I know there have been many posts relating to frustration with the ATO, but as a non-season ticket holder or donor (who would like to be both in the future), what's the root cause for the grievance? Does it have to do with the ESP program, or does it reach back further than that? Can someone give me a relatively objective history of the situation here?

FingeroftheBear;548896 said:

---

I've never had problems with the ATO. Been a season ticker holder (football and hoops) for a while (didn't sign up for ATT). It's gotten easy online. A couple of times I went to the office and paid for the tickets...but I live in North Oakland so it's no biggie.

---

That's the key. I live about 30 minutes away from the ATO and, if I have a problem, I show up and speak to someone upstairs or down the hall. That always seems to get it done.

That said, if you don't have this geographical proximity advantage, like "finger" or myself, I can see how you can be frustrated.

It seemed like things were must easier on the phone before about the mid-nineties. I even had the direct number or extension of people I came to know by name. They seem to be long gone now.

As to the ESP salespeople, I didn't speak to ONE who had even attended Cal. The main two I spoke to were from back East. Whaat?

I have met student employees when I went to the ATO on a few occasions.
I really believe a one year transition to a much smaller stadium in SF poses some huge problems. It is also going to be difficult for us season ticket holders in every way. The ATO is doing it's best.
I have four or five friends, who have multiple season tickets, who are not going to the Candlestick game. I just don't get it. A few of these couples fly to the LA game every year but are put off by the ticket charges at the Stick.
This change for 2011 should be welcome. We should make ATT&T the ultimate home advantage by securing every seat possible for the Bear fans. If we are outdrawn by FSU on the third, I for one, will be embarrassed.

FingeroftheBear;548896 said:

---

I've never had problems with the ATO. Been a season ticker holder (football and hoops) for a while (didn't sign up for ATT). It's gotten easy online. A couple of times I went to the office and paid for the tickets...but I live in North Oakland so it's no biggie.

---

+1 My family has been season ticket holders for 30+ years and have never had ANY problems. I've been a season ticket holder for 5 years now and have never experienced any problems either. I'm not saying that just because I've never experienced any problems it means that the ATO is awesome at what they do. Just thought I'd share my pleasant experiences.

kelly09;549120 said:

---

I have met student employees when I went to the ATO on a few occasions.
I really believe a one year transition to a much smaller stadium in SF poses some huge problems. It is also going to be difficult for us season ticket holders in every way. The ATO is doing it's best.
I have four or five friends, who have multiple season tickets, who are not going to the Candlestick game. I just don't get it. A few of these couples fly to the LA game every year but are put off by the ticket charges at the Stick.
This change for 2011 should be welcome. We should make ATT&T the ultimate home advantage by securing every seat possible for the Bear fans. If we are outdrawn by FSU on the third, I for one, will be embarrassed.

---

That is why I am going. Yes, I plunked down $95 each for 2 tickets. Great seats and it is worth it to me to support my team. Whatever feelings I have about the ATO are minimal to supporting the California Golden Bears. Nuff said!!

The problem withe the ATO goes back decades. The issue is simple - they don't value customer service. If they had strong leadership that focused their staff training on the notion that the customer deserves a modicum of respect, I think they could resolve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, the ATO leadership has taken a different approach - teaching staff to tell the customer - give us your money, shut up and if you have a problem with that take your business elsewhere.

In essence, if the Cal Administration really cared, they could fix the problem in a heartbeat. However, they don't care because they don't have to - that is why Cal fans SHOULD buy their neutral game/bowl tix from other sites. It is the only way that Cal will get the message that the ATO service sucks.

71Bear;549174 said:

---

The problem withe the ATO goes back decades. The issue is simple - they don't value customer service. If they had strong leadership that focused their staff training on the notion that the customer deserves a modicum of respect, I think they could resolve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, the ATO leadership has taken a different approach - teaching staff to tell the customer - give us your money, shut up and if you have a problem with that take your business elsewhere.

In essence, if the Cal Administration really cared, they could fix the problem in a heartbeat. However, they don't care because they don't have to - that is why Cal fans SHOULD buy their neutral game/bowl tix from other sites. It is the only way that Cal will get the message that the ATO service sucks.

---

What have they done that has been so terrible? How much customer service is required to renew your season tickets? Or even to purchase new ones?
If you don't like the customer service, just buy them through the ATO online. How difficult is that?

71Bear;549174 said:

---

Unfortunately, the ATO leadership has taken a different approach - teaching staff to tell the customer - give us your money, shut up and if you have a problem with that take your business elsewhere.

In essence, if the Cal Administration really cared, they could fix the problem in a heartbeat. However, they don't care because they don't have to - that is why Cal fans SHOULD buy their neutral game/bowl tix from other sites. It is the only way that Cal will get the message that the ATO service sucks.

---

I'm 99% with you that the athletic department has been money grabbing with poor service for years (the silly things they do to football games in terms of advertisements are just bush league and annoying and I bet they don't bring in that much revenue... then was always the adventure of mailing single game tickets a week in advance... which seems to be a little better now), but the idea that they can do anything about the bowl tickets is complete BS. The bowl tickets are given to the ATO by the bowl game and yes are in crappy locations. I can't fault anyone for going elsewhere. If you have read about V Tech in the Orange Bowl, their were pissed that they were given the worst seats in the house and had been there a lot recently. It was pretty easy to find $20 tickets instead of $150. Nothing wrong with that. But the bowls and conferences but the schools in a bind because bowls ticket not sold comes out of the conference revenue which is mostly past on to the schools. I hope the next thing Scott and other conference leaders address is the bowl games - most really exploit the conferences with all the required expenses like $300/nt hotels and such on top of the tickets. A playoff system would do away with that for sure, but I would hope the bowls stick around and run during the semi finals, but under conference control (better TV bargaining with ESPN too) instead of all these local committees using proceeds for junkets.

As for candlestick - the ATO has the good seats, and if you call them they will give you a location (or you can click a particular section on calbears.com). The ATO probably should have assigned seats a long time ago if that no knowing location was holding fans up. Far better than on ticketmaster. Yes Cal should have just anted up and given ESP donors seats. I absolutely cannot fault people who aren't going for whatever, but $55 gets a decent sideline seat. The upper deck at candlestick, especially on the west side, is closer than any upper deck in the NFL - it's like the upper deck at Stanford.

Here is my question - if the seats were priced at $30/$40/$55/$75 instead of $40/$55/$75/$95 would it have made any difference in attendance? I doubt it....

ColoradoBear1;549194 said:

---

<snipped other discussion about ATO>
Here is my question - if the seats were priced at $30/$40/$55/$75 instead of $40/$55/$75/$95 would it have made any difference in attendance? I doubt it....

---

At the price levels you're quoting, I bet people would have bought in significantly larger numbers. Take the cheapest ticket options. A family of four would pay $120 + $30 for parking = $150 instead of $190.

Additionally, people who bought at the $55 or $75 levels might be encouraged to upgrade their seats to the next level for no difference in cost, allowing more tickets in the cheaper price points for those who would otherwise stay away except for the ticket cost.

I'd bet you could have sold 20-25% more tickets easily by adopting the price points you describe.

I decline to go for three reasons: (1) price, (2) because Candlestick is the venue and all that it entails, and (3) because it is a late afternoon kickoff (4 PM).

But if ticket prices had been at the price points you describe, and there was an option to buy with the season ticket package, I probably would have bought tickets. Cal made a big error by not considering this idea or dismissing it out of hand.

drunkoski;549192 said:

---

hard for me to imagine anyone who has ordered bowl game or away game tickets or has tried to change anything (mailing address, name on tickets, etc) would say this.

---

I have only been to two away games (Oregon 2009 and Nevada 2010).
I have been to 4 bowl games (Holiday 2004, Holiday 2006, Emerald 2008, and Poinsettia 2009). I've never had any issues at all. I've bought my tickets online for each of these events and have never had any real problems.
I am honestly curious as to what problems you have had.

DavidDempster;549214 said:

---

At the price levels you're quoting, I bet people would have bought in significantly larger numbers. Take the cheapest ticket options. A family of four would pay $120 + $30 for parking = $150 instead of $190.

Additionally, people who bought at the $55 or $75 levels might be encouraged to upgrade their seats to the next level for no difference in cost, allowing more tickets in the cheaper price points for those who would otherwise stay away except for the ticket cost.

I'd bet you could have sold 20-25% more tickets easily by adopting the price points you describe.

I decline to go for three reasons: (1) price, (2) because Candlestick is the venue and all that it entails, and (3) because it is a late afternoon kickoff (4 PM).

But if ticket prices had been at the price points you describe, and there was an option to buy with the season ticket package, I probably would have bought tickets. Cal made a big error by not considering this idea or dismissing it out of hand.

---

The difference between a California and SEC sports fan. The biggest error Cal has made is locating itself on the west coast -- at least as it relates to ticket purchasing.

Holmoephobic;549219 said:

---

The difference between a California and SEC sports fan. The biggest error Cal has made is locating itself on the west coast -- at least as it relates to ticket purchasing.

---

I agree. The cultural attitudes towards football in the South are much different than they are in California.

Have to chuckle, though, at the "error" Cal made in its location.

drunkoski;549226 said:

---

even if i disregard the lousy seats:

1) tickets arriving the WEEK of the Tenn game when i had already left for tenn. Reissuing tickets took a good deal of my gameday. (most away tickets arrive WAY too late. I got one ticket the day before i left)

2) changed my mailing address BEFORE i bought season tickets. shipped my season tickets to the old address. reissuing took weeks and i had to go to will call for the opening game.

3) changed the name on some will call tickets. will call proceeded to lose them. didn't get a refund.

---

Sorry to hear about that. It definitely appears you've had a far different experience than I have. To be fair, I've been a very easy customer for the ATO and haven't changed my mailing address, or used will call for that matter. Still, I have to believe there is a way to put pressure on the ATO without boycotting them.

One problem is that the ATO is constantly trying to engage in forms of demand pricing in a situation where the demand just isn't that great. For example, I've gone through the reseating process for basketball three times now. The ATO does this because they think that season ticket holders, fearful that their seats won't be available, will give some unknown humongous donation to protect themselves. I've told them every time that if they told me that a $500 donation would secure my seats until the next reseating, without my having to waste a half-day going all the way over to Haas, I would pay it to avoid the hassle. But they refuse. That irritates me so much that I refuse to make any additional donation instead. I've never had to change my seats.

The issue is the same for football. The ATO assumes that not telling people where they will be sitting will motivate donations. Instead, it pisses off the season ticket holders, who don't give as a result.

I agree that the problem with football bowl seats is not the ATOs, because the ticket allotments they're given stink. It's really unfair that the bowls stick the schools with these seats, which ends up creating ill will between the schools and their own fans.

I also would generally say that the ATO does a fairly poor job of training its staff, although I would say that problem is a broad-based one for businesses that end up having to do business by phone. It's hard to find someone there who a) can answer your question, and; b) actually is has the responsibility or is willing to take the responsibility to try and fix your problem.

DavidDempster;549224 said:

---

I agree. The cultural attitudes towards football in the South are much different than they are in California.

Have to chuckle, though, at the "error" Cal made in its location.

---

Just a little humor. The Bay area is an amazing place but when it comes to sports passion, we are bottom-dwellers. We are used to paying higher prices (relative to almost anywhere besides NYC) for rent/mortgage(s), food, gas, beer, electricity, etc etc. Yet, when it comes to sports tickets, people apparently have drawn a line in the sand. Never mind that our University NEEDS our support, our generosity, and our money. It is definitely unfortunate that many here feel they have been slighted by the ATO and I agree, some of the story's involve customary service that is not acceptable. But by boycotting the ATO, you harm far more than your intended target. The old term, cutting your nose to spite your face seems to be particularly appropriate in this instance.

drunkoski;549235 said:

---

not buying tickets from them is the ONLY way they will change. they were horrible in the 90s and have seen no reason to improve themselves despite us no longer being a small program. once ticket sales start going south maybe we will see some change and some marketing that isn't at the HS level.

---

Is it realistic to think that a small group of people that boycott the ATO will have any effect at all?

I don't expect perfection...for the most part they have been fine and have been responsive and pleasant to deal with on the phone and in emails. They frosted me pretty good earlier this year about basketball NIT tickets when the only tickets offered to me online were in the rafters--when there were plainly tons of seats unsold with better locations--and they wouldn't let me buy my own season ticket seats (but did let top end contributors do so) until I complained about it. Here's one of the threads http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41831

Just bought tickets through the ATO, Lower Box/Reserved Section 20. The interactive seating chart really helped. No qualms here.:cheer

drunkoski;549270 said:

---

doesn't look like it's a small group of people here. 10-15K season ticket holders not buying tickets for fresno is a nice message.

---

You think the ATO will attribute that to their folly's rather than attribute it to unfriendly confines of Candlestick or an opponent that is far more interest in us than vice versa? Or perhaps even the first game, away from home, after Tedford's first losing season? There are many explanations besides 'unsatisfied customer service'.

drunkoski;549270 said:

---

doesn't look like it's a small group of people here. 10-15K season ticket holders not buying tickets for fresno is a nice message.

---

Cal FSU not a Cal ATO event....it's an outside promotor event.
I understand that's not your message, but the Candlestick game is an unfortunate situation tied to this year's lack of a home field. Get over it. There were not many options for home game dates this year. Especially Labor Day weekend, when both the Giants and A's are at home.

I have never had any issues with the ATO. Buying tickets for away games...well, you have to understand that they will be in a corner. But, you will be sitting with Cal fans. I like that as opposed to better seats surrounded by the home fans.

Want better seats at home games? Make a larger donation. If that's not the answer that you like, I don't know what to tell you.

drunkoski;549287 said:

---

that i cannot answer. they will likely explain it away as they have their other marketing disasters.

---

Sounds more like a fleeting statement than a 'nice message'. I can understand where you're coming from on this one Drunk, I just disagree with the response, that's all.

the ATO uses many students who don't appear to understand the concept of customer service, and the people running the ATO give the impression of "administrators" rather than professional customer service/marketing individuals.

Its like comparing how most hospitals are run with the way an organization like Disney or Nordstrom's is run. Night and Day.

[U]Silly marketing/advertising[/U]:

One year the slogan on the annual promotional flyer was "Why aren't YOU going to Cal games?" It was mailed to all season ticket holders.

[U]Perception that "loyal fans" aren't valued[/U]:

I understand the need for revenue, but they need to do more to let long-time fans know that their loyalty is appreciated.

[U]Lack of customer service[/U]:

As described in other posts above.

[U]Game-day experience[/U]:

Standing in line forever for horrible, outrageously priced food/drink, bombardment of advertisements and silly promotions, lack of a strong radio station (basketball) or the new "delayed signal" fiasco.

DrDanger;549290 said:

---

Cal FSU not a Cal ATO event....it's an outside promotor event.
I understand that's not your message, but the Candlestick game is an unfortunate situation tied to this year's lack of a home field. Get over it. There were not many options for home game dates this year. Especially Labor Day weekend, when both the Giants and A's are at home.

I have never had any issues with the ATO. Buying tickets for away games...well, you have to understand that they will be in a corner. But, you will be sitting with Cal fans. I like that as opposed to better seats surrounded by the home fans.

Want better seats at home games? Make a larger donation. If that's not the answer that you like, I don't know what to tell you.

---

All due respect Doc, you're missing the point. It's not as simple as people not being happy with the seats assigned to them by ATO. Let's use the Fresno game as an example to illustrate some ATO problems:

1) They can't control the ticket prices but they could control the distribution in a much more transparent fashion. How about you allow people to choose their seats when they buy them? Nobody trusts ATO to give them good seats and many don't wish to give them their money unless they know exactly what they're buying. Do a presale for folks above a certain donor level.

2) Consider bundling Fresno tickets with season tickets. Look into providing a slight discount that may cut in on the guaranteed payout but would make said payout much more likely to be achieved.

3) Parking passes. I called 3 times and got 3 different answers from ATO regarding when parking passes would go on sale.

That's just Fresno. ATO rolled the dice and appears to be crapping out regarding AT&T pricing. They severely overestimated demand at some pretty high price points and now are scrambling. I understand the need to maximize revenue but ATO's thinking is so damn short term that it's frustrating. AT&T would give them a great opportunity to reach fans who may not otherwise ever think of Cal football but instead they priced tickets so high that no new fans would buy them. They also consistently make the existing fanbase feel like they're being squeezed of every last cent. You want to maximize profit over the long term. Sometimes that means giving some up in a given year. They just don't get that. On top of that, I don't think they're going to maximize profit this year anyway.

I have no complaints about my seats at AT&T or the price that I paid for them but I do understand that many do and those complaints are quite valid. ATO is a very poorly run operation and the blame for that falls to Sandy.

drunkoski;549502 said:

---

"Two baskets and a ball"

"Grassroots football"

---

Thank you, Todd B.

drunkoski;549502 said:

---

"Two baskets and a ball"

"Grassroots football"

---

You guys are missing the best (worst) one of them all: "Everyone's getting into Cal"

You'd better believe that the Furdies had a good time with that one.

I've had season tickets for 35 years and never had a problem. When it was order by mail I did that, and now that it's online I do that. No problem. I've only called a few times and there never has been a problem. As for the game at Candlestick, I ordered the cheapest seats and figured they would be way up in the rafters and, sure enough, they are. That's what I expected. And not going to Candlestick? How is it worse than sitting on cramped benches with your knees in your face and your neighbors packed in on either side? And peeing in port-a-potties. Give me real seats over benches designed in the 20's for hobbits.

cal97;549510 said:

---

That's just Fresno. ATO rolled the dice and appears to be crapping out regarding AT&T pricing. They severely overestimated demand at some pretty high price points and now are scrambling. I understand the need to maximize revenue but ATO's thinking is so damn short term that it's frustrating. AT&T would give them a great opportunity to reach fans who may not otherwise ever think of Cal football but instead they priced tickets so high that no new fans would buy them. They also consistently make the existing fanbase feel like they're being squeezed of every last cent. You want to maximize profit over the long term. Sometimes that means giving some up in a given year. They just don't get that. On top of that, I don't think they're going to maximize profit this year anyway.

I have no complaints about my seats at AT&T or the price that I paid for them but I do understand that many do and those complaints are quite valid. ATO is a very poorly run operation and the blame for that falls to Sandy.

---

As far as AT&T goes, I don't think the ATO was realistically looking to add new fans but rather to maximize revenues. Cal averaged 57k in paid attendance during a down season and clamed over 38,000 season ticket holders. AT&T holds 45k at best. You do the math and throw in the excitement of having Cal games at AT&T Park (the most beautiful stadium on the west coast) while you're at it. I do think they got a bit carried away in regards to the 'required donation' crap but come on. There was clearly far too much demand (38,000 season ticket holders in a 45 k stadium) to allow this as an opportunity to grab San Franciscans by the masses.
I think San Franciscans -- who seem to be attracted to big scenes and festivals -- will take notice of their new guests (us) and some of them will adopt the team and become fans themselves. The big billboards all over the city can't be hurting with that.

drunkoski;549226 said:

---

2) changed my mailing address BEFORE i bought season tickets. shipped my season tickets to the old address. reissuing took weeks and i had to go to will call for the opening game.

---

I had a similar incident

I moved after I bought my season tickets this year and changed my address online. I followed up by calling the ATO to make sure they would send my tickets to my new address, and they confirmed that would happen...My tickets were then sent to my old address..

I was able to intercept my tickets at the local FedEx office, but it took 2 trips and a bunch of wasted time on the phone.

Holmoephobic;549554 said:

---

As far as AT&T goes, I don't think the ATO was realistically looking to add new fans but rather to maximize revenues. Cal averaged 57k in paid attendance during a down season and clamed over 38,000 season ticket holders. AT&T holds 45k at best. You do the math and throw in the excitement of having Cal games at AT&T Park (the most beautiful stadium on the west coast) while you're at it. I do think they got a bit carried away in regards to the 'required donation' crap but come on. There was clearly far too much demand (38,000 season ticket holders in a 45 k stadium) to allow this as an opportunity to grab San Franciscans by the masses.
I think San Franciscans -- who seem to be attracted to big scenes and festivals -- will take notice of their new guests (us) and some of them will adopt the team and become fans themselves. The big billboards all over the city can't be hurting with that.

---

Well, the one thing I learned as an econ major at Cal was that demand curves are downward sloping. I think 38,000 is probably a bit more than we had last year (Mercury News article says an average of 34,000 over the past few seasons, making me think that we had less than 34,000 last year) and that was at much lower price points than were available at AT&T so I think the idea that there was clearly far too much demand is not true. Putting that aside, even if we managed to get 30,000 season tickets sold, that still leaves 15,000 spots. Some of those would go to visiting teams but even then there are several thousand seats for walk up. I never expected to get 25,000 San Franciscans who have no connection to Cal at the game but it was an opportunity to broaden Cal's appeal and they did not capitalize on it. Hopefully you're right about the festival point. I suspect you might be.

I completely agree that ATO was looking to maximize revenue. My point is that their execution was so inept that not only did they fail to capitalize on an opportunity to broaden Cal's appeal but that they probably didn't even maximize revenue. All around fail.

Based upon the number of seats at AT&T Park that remain it's clear that the Athletic Dept. overestimated the anticipated demand for seats and set prices/donation levels too high. The previously announced pricing for sideline seating in Memorial in 2012 suggests that the same thing will happen. It will be interesting to see if Cal backs off its stated donation levels. Unless the team has relative success this season, I fear the stated donation levels per seat will be disastrous. I'm an ESP holder so while it doesn't affect me directly, I hate to see people give up coming to the games. TV scheduling of games also presents a negative to the more casual fan.

As for disatisfaction with the ATO, I've been buying season tickets (8) for over 40years (including basketball (2) for the pat 15). In addition I've purchased tickets for multiple bowl games as well as NCAA BB appearances and routinely order an additional 30+ individual game tickets for friends. For the most part I've been generally pleased with the service I received. I agree that there have been many past occasions where tickets were sent out much later than I would've liked. The most disappointing episode I had with the ATO involved bringing the wrong set of tickets to a basketball game a couple of years ago. Clearly my mistake but one would think that based upon all my past years of loyalty, Bear Backer status, etc. the ticket people should've reissued the tickets without having to gouge me for an additional $20 to get into the game. This was a turnoff to me personally and showed how little they appreciate a fan's level of support over the years. When they looked me up on the computer that day they should've been able to what a loyal customer I'd been and waived any replacement fee. While it was only $20, it sent the wrong message and shows that customer service is not a strong point in the dept. They had an opportunity to make me one of their biggest supporters instead of sending me away with a negative attitute about their lack of customer relation skills.

bearsahead2;549659 said:

---

Based upon the number of seats at AT&T Park that remain it's clear that the Athletic Dept. overestimated the anticipated demand for seats and set prices/donation levels too high. The previously announced pricing for sideline seating in Memorial in 2012 suggests that the same thing will happen. It will be interesting to see if Cal backs off its stated donation levels. Unless the team has relative success this season, I fear the stated donation levels per seat will be disastrous. I'm an ESP holder so while it doesn't affect me directly, I hate to see people give up coming to the games. TV scheduling of games also presents a negative to the more casual fan.

As for disatisfaction with the ATO, I've been buying season tickets (8) for over 40years (including basketball (2) for the pat 15). In addition I've purchased tickets for multiple bowl games as well as NCAA BB appearances and routinely order an additional 30+ individual game tickets for friends. For the most part I've been generally pleased with the service I received. I agree that there have been many past occasions where tickets were sent out much later than I would've liked. The most disappointing episode I had with the ATO involved bringing the wrong set of tickets to a basketball game a couple of years ago. Clearly my mistake but one would think that based upon all my past years of loyalty, Bear Backer status, etc. the ticket people should've reissued the tickets without having to gouge me for an additional $20 to get into the game. This was a turnoff to me personally and showed how little they appreciate a fan's level of support over the years. When they looked me up on the computer that day they should've been able to what a loyal customer I'd been and waived any replacement fee. While it was only $20, it sent the wrong message and shows that customer service is not a strong point in the dept. They had an opportunity to make me one of their biggest supporters instead of sending me away with a negative attitute about their lack of customer relation skills.

---

Interesting. And this is not to attack you, but a few years ago I drove in from out of town for a Cal game (I believe it was Cal/Oregon 2006) and forgot my tickets at home. I realized about half way there, but it was too late to turn around. So I went to Maxwell Field and went to the ticket window and explained what happened. As I recall, I was charged $10. And I was ecstatic. I couldn't believe they would give me new tickets, and for only $10.

I guess I'm saying it's a matter of perspective. Note: You've been a season ticket holder much longer than I've even been alive, so maybe in another 30 years I'll feel as you did. But the main theme I hear from the complaints in this thread is that people think they are owed something for their loyalty. I strongly disagree. I think we are rewarded with our loyalty by being able to watch the games, and knowing that our contributions have helped, however large or small.

Holmoephobic;549219 said:

---

The difference between a California and SEC sports fan...

---

Correct.

Holmoephobic;549219 said:

---

.....The biggest error Cal has made is locating itself on the west coast -- at least as it relates to ticket purchasing.

---

I get your joke. But the Cal AD doesn't seem to get that this is *not* SEC country. People here will not pay any price or suffer any hassles to get into their team's games. The Cal AD needs to adjust their marketing and pricing campaigns accordingly, and they didn't do that for the 2011 season. I hope they've learned their lesson, and will tone down the money grab a notch or two for 2012.

grandmastapoop;549677 said:

---

Interesting. And this is not to attack you, but a few years ago I drove in from out of town for a Cal game (I believe it was Cal/Oregon 2006) and forgot my tickets at home. I realized about half way there, but it was too late to turn around. So I went to Maxwell Field and went to the ticket window and explained what happened. As I recall, I was charged $10. And I was ecstatic. I couldn't believe they would give me new tickets, and for only $10.

I guess I'm saying it's a matter of perspective. Note: You've been a season ticket holder much longer than I've even been alive, so maybe in another 30 years I'll feel as you did. But the main theme I hear from the complaints in this thread is that people think they are owed something for their loyalty. I strongly disagree. I think we are rewarded with our loyalty by being able to watch the games, and knowing that our contributions have helped, however large or small.

---

Bars and restaurants treat their regulars a little differently than they do random customers because regulars. If he's been buying 8 season tickets for 40 years plus another couple for 15 years in another sport, BA2 is probably in the top few hundred Bear Backers. This is exactly the type of customer businesses dream about. Surely the amount of money it costs to acquire a customer like that greatly outweighs the small gain from nickel and dimeing him. At a bar he'd get free drinks, at a restaurant he'd get free appetizers or dessert, at Cal he gets charged $20 to re-print a ticket they know is his.

my only ATO story: My first year after college I ordered season tickets for football using the same account I'd used to get season tickets for football and basketball as a student. I changed the address before ordering and printed a confirmation with the new address. They mailed the tickets to the old address despite the new one being the one that showed up when I logged in.

I called and they said that it was a systemic thing, that their system (despite having an edit address functionality) did this to all former students. Real smart setup if true (I'm pretty sure it was total bs). They told me they'd reprint the tickets during the next run, told me when that would be, and that my tickets would be waiting at will call before the opener. I called again after the print date to make sure they had printed and they hadn't. They had no record of my issue. They said they were running one last run that day and would put mine in there. Thankfully I ended up having tickets waiting for me at will call a few days later at the opener. None of that inspired confidence in the ATO.

Oh, and to contrast: I bought tickets to Cal at USC while a student through USC (Cal's student allotment had sold out). I got junk mail from USC's ticket office at my new address after I moved post-college. They found me and I didn't tell them anything. I entered my new address in Cal's site, had the new address on the payment confirmation, and they still couldn't find me.

grandmastapoop;549677 said:

---

But the main theme I hear from the complaints in this thread is that people think they are owed something for their loyalty. I strongly disagree. I think we are rewarded with our loyalty by being able to watch the games, and knowing that our contributions have helped, however large or small.

---

Not dissing you here, poop. I think you're in law school? Perhaps when you have run a business for a while, if you ever do, you will find that this is a fatal attitude toward your customers. You are right that we, as customers, are not owed anything, other than what we purchase. However, we - as customers - owe nothing to those we purchase from either. So loyalty is a two way relationship - a virtuous circle. If one party expects loyalty, but gives none, they can usually expect to lose the return loyalty of the other party, eventually if not right away.

The bond we feel toward our school / team overrides this to an extent, but many here are expressing their frustration with many years of non-reciprocated loyalty, and Cal Athletics / Football is paying the price this year in lower ticket sales.

My disappointment, as a long time (50 year) fan and Bear Backer, is that these are not new criticisms by any stretch, yet the AD has a perpetually deaf ear to this feedback that would be relatively simple to address, when they now need that loyalty more than ever. We need many more passionate and loyal fans - we have a major stadium renovation to pay for. If the team goes 10-2 and to a BCS bowl, then all is well. But barring that, it is the emotional bond people feel to the school / team that makes it all work. And I don't think Sandy and her team understand that.