Last week I sent a letter to Fred Wilpon explaining why I was not going to renew my ticket plan in 2010. I also copied several members of Mets management and a few members of the media. (
You can read my letter here).
On Wednesday afternoon I received a call from Craig Marino, the Mets Vice President of Guest Experience. Craig was calling to respond to my letter, and immediately offered to go over it point by point.
Point 1 - Ticket price decreases. In my letter I asked if the Mets had announced that ticket prices would be cut an average of 20%, how come my invoice only showed a 5.6% decrease? Kids, always double check your facts. The Mets actually announced an average decrease of 10%, with some ticket prices being cut as much as 20%.
OK, so even if I was slightly off, how come my plan only saw a 5.6% decrease? According to Craig, when the Mets looked at the ticket price structure, they evaluated which seats/prices were more out of line with the market and discounted those tickets at a greater rate. The Promenade Level pricing was determined to be right about where it should be for the market, and so received a lower discount than say Field Level which were decreased at a greater percent.
OK, you know that makes sound, logical, business sense. I can't really argue on that point as far as it goes.
One thing Craig did say, which I laughed at, was his claim that the Promenade was "sold out for most games," which was a factor in why the Promenade received the lowest decrease in ticket pricing. I told him that technically he may have been right if they were looking only at ticket sales. However, I asked him if he saw all those empty seats, especially during the week. He agreed that there were a lot of no-shows during the 2nd half of the season, but attributed that to the quality of the team and nothing else.
Point 2 - Bulk discounts. Why don't the Mets offer a discount to plan and package holders? Craig's response here I just did not agree with. He said that if the Mets were to offer bulk discounts for plan holders than it would be the equivalent of raising ticket prices for individual purchasers. I tried to point out that if a plan holder doesn't go to every game (as I bring up in Point 3) than that essentially raises their cost on a per game basis. To reward loyalty to those purchasing plans Craig said the Mets are looking into other ways, such as behind the scene tours to full-season ticket holders.
My feeling here is that the Mets are very scared of bad publicity against "the little guy." Offering a discount for bulk purchase should be considered rewarding loyalty. I think the logic that this is somehow screwing over the little guy is flawed.
Point 3 - Sunday PLUS. Why have non-Sunday games in a Sunday package? Why change what worked at Shea? There were several points around the topic of the naming and make-up of the various plans.
First, the naming of the plans. Craig admitted that last season they essentially screwed-up, which is why this year they added the PLUS to the name of each plan. The adding of PLUS was an attempt by the Mets to clarify that the plans included more than just Saturday or Sunday games.
So why not just have only Sunday games in a Sunday plan? It worked at Old Shea, why not do it here? Craig bluntly told me they were "trying to sell every seat for every game." He tried to point out that there was now extra value in these packages - the Old Shea packages were only 13 games versus 15 now. I reminded him that those 13 games had no PLUS games - a Sunday package was a Sunday package. When I tried to point out that very few people probably actually used those "PLUS" games and I would love to see an analysis of their ticket usage data - which they do have thanks to bar-code scanning - Craig claimed there would be no real way to analyze ticket usage since they really couldn't account for pass-along or giveaways. I pointed out to all the empty seats during the week - the incidence of pass-alongs could not be that significant.
Bottom line is there is no indication that this will change anytime soon.
Point 4 - StubHub. So what's to stop me from buying my tickets on StubHub? Craig admitted he had no answer for this. He said it's an issue that all teams are dealing with and there wasn't anything they could really do about it. He continued that the Mets felt last year was an aberration - mostly because of the team's performance - and they did not expect this coming season to have anywhere near the same secondary market.
I think he is right but for different reasons. There won't be as many plan holders dumping their tickets in 2010 because there won't be as many plans sold.
Point 5 - Obstructed views. This was a huge point of contention where Craig and I went back and forth. I pointed out to Craig that Dave Howard had angered a lot of Mets fans when he said that there were no obstructed view seats, only some sight line issues. I asked Craig if he knew whether Dave had sat in any of these Promenade seats, such as Section 527 Row 2.
Craig stated "Dave has sat in just about every seat in the ballpark."
What? Then how can he say there are no
obstructed seats? Craig started to say that their view of an obstruction was a column - pretty much the company line. We then discussed what a sight line issue was - where you can't see LF from upper LF seats for example. Personally, I can understand sight line issues - every stadium has them (Old Shea's were pretty bad at times). What we are talking about were not sight lines but
blocked views of the infield.I won't go into everything about our discussion on this point, but some things were brought up:
- According to Craig, the strict "code requirements throughout the ballpark" forced them to put in all the plexiglass and banisters
- The team is now "well aware of the sight line issues"
- Short of "blowing up the upper level" there really isn't anything that can be done about some of the problems
I pointed out to Craig that there was a huge communications gap between the team and the fans in this area. I suggested that they stop using the term "sight line issue" because it was angering a lot of fans who knew what that term really meant. If they don't want to call these seats obstructed views, then come up with another term, such as limited view seating. Finally, I suggested that they discount those tickets by say 10-20%.
Point 6 - Mets history. This is a sore point for me and many other Mets fans - the apparent lack of Mets-ness at New Shea.
According to Craig this is a sore point for the Mets too - the perception that Mets management does not care about the history. He stated that he "gets very frustrated at the conclusions that people jump to" and "takes great exception at people who say they don't care about the team."
On Fred Wilpon being more of a Dodger fan than a Mets fan, he said it is "a real misnomer - not factual at all." Everyone in the front office is a Mets fan and supports this team first and foremost.
Discussing the lack of Mets related items at New Shea when it opened, Craig told me that getting the Jackie Robinson Rotunda ready for Day 1 was their top priority as this was to be the primary point of entry into the ballpark (70% of those attending games entered in that way). They were still working on it up to Opening Day. According to Craig, there were numerous plans in place to add and enhance the ballpark with Mets items and history, but they were all "Day 2 projects." The problem was that once the season got underway things kept getting pushed back.
Craig went on to claim that a good portion of the recent changes and announcements were all either discussed or planned well before the ballpark opened. If that was the case I pointed out, why didn't they make mention of these things before now? It makes them look like they are being reactive rather than proactive. Craig agreed with me that the Mets had dropped the ball on this and they probably should have made these things known much sooner.
We talked briefly about the Jackie Robinson Rotunda as well - about honoring a player who never even played for the Mets. Why, I asked him, have they not honored a Mets player yet? Where is Seaver's statue for example? Here Craig would not state anything definitely, but did say that
they would be honoring Seaver in a great way and that he suspected I would be pleased by it. Hmmmm.
Lastly, we discussed the overall general gap between fans and the Mets front office. There is a feeling of mistrust among many fans - not so much because of the product on the field, but in how they communicate to the fans on things like seating, ticket prices, etc. I pointed out that many other teams make a conscious effort to work with fans, and that ownership has a much more public role. I gave as an example Angels owner Arte Moreno who I have met at Spring Training games. He is frequently sitting down and talking with fans.
Craig agreed that they are very aware of this perception and had started to try and make some efforts to improve things. He mentioned this past September when front office personnel were strolling around the ballpark during games, talking to people. I responded that it's all well and good, but it has to be more, and done not just when the team is doing bad and they aren't drawing. The Mets need to be proactive with their fans.
Craig and I spoke for an hour and though we disagreed on some things, the conversation was extremely cordial. When he said he was a Mets fan I believed him. I give him and the Mets a lot of credit - I did not include my phone number in my letter. Sure, all they had to do was pull up my account information to get it, but it's a step they didn't necessarily have to take.
I would like to thank Craig for taking the time and making the effort. I did tell him that I would be posting about our conversation and he was ok with that.
Will I renew my plans? No, I'm still not going to - the economics of it just do not make sense. Were all my concerns addressed? Not really, but at least I saw a willingness to open a dialogue with this fan - and that is a start.
Main Mets Police pageFollow us on twitter
@metspoliceFacebook pagesend ideas/guest columns to shannon at metspolice.com
