespie, I dont fundamentally object to that structure. I'm more concerned that the donation is 'legit', in that the Dbacks are incurring a real cost that isnt more than offset as a front end calculation. That's critical, it seems to me, not because it's a whole lot of money, but because that initial, bottom line sacrifice is the ethical foundation for all the subsequent benefits and good will.

I'd lay off if Hall had said " We figured out a way to help some people in need and it's not going to cost us a dime. It's a win/win and we hope other teams follow our lead". Instead, there's this predictably cheerful vacuum of financial information that gets filled with platitudes about generosity and sacrifice, when there's no clear evidence that's the case, and potential circumstances (see assumptions) and past credibility (a separate argument, perhaps) leave that quite open to conjecture.

anyone who has claimed a tax-deduction for a charitable donation largely loses the right to criticize any enterprise for doing the same thing.

Depends on the deduction, I think. It's one thing to pay for and donate a turkey, or take a deduction when St VDP's truck picks up your clothes, because the clothes have some value that you forfeit (ie presumably you could have sold them to a thrift shop or in a yard sale instead of donating them). But what if a franchise, hypothetically, deducts the full value of donated seats that failed to attract any buyers on the open market? What real asset has the club forfeited to warrant a tax deduction, let alone any of the downstream benefits?

I'm all for donating season tickets towards a worthy cause, and having the club mention it now and again, provided the club is relinquishing a legitimate asset. It's currently unclear the Dbacks are doing that, and my skepticism is reinforced by Hall's expressed hope that this already conspicuous "charitable donation" that we both have qualms about, grows even larger.

My thinking on assumption 9 was simply that 30 clubs, 28 of whom predate AZ, share similar goals(maxing profit, increasing attendance, cultivating the brand,etc), and it stretches credulity that none of these smart, driven people churning through familiar issues have considered this type of strategy. I mean, we're not writing a symphony or unlocking the human genome here :-)

The question is, "Why was implementation aborted?" Maybe the Dbacks are more generous and community oriented than the other 29 teams. Maybe the Dbacks are pushing some ethical envelope. Or perhaps clubs feared backlash from within their (paying) ST ranks, as I believe you may have hinted at. Honestly, I think those three explanations gain plausibility as one reads down :-)

Incidentally, Jerry installed drop boxes for ticket donations; not sure if that was discontinued, but it seemed like a good idea to me too.

I understand this rubs some people the wrong way, and we dont see eye to eye, so thanks again for engaging the subject so dispassionately. FWIW, these assumptions are grounded more in observation and experience than from a "torrent of hatred and bias". I sense a dearth of scrutiny from the local press on these matters (ie ticketing, marketing,etc) and it's my considered position not to accept much of what Derrick Hall says at face value. Granted, I've written some bombastic stuff, often in satirical counterpoint to what he routinely skates by with, but this insidious "agenda" of mine really isnt more complicated than that.

by Diamondhacks on Dec 10, 2007 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Charity is charity?

Motivation doesn't mean much to me, as long as the work is being done.

Giving away season tickets isn't charity but it is a nice gesture. Yes, it's a luxury item, but that doesn't mean giving away tickets isn't a bad thing. The motivation might be bad to some people, but I'd be ecstatic if they gave me season tickets.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Dec 8, 2007 7:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Corporate charity

"First, if priority consideration is given to current ST holders, how "disadvantaged" are they?"

I have to agree with this. I'm sorry, but if you've already purchased ST in the past, I'm thinking life's not treating you too badly.

Still, as far as corporate "charity," this isn't the worst thing in the world. At least the team is the entity actually making the contribution. It could be much worse. They could pull one of those "charitable" drives where they shake down their customers to donate. My position is that if a corporation wants to make a donation, THEY should donate; they shouldn't solicit their customers to make the donation. That's become the most common charitable push in recent years. You can't walk into Safeway without them urging you to give extra money for this charity or that charity. As if they were not pulling in enough profits to enable them to make the donation themselves, without shaking down people who are just trying to keep food on the table.

by azshadowwalker on Dec 9, 2007 12:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Read the linked story

This started by Hall hearing about one season ticket holder who couldn't afford to buy the tickets anymore, yet was able to attend games last year because another season ticket holder bought the seat for her.

The quote is: "We're going to give priority to current season-ticket holders that have seen their economic situations change..."

Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Dec 9, 2007 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How disadvantaged are these people?

if you've already purchased ST in the past, I'm thinking life's not treating you too badly.

I'm guessing this is a fairly widely held view, and with due respect to Jim's point about restoring these folks' "central way of life", it seems like kind of an odd way to prioritize need in the community.

That said, I dont think the tix are being fraudulently funneled to Derrick's rich aunt Ethel or anything. I'm confident the Dbacks will identify people with A) genuine hardships and B) the ability to articulate the Dbacks generosity, preferably on camera. I have other suspicions, obviously, but that's not one of them :-)

by Diamondhacks on Dec 10, 2007 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs