Spurs Not Cashing In?

[GSH]

Below is the article about what the Celtics new ownership has done to capitalize on the value that the franchise has built up over the years. I have an idea that the "departure" of the marketing firm is to allow the Spurs marketing effort to grow beyond what it has been. The Spurs have the most dominant team in all professional sports for the past decade. I think they have left a lot of money on the table. San Antonio is a small media market, but they play on a much bigger stage.

I especially noted this comment from one of their management team: "We spent the last four years raising the floor of the business," Gotham says. "We should be able to raise the roof now." The Spurs' success should have allowed them to do the same. And, as the article mentions, that allows the team to afford better players as well.

http://www.projo.com/celtics/content/projo_20080418_celtics.779b45f3.html
(Excerpt. The link is to a much longer article.)
"A lot of people have it exactly wrong," says Gotham, reciting conventional wisdom: a team does great business when it's winning and scuffles through when it's losing. "If you can't have a healthy top line (in a down cycle), you can't invest in your payroll. You have to dump salary, and that doesn't get you anywhere. After a 24-win season, we were able to go out and acquire two $20 million players."

In that dreary 2006-2007 season, when the Celtics went 24- 58, they managed to average attendance of 16,900 (in 18,624-seat TD Banknorth Garden) despite losing 18 straight games at one point and losing All-Star forward Pierce to injury. The Celtics even managed to grow sponsorship revenue by 20 percent that season.

Just wait till next year. The Celtics will look to strike a lucrative deal for a "presenting sponsor" for the 2008-2009 season. They will somehow wedge in more high-priced courtside seats. They will keep running that front-office motion offense.

This is a second article that talks more about the same sort of things.
http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid91_gci1163772,00.html

Russ Bookbinder's departure may be coincidental, and related to family concerns. But there's no way in hell a marketing firm voluntarily gives up the Spurs account. We're nearing the end of the Duncan/Popovich era. We may see a whole lot of changes in the next few years.

[Marcus Bryant]

Duncan's here until 2012, regardless of who has the account.

Next.

[GSH]

Duncan's here until 2012, regardless of who has the account.

Next.

Wait a minute... bullshit! You know too much about the game to just throw something like that out there, Marcus. Yeah, Duncan is going to be here. But even Duncan needs a few players to help out.

The Spurs let Luis Scola go to a division rival, because of a few million in salary. The Spurs are leaving money on the table by not aggressively managing their brand, and you don't see the connection?

We may enjoy the image of the Spurs as hometown heroes, who don't blow their own horns. But there is a cost associated with that. And that makes it hard to put together championship teams without running in the red. And it gets harder all the time, as ex-Spur management spreads into other teams in the league, and as the Euro teams get more aggresive with the salaries they are willing to pay.

If the Spurs can't capitalize on the incredible success they have had, we fans are going to be sitting around every off-season wondering which players the team can pick up for the league minimum.

I don't know what part you have a problem with, but I sincerely hope they are doing something to bring in a little more revenue. And you should too.

Next.

[mrspurs]

very well said......go spurs go

[jag]

The Spurs let Luis Scola go to a division rival, because of a few million in salary.

...here we go again

[thispego]

...here we go again

you've made it on my lame list

[Marcus Bryant]

We may enjoy the image of the Spurs as hometown heroes, who don't blow their own horns. But there is a cost associated with that. And that makes it hard to put together championship teams without running in the red. And it gets harder all the time, as ex-Spur management spreads into other teams in the league, and as the Euro teams get more aggresive with the salaries they are willing to pay.



The Spurs have one of the best arena deals in the NBA, controlling all arena revenues.

This is from '06, but it's clear the Spurs aren't hurting that much:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_San-Antonio-Spurs_323002.html

[GSH]

The Spurs have one of the best arena deals in the NBA, controlling all arena revenues.

This is from '06, but it's clear the Spurs aren't hurting that much:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_San-Antonio-Spurs_323002.html


So that means it doesn't matter if they are leaving money on the table? Well shucks, Jethro, your cipherin' makes perfect sense.

Where have I heard that logic before? Oh yeah, the explanation for the Gasol trade. "Who cares if we could have made more money? We got plenty."

Here's a hint, Marcus. The Bulls made $9 Mil more than the Spurs from brand management in '07, and they haven't done shit in 10 years. They're still riding the momentum from the Jordan years. It's worth 10's of millions to the Spurs to maximize the value of these dominating years, and it can help carry them through some re-building years. If you're not interested, fine. But don't act like it's not important.

Oh, by the way. Here is the link for '07. Might as well use the most current: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_San-Antonio-Spurs_323002.html

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh, ok Uncle Jesse.

The Spurs seem to be doing fine in spite of their payroll being 'maxed out', per your claims.

[GSH]

Oh, ok Uncle Jesse.

The Spurs seem to be doing fine in spite of their payroll being 'maxed out', per your claims.

Don't put words in my mouth and then tell me why they're wrong. I never suggested that Duncan was leaving. I never said the Spurs arena deal was bad. I never said the Spurs were not "doing well". And I never said their payroll was "maxed out".

The article about the Spurs marketing firm "quitting" came out right after the article about Russ Bookbinder resigning. Some people were thinking "what's going on with the Spurs?" All I really said was that I think it was the Spurs idea, not Creative Civilization's. And that the Spurs could benefit more from the fantastic success they have had.

I did say that we are approaching the end of the Duncan/Popovich era. And whether you like it or not, it's true. Duncan may be here until 2012, but that's not exactly a lifetime. (And while I hope that he is still playing like a 25-year-old when he retires, we all know that's not likely.) You may think it doesn't matter if anyone outside of San Antonio recognizes the dynasty, but it will matter when Duncan retires. Because that kind of legend carries over, and translates into brand revenues for a lot of years. And that helps pay the next generation of players.

Pop's interviews always scream, "I don't care what anybody thinks of me... just leave me alone and let me do my job." And that's fine - it works for him. But the franchise might benefit from raising their profile a little bit. So, yeah, there might be some changes, but the context was brand marketing. So maybe that means shedding a little bit of the "humble home-town hero" image. Maybe it means actively pursuing the loyalties of foreign fans. Maybe it's creating an image tailor-made to suit a corporate sponsor. And, yes (gasp), it might involve personnel changes. SFW?

Maybe you disagree that the Scola trade was primarily motivated by money?
Maybe you think Creative Civilization was the best possible marketing firm?
Maybe you think the Spurs are "doing well", and don't need any additional revenues?
Whatever. But don't argue about shit that I never said. That's what Laker trolls are for.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Scola trade was a financial move brought on by the prospect of paying roughly $8 mil last season for Jackie Butler due to the Luxury Tax.

I have no idea about the mktg firm's performance.

The Spurs aren't doing poorly financially. EBITDA is positive and has been for a good number of years. When you consider that most investors in a professional sports franchise attain their return from exiting their investment, it's likely not that much of a concern. Unless they are living from hand to mouth.

[hsxvvd]

I think the point here is that the Spurs are doing fine, but could be doing better.

In fact, SHOULD be doing better financially given our recent success. I might also add, that given the large international presence on the team, that marketing the team internationally should be a greater focus.

[DynastyBuilder]

The Bulls made $9 Mil more than the Spurs from brand management in '07, and they haven't done shit in 10 years. They're still riding the momentum from the Jordan years. ...

Oh, by the way. Here is the link for '07. Might as well use the most current: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_San-Antonio-Spurs_323002.html

Not to take sides here but that's not exactly a fair assessment ...


The Spurs have one of the best arena deals in the NBA, controlling all arena revenues.


That's stretching it just a bit the Spurs are upper-middle of the pack (approximately somewhere around 9-12th in the league)...


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_Chicago-Bulls_321267.html (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_Chicago-Bulls_321267.html)

A big difference in the Bulls and Spurs is the arena and market not gravy-training off the Jordan years. The Bulls/Blackhawks own the building and it seats 21,711 (plus a avg. Bulls ticket is $10 more than a Spurs). Thats +20 million right there, then add 10 more million to player salaries.

So now thats +30 million. Now add that +30 million in revenue (which is 20k butts in seats, parking, concession, etc. - merchandise by the way is probably less than 1% of this, not as huge of a chunk as most would think) and we're up to +60. Add the local TV deal in and you're pushing awfully close to that +100 million.

On another point... who is to say that the marketing firm wasn't a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "resigning" instead of a "you're fired." I'm just sayin.

[CubanMustGo]

The small market Spurs will never bring in the money that a large market team will. Period, end of story, and unless you can move five million more relatively affluent people to San Antonio along with a bunch of major corporations that fact is never going to change.

That said I am thrilled that the crappy little-league marketing firm was shown the door. Good riddance.

[jag]

you've made it on my lame list

I could give a shit.

[BOHOLANO#21]

The small market Spurs will never bring in the money that a large market team will. Period, end of story, and unless you can move five million more relatively affluent people to San Antonio along with a bunch of major corporations that fact is never going to change.

That said I am thrilled that the crappy little-league marketing firm was shown the door. Good riddance.
agree. you can't compare chicago with san antonio. 3rd largest market against what 38th? next.