This week we had a first glimpse of the content of former Red Sox manager Terry Francona’s new book, “The Red Sox Years,” co-authored with Dan Shaughnessy and reported on by … well, everyone concerned with Boston sports. Of course, there is a big headline. Tito apparently alleges in the book, and Theo Epstein is quoted on the topic as well, that Red Sox management (i.e., owners) had concerns about ratings and commissioned a $100,000 market research project to shed light on why they were declining. Their conclusion: that the Red Sox needed more star power, more glitz. So they instructed Epstein and Francona to deliver it.
There has been much subsequent grumbling about business corrupting baseball and, naturally, marketing gets attacked at its core. If you are a loyal member of Red Sox Nation and prefer the Fenway Park of 1995, it’s open season. Signing “stars” at the expense of the farm team? Preposterous. (But what about Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett?) Attention to the needs and interests of women? Bah humbug—they’re all pink hats. (Really? Even though they are joint decision-makers about how family dollars are spent?)
This stuff is not fair because the issues are so highly nuanced. It’s a great example of how the literal application of data from market research can backfire.
I do not mean that I think the conclusions of the research are incorrect. We do not know. As a few writers have noted, the Red Sox made some expensive deals that didn’t work out, but that doesn’t mean that any deal would have been disastrous or will be in the future. And as for the role of women in baseball: ever hear of Jean Yawkey?
But if the research concluded that the pre-2004 (for those who are uninitiated, the year that the Red Sox won their first World Series in 86 years) Red Sox were more compelling, perhaps it would have served management well to consider what made those Sox so dear to their fans. “Winning in a more exciting manner” clearly wasn’t the key; they were losers. Was it the beloved but crumbling Fenway Park, on the brink of being torn down and replaced as in other cities by a mammoth stadium in the suburbs? Maybe. But what would that have to do with NESN ratings?
There was a lot of interesting reflection in October 2004 about the identity of the Red Sox and their fans. They had been losers for so long; could they successfully redefine themselves? How? I wonder if the research addressed this.
And let’s look at 2011. The Red Sox had the best record in baseball until the end of August. That’s pretty exciting, but even the commentators on sports talk radio admitted to being bored.
There is grumbling that ownership is driven by profit. Of course they are. Sports is business. (Oh yes … and so is publishing. There’s a reason that this story is being reported. It’s to sell magazines, newspapers, and tickets. AND books) Whether or not the owners love baseball is not as important as the fact that they saved Fenway Park and that, under their leadership, the Sox won not one but two World Series. If they just liked baseball, or even didn’t like baseball but asked the right questions about what to do about declining ratings so that they could continue to make profits and re-invest in the Red Sox, none of this would matter.
What if the conclusion drawn had been that the Red Sox aren’t accessible enough? Red Sox games used to be broadcast on network TV; now you have to have a cable box or go somewhere that does. Tickets used to be affordable for a family of four; now they are not. What can be done about this? The “idiots” of 2004 were good enough players, but not all were stars. Yet they were embraced and adored by the fans. Remember “Cowboy Up!”? Or even “Shipping Up to Boston?” Have the Sox of today successfully established that kind of beachhead with fans?
More to the point: what if ownership had drawn Theo and Tito into the conversation, rather than mandating these Dilbertian ideas?
My take is that marketing did its job. Market research was definitely the way to go. How the data was interpreted and used? That’s another story.
