Philosophical discussion...when a business isn't attracting custom

[caulfield12]

for its product, is it ever justifiable for that business to blame the consumers for the non-performance of whatever product or service they are selling?

 

The reason I bring this up is because I was wracking my brain for an example.

 

It has been commonly accepted by many at different Sox websites that the team is justified in not spending money at the deadline or in the off-season (if the Sox will be spending more money than they've earned or are projected to earn...of course, we've never been privy to that actual information, other than making educated guesses from Forbes, comments made by the organization, etc.)

 

Obviously, last year, the team was in first place and the moves for Youkilis, Liriano and Myers were logical and didn't cost a boatload of talent or money.

 

But this season presents a different twist, and there are even more needs to make a legitimate argument about finishing with an 87-91 win team. Not only that, but we're in a quandary about long-term development vs. competing in the short term, and we're in a precarious position trading away what prospects we do have for the 10-15-20% chance of having a playoff team this year, albeit one with quite a few flaws.

 

 

 

At any rate, I couldn't think of any business or product where the response of the market was "tepid" and the management/ownership group didn't change the people in charge of marketing that aforementioned product.

 

The only examples I could think of were non-profits/NGO's/501-c-3's (obviously different than for-profits) who were all competing for donation dollars....and many go out of business or simply disappear. However, you can't "sell" a non-profit for $1 billion dollars or take out excess revenues from the budget for the Board of Directors without incurring legal and IRS penalties.

 

So other than the White Sox, is there is any other business or product that we can name where the consumers (or fans) are blamed for the failure or shrinking revenues derived from that product?

 

And where the marketing team in place hasn't been changed...perpetuating the notion that it's the consumers' (fans) fault and not the operational model of the business itself?

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

What other business would dump all of their quality products if customers weren't using their company, and tell their customers it would be 3-5 years before their product was decent again?

[caulfield12]

What other business would dump all of their quality products if customers weren't using their company, and tell their customers it would be 3-5 years before their product was decent again?

 

American automakers/designers.

 

Essentially, that's what happened over the 70's, 80's and 90's as they finally responded to foreign competition and improved their products and went bankrupt in the process, with the exception of Ford.

 

 

Nokia, would be another.

 

Apple Company, when they alienated Jobs and went through a lost generation of products in the wilderness with a Wal-Martesque leader.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[The Ultimate Champion]

for its product, is it ever justifiable for that business to blame the consumers for the non-performance of whatever product or service they are selling?

 

No, you always blame yourself, because you have to be adaptable and you have to adapt to whatever the consumer needs now whether you want to or not.

 

It has been commonly accepted by many at different Sox websites that the team is justified in not spending money at the deadline or in the off-season (if the Sox will be spending more money than they've earned or are projected to earn...of course, we've never been privy to that actual information, other than making educated guesses from Forbes, comments made by the organization, etc.)

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Fans don't run s***. Their opinions only matter as far as it affects the overall business in terms of dollars. Apart from that, fans say stupid s*** all the time that makes no sense. One example: "I won't come to the games because the team isn't spending any money." Bulls***. You're not coming to the games because the team isn't any good. There is a difference.

 

Also, money in baseball, at least as far as player contracts/signing bonuses, etc. are concerned (the "on field" stuff fans talk about), is a tool that you can use however you have to use it depending upon your situation, which differs team to team just as park factors will suggest on a team-by-team basis how to construct a lineup/pitching staff. Some teams have better front offices, better internal structure, etc. and can "buy" talent cheaply through trades while others "buy" players with money. Having a bad team loaded with bad players on bad contracts is exactly the same to the average fan as having a bad team with virtually no payroll and with those bad players making just about nothing. If you suck you suck, and the fans hate you because of it.

 

Obviously, last year, the team was in first place and the moves for Youkilis, Liriano and Myers were logical and didn't cost a boatload of talent or money.

 

But this season presents a different twist, and there are even more needs to make a legitimate argument about finishing with an 87-91 win team. Not only that, but we're in a quandary about long-term development vs. competing in the short term, and we're in a precarious position trading away what prospects we do have for the 10-15-20% chance of having a playoff team this year, albeit one with quite a few flaws.

 

I don't know what the Sox are doing. I don't know if they even have a plan. I completely disagreed 100% with Hahn's offseason and I hope he starts making moves to dismantle this team soon because I do not believe in this team as it is constructed. I very much believe in the pitching staff, and I definitely think we're only a few good moves from having a nice contention window again, but I also think we are potentially close enough to the playoffs under the new system to go chasing fools gold right on through the trade deadline and end up here in December looking at the 2013 season as a lost year of organizational development. But with that said, none of this has to do with money, payroll, or what the fans think (aside from me) so I'm not sure why this matters. And with all that said I hate to lose and love to win, and summer with fun, winning baseball is always the best. But long-term planning is what we need, IMO.

 

At any rate, I couldn't think of any business or product where the response of the market was "tepid" and the management/ownership group didn't change the people in charge of marketing that aforementioned product.

 

The only examples I could think of were non-profits/NGO's/501-c-3's (obviously different than for-profits) who were all competing for donation dollars....and many go out of business or simply disappear. However, you can't "sell" a non-profit for $1 billion dollars or take out excess revenues from the budget for the Board of Directors without incurring legal and IRS penalties.

 

So other than the White Sox, is there is any other business or product that we can name where the consumers (or fans) are blamed for the failure or shrinking revenues derived from that product?

 

You can't think of anything because you're trying to think like Joe Sportsfan. Drink 10 beers and then spend a good 30 minutes making robot voices into an oscillating fan and then you'll come up with... something, probably.

 

And where the marketing team in place hasn't been changed...perpetuating the notion that it's the consumers' (fans) fault and not the operational model of the business itself?

Whoever came up with those "Make an Impact" commercials needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot before he/she increases the human population.

[fathom]

Whoever came up with those "Make an Impact" commercials needs to be taken out behind the barn

 

Last year's were just as bad.

Edited May 23, 2013 by fathom

[caulfield12]

It has been commonly accepted by many at different Sox websites that the team is justified in not spending money at the deadline or in the off-season (if the Sox will be spending more money than they've earned or are projected to earn...of course, we've never been privy to that actual information, other than making educated guesses from Forbes, comments made by the organization, etc.)

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Fans don't run s***. Their opinions only matter as far as it affects the overall business in terms of dollars. Apart from that, fans say stupid s*** all the time that makes no sense. One example: "I won't come to the games because the team isn't spending any money." Bulls***. You're not coming to the games because the team isn't any good. There is a difference.

 

Also, money in baseball, at least as far as player contracts/signing bonuses, etc. are concerned (the "on field" stuff fans talk about), is a tool that you can use however you have to use it depending upon your situation, which differs team to team just as park factors will suggest on a team-by-team basis how to construct a lineup/pitching staff. Some teams have better front offices, better internal structure, etc. and can "buy" talent cheaply through trades while others "buy" players with money. Having a bad team loaded with bad players on bad contracts is exactly the same to the average fan as having a bad team with virtually no payroll and with those bad players making just about nothing. If you suck you suck, and the fans hate you because of it.

 

Just the idea that it's OUR fault, you can't spend $1.00 if you have only 50 cents (which Hahn has intentionally avoided discussing, seemingly)...not saying it's ALL of the moderators, but quite a few have been taking the position that the White Sox are spending more than they actually should be (based of a comparison of payroll vs. attendance), which isn't taking 100% into account other revenues derived by large-market teams...which leads to the discussion of lowered revenues for tv/radio/advertising/sponsors by the doomsday scenario of us replicating the results of a 46-116 Houston Astros team for 3-5 consecutive years

[caulfield12]

Last year's were just as bad.

 

 

And The Will to Win only works well if your team is above .500.

 

 

 

Some other business examples.....the cyclical ones, like computer manufacturers such as IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq or Gateway that were getting beat by superior technology/design (Apple) or overseas competition (Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, Lenovo, Samsung, LG, etc.)

 

Motorola, in Chicago.

 

Burger King, getting beaten domestically by Wendy's and revamping (especially their international operations) over a 2-3 year window.

 

McDonald's, going into their McCafe's phase in order to fend off competition from Starbucks/Chipotle/Panera, etc.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[iamshack]

The market for sports cars is the thing that comes to my mind.

[caulfield12]

The market for sports cars is the thing that comes to my mind.

 

 

The Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Indian and Middle Eastern) markets have changed everything.

 

Look at the profit margins for Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz and where they were 10 years ago.

 

 

Or the other side, all the issues that Toyota and Honda have had in the last 5-7 years, where they were once the clear market leaders and had to reinvent their brands to an extent.

[iamshack]

The Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Indian and Middle Eastern) markets have changed everything.

 

Look at the profit margins for Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz and where they were 10 years ago.

 

 

Or the other side, all the issues that Toyota and Honda have had in the last 5-7 years, where they were once the clear market leaders and had to reinvent their brands to an extent.

I'm talking literal sports cars...for instance, Audi makes basically its "brand image" model, the TT, yet basically only sells about 2000 of them in the US per year...they pour quite a bit of money into that model despite no one buying it...and it's not because it isn't a wonderfully designed car...

[caulfield12]

I'm talking literal sports cars...for instance, Audi makes basically its "brand image" model, the TT, yet basically only sells about 2000 of them in the US per year...they pour quite a bit of money into that model despite no one buying it...and it's not because it isn't a wonderfully designed car...

 

 

So, in other words, what's our White Sox version of the TT, something that we pour time, energy, research and development dollars into, with an uncertain payoff?

 

The closest we have/had is Courtney Hawkins.

 

 

http://www.audiusa.com/cn/brand/en/about/a...i_in_china.html

Au, contraire. Just like with US box office vs. global/international box office, one must look abroad to see the bigger picture.

 

 

In China Audi remained the clear premium-segment leader at the close of 2012. With 405,838 deliveries in 2012 the Ingolstadt-based manufacturer broke through the barrier of 400,000 cars for the first time ever – having crossed the threshold of 300,000 units only one year earlier. Main drivers behind the 29.6 percent growth rate were the Changchun-built models: Despite a model changeover in March, for the first time ever Audi sold over 130,000 of the long-wheelbase version of the A6 Sedan in China within the space of a year (132,872 deliveries). The A6 L thus remains the top-seller in the brand’s Chinese model range and the most popular premium automobile in that market. 93,030 of Audi’s Chinese customers opted for the Q5 last year, a significant increase of 63.8 percent on 2011. Worldwide, too, the performance SUV was again the unchallenged leader in its segment in 2012 with around 206,000 units delivered.

 

A large number of emerging growth markets likewise became increasingly important for Audi in 2012 thanks to their high growth rates: These include for example South Korea (+46.0% to 15,100 cars), South Africa (+15.5% to 16,771 cars) and India, where the brand’s sales gained 63.4 percent to 9,003 units. The company’s sales in Turkey, too, put on a spurt of 17.7 percent to 14,487 units, making it one of over 50 markets where Audi established a new sales record last year.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[iamshack]

So, in other words, what's our White Sox version of the TT, something that we pour time, energy, research and development dollars into, with an uncertain payoff?

 

The closest we have/had is Courtney Hawkins.

 

 

http://www.audiusa.com/cn/brand/en/about/a...i_in_china.html

Au, contraire. Just like with US box office vs. global/international box office, one must look abroad to see the bigger picture.

I'm not seeing tt sales figures in china...

 

I was viewing the whole team like the sports car market...

[Cerbaho-WG]

This is stupid. Baseball is a business which is monopolistic because the government exempts it from antitrust laws . All of these examples are in a completely different universe when it comes to the economics in which they operate.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Last year's were just as bad.

Not even close, especially since last year's stuff was mostly simple & the focus was on the game of baseball. My guess is you haven't seen the 50 minute long commercial with the pies. It's even worse than Swisher doing the worm.

[caulfield12]

This is stupid. Baseball is a business which is monopolistic because the government exempts it from antitrust laws . All of these examples are in a completely different universe when it comes to the economics in which they operate.

 

The NBA and NFL aren't covered, or NHL.

 

Just because of the anti-trust exemption (which was more about politics rather than the unique nature of baseball as a business) doesn't mean IT'S NOT A BUSINESS.

[caulfield12]

Not even close, especially since last year's stuff was mostly simple & the focus was on the game of baseball. My guess is you haven't seen the 50 minute long commercial with the pies. It's even worse than Swisher doing the worm.

 

He's too busy in People and US Magazine talking about fatherhood with his celebrity wife, lol...

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[The Ultimate Champion]

It has been commonly accepted by many at different Sox websites that the team is justified in not spending money at the deadline or in the off-season (if the Sox will be spending more money than they've earned or are projected to earn...of course, we've never been privy to that actual information, other than making educated guesses from Forbes, comments made by the organization, etc.)

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Fans don't run s***. Their opinions only matter as far as it affects the overall business in terms of dollars. Apart from that, fans say stupid s*** all the time that makes no sense. One example: "I won't come to the games because the team isn't spending any money." Bulls***. You're not coming to the games because the team isn't any good. There is a difference.

 

Also, money in baseball, at least as far as player contracts/signing bonuses, etc. are concerned (the "on field" stuff fans talk about), is a tool that you can use however you have to use it depending upon your situation, which differs team to team just as park factors will suggest on a team-by-team basis how to construct a lineup/pitching staff. Some teams have better front offices, better internal structure, etc. and can "buy" talent cheaply through trades while others "buy" players with money. Having a bad team loaded with bad players on bad contracts is exactly the same to the average fan as having a bad team with virtually no payroll and with those bad players making just about nothing. If you suck you suck, and the fans hate you because of it.

 

Just the idea that it's OUR fault, you can't spend $1.00 if you have only 50 cents (which Hahn has intentionally avoided discussing, seemingly)...not saying it's ALL of the moderators, but quite a few have been taking the position that the White Sox are spending more than they actually should be (based of a comparison of payroll vs. attendance), which isn't taking 100% into account other revenues derived by large-market teams...which leads to the discussion of lowered revenues for tv/radio/advertising/sponsors by the doomsday scenario of us replicating the results of a 46-116 Houston Astros team for 3-5 consecutive years

Money has very little to do with it. Payroll has very little to do with it. The team needs talent to win, and it needs to win to bring in the fans. I'm still not sure what you're getting at. It's not *our* fault as fans that the team isn't very good, and I doubt anyone in the FO is dumb enough to think that the fans have put the organization in the spot it is in.

 

And as a fan myself, I actually *don't* want to see the Sox spend more money anytime soon, because that's only going to create more problems. They're best at being a value team and a lot of the money they've given out recently has hurt them.

[caulfield12]

This is stupid. Baseball is a business which is monopolistic because the government exempts it from antitrust laws . All of these examples are in a completely different universe when it comes to the economics in which they operate.

 

 

The United States currently has antitrust laws in order to prevent businesses from monopolizing a given market. However, throughout its history, major league baseball has monopolized the baseball market, preventing upstart competitors from ever really getting off the ground. And the Supreme Court has upheld MLB’s right to their monopoly several times. In many ways, major league baseball is the only true monopoly in the United States, and has been since its inception. Let's look at the history of how the antitrust exemption came to be.

 

When the National League joined forces with the American League in 1903, the partnership proved to be fruitful immediately. And one of the main rules of business is: success breeds imitation.

 

Thus, it should be no surprise that another baseball league soon had intentions of challenging the AL/NL monopoly. The Federal League started out as a minor league, but it had major intentions. In 1914, in fact, many people considered the Federal League to be a Major League. And the Federal League wanted to make it official.

 

On January 5, 1915, the Federal League sued Major League Baseball under federal antitrust law for interfering with their attempts to hire players that were between contracts (meaning not bound by the Reserve Clause) from the American and National League. The judge hearing the case was Kenesaw Mountain Landis [http://www.library.northwestern.edu/archives/exhibits/alumni/landis2.jpg], who was known for his strict adherence to the letter of the law. Landis, however, just so happened to also be a huge Chicago Cubs fan. He understood that the Federal League had a legitimate case. However, ruling in favor of the FL would harm his Cubs, so he took the case under advisement rather than issue a ruling immediately.

 

In 1915 the Federal League ran into difficulties. Major League baseball had attempted to operate with three leagues in 1884 and 1890 and had failed both times. 1915 was no different. The players and owners in the Federal League were absorbed into the two more-established leagues, and late in the year the Federal League asked Judge Landis to dismiss the case against the American and National Leagues. Landis happily obliged.

 

But not everyone was happy with the collapse of the Federal League. The owners of the Baltimore Federal League franchise attempted to purchase a Major League team, and were rebuffed. They tried to buy an International League franchise (the IL was the top minor league organization at the top) and were once again denied. White Sox owner Charles Comiskey insulted the city when he said that “Baltimore is a minor league city and not a hell of a good one at that.” Dodgers owner Charles Ebbets chimed in by saying that Baltimore was one of the worst minor league cities because “you have too many colored population to start with.”

 

The perspective owners then filed an antitrust lawsuit against Major League baseball, claiming a conspiracy to destroy the Federal League. In April of 1919 a court found in favor of the Baltimore owners, and awarded them $240,000 in damages. The case was appealed in 1920, and the appellate court didn’t rule until 1921. When they did rule, they overturned the lower court’s decision, stating that baseball “was not the kind of commerce” federal law was intended to regulate. On May 22, 1922, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, reinforcing baseball’s antitrust exemption.

 

This exemption remained unchallenged – as did MLB’s monopoly – until 1972. As you know from reading Free Agency, Part II, Curt Flood sued baseball after being traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. Flood’s case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, who let the old decision stand, criticizing it but saying that it was up to Congress, not them, to fix the “anomaly.” Although Flood lost his case, he paved the way for salary arbitration, and, soonafter, free agency. Today, free agency exists, but the antitrust exemption remains law as well.

 

Baseball may not have an antitrust exemption if the owners of the Baltimore Federal League team had been paid off upon the league’s disbanding. Every other team’s owners were given compensation except for Baltimore, prompting them to file the original antitrust suit. The exemption remains suspect, at best, and few observers believe that it would hold up once again in a court of law. However, since Flood’s case in 1972, no case has even come close to going up the ladder to the Supreme Court, and no league has challenged MLB’s monopoly since the failed Continental League in the late 1950s.

[fathom]

Money has very little to do with it. Payroll has very little to do with it. The team needs talent to win, and it needs to win to bring in the fans. I'm still not sure what you're getting at. It's not *our* fault as fans that the team isn't very good, and I doubt anyone in the FO is dumb enough to think that the fans have put the organization in the spot it is in.

 

And as a fan myself, I actually *don't* want to see the Sox spend more money anytime soon, because that's only going to create more problems. They're best at being a value team and a lot of the money they've given out recently has hurt them.

 

Problem is the team's going to have to spend money to fill a lot of their holes this coming offseason. There's just nothing in the pipeline in the minors, outside of maybe Phegley/Johnson, that's going to be able to make an impact next year in the majors.

[caulfield12]

Problem is the team's going to have to spend money to fill a lot of their holes this coming offseason. There's just nothing in the pipeline in the minors, outside of maybe Phegley/Johnson, that's going to be able to make an impact next year in the majors.

 

You mean you're not on the C. Sanchez/Walker (let's face it, he received more notoriety because of his being the first player drafted that year)/Thompson/Mitchell bandwagons anymore, haha?

 

But yeah, other than Daniel Webb replacing Jones/Crain/Lindstrom....not many internal candidates.

 

Wilkins and Black have hit well, but they're more likely to be organizational filler...although if they don't replace Konerko from outside the organization, they will both get shots at 1B.

 

Of course, the results won't be pretty next year if they did choose to go in that direction.

 

 

 

[The Ultimate Champion]

Problem is the team's going to have to spend money to fill a lot of their holes this coming offseason. There's just nothing in the pipeline in the minors, outside of maybe Phegley/Johnson, that's going to be able to make an impact next year in the majors.

They will have their payroll and they will probably meet it or come to it because they won't go full tank job, yes. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

 

My point is that money/payroll room is just one tool, one way of acquiring talent. The Sox need to add several more pieces, each of which will have to be under control for several seasons. Now the argument here (I think) is something like the fans are, or should be, in some way responsible for the Sox not spending more money. ??? They don't need to spend more money, they need to pull more Quintanas and Gillaspies out of other organizations and bring up more Santiagos and so on out of their own. I'm not sure why anyone thinks or would think that he Sox will be better off spending more money in free agency or whatever. We'd just have more money on the books with less wiggle room, and I'm not sure how that helps us.

[fathom]

They will have their payroll and they will probably meet it or come to it because they won't go full tank job, yes. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

 

My point is that money/payroll room is just one tool, one way of acquiring talent. The Sox need to add several more pieces, each of which will have to be under control for several seasons. Now the argument here (I think) is something like the fans are, or should be, in some way responsible for the Sox not spending more money. ??? They don't need to spend more money, they need to pull more Quintanas and Gillaspies out of other organizations and bring up more Santiagos and so on out of their own. I'm not sure why anyone thinks or would think that he Sox will be better off spending more money in free agency or whatever. We'd just have more money on the books with less wiggle room, and I'm not sure how that helps us.

 

I totally get the point you're making, it's just going to be very hard to build a successful organization that way given the horrible farm system the White Sox have.

[The Ultimate Champion]

You mean you're not on the C. Sanchez/Walker (let's face it, he received more notoriety because of his being the first player drafted that year)/Thompson/Mitchell bandwagons anymore, haha?

 

But yeah, other than Daniel Webb replacing Jones/Crain/Lindstrom....not many internal candidates.

 

Wilkins and Black have hit well, but they're more likely to be organizational filler...although if they don't replace Konerko from outside the organization, they will both get shots at 1B.

 

Of course, the results won't be pretty next year if they did choose to go in that direction.

And maybe some of those players can be packaged together for a player in another organization who will help us in 2014. And Jesus we're not going to be running out the likes of those 2 as starting 1B. My God.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I totally get the point you're making, it's just going to be very hard to build a successful organization that way given the horrible farm system the White Sox have.

We need to make the right moves. That's what our FO people are there for. They're supposed to have oodles and oodles of information on every player out there. There are supposed to be scouts out there doing work looking for our next SS, CF, RF, 1B, etc. There is some talent on the farm to trade, but a lot of the position players have holes in their swings big enough to drive a truck through, so how about trading some MLB pieces? We should I think. We should have done that over the offseason. And we don't need sexy names, we just need results. Look for another Uribe (cost Aaron Miles), look for another buy low/fallen out of favor type like Floyd was, etc.

 

We can do all of that if our people are doing their jobs. We just need to identify the players, make the moves, and we need to get cracking on this s*** because deals take time to get done, and after the deadline you've only got 2 months worth of audition time to help you make decisions over the winter. Can't be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses wondering if we're a contender or not.

 

JMO.

[fathom]

We need to make the right moves. That's what our FO people are there for. They're supposed to have oodles and oodles of information on every player out there. There are supposed to be scouts out there doing work looking for our next SS, CF, RF, 1B, etc. There is some talent on the farm to trade, but a lot of the position players have holes in their swings big enough to drive a truck through, so how about trading some MLB pieces? We should I think. We should have done that over the offseason. And we don't need sexy names, we just need results. Look for another Uribe (cost Aaron Miles), look for another buy low/fallen out of favor type like Floyd was, etc.

 

We can do all of that if our people are doing their jobs. We just need to identify the players, make the moves, and we need to get cracking on this s*** because deals take time to get done, and after the deadline you've only got 2 months worth of audition time to help you make decisions over the winter. Can't be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses wondering if we're a contender or not.

 

JMO.

 

Good post, and I agree. It's one of the reasons I've advocated for using Alexei as a trade chip. The Sox did a great job of unloading Santos when they did, it's just too bad they overvalued Molina.