Business Development PR Strategies
- Public Perception of Reality is Key
- Assumptions
- The Public Relations Challenges
- Impact of a 1986 Stadium Law
The Public Perception of Reality
The Key Question on which all else hinges is that of the public
perception of the reality. Public relations strategies are needed to
enable the public and officials, business persons and planners, to facilitate
getting to the same place on the same page. Public Relations Strategies
are to be used in support of the blending of real estate and overall
geographic growth into a community dialogue, using Internet Strategies
and showing how city/regional growth success is greatly helped by larger
development entities like a newly renovated stadium.
Assumptions
- Both/and thinking, planning, and doing, is better than either/or.
- Any NFL team is a hot property.
- Everyone want to control their fate and destiny, but no one acts in a vacuum.
- There is the potential of $200-
$300 million yearly revenue from a mixed-use facility for all to share
in a properly sited and developed stadium that is the anchor for a
mixed-use complex, as
- making the stadium complex a real estate development mixed use project frees up taxes and other inducements already on the books, and
- removes the delays and red tape of having to get jurisdictional legislation for new tax monies
- This is an economic issue (investment), not just an emotional issue (higher taxes/free ride).
- The economically competitive issue is a UNIVERSAL: it makes no difference which team, which city: in the 21st century: without a new stadium, a team cannot remain competitive or appropriately profitable.
- The issue is NOT a new stadium per se, but who will builds it: team, community, or joint venture.
- The key to profitability in the 21st century, is local revenues. To facilitate higher local revenues requires snew stadiums. Those which do not get new stadiums will move to where they can ge them.
- The NFL, as any well managed organization that wants to survive, must necessarily do do what is good for the NFL, and revenues are what are good for the NFL (as with any other business, be it profit or not for profit, government or non government). Teams will go where they'll be able to generate revenues.
- "Troubled economy" is a code word for politicians to hide behind voters who don't want to pay more taxes for new stadiums. That is an "either/or" approach. Beacon on the Hill Sports Marketing can help teams employ a "both/and" approach, facilitating a new stadium, higher local revenues, with no or minimal increases in local taxes. Beacon on the Hill Sports Marketing can help end this unnecessary conflict that by resolving it with appropriate conflict resolution steps.
- Where there is a partnership with a city in which there are multiple uses for a stadium anchoring a larger development complex, its construction costs can be taken from shared iinvestvents and revenues.
- The issue is NOT the team. The issue is whether a city wants to facilitate the community being able to leverage an NFL team for the economic well being of the city.
- NO city determines whether a team
goes or stays. Only a team's owner and its contract with the city
or old stadium. It is their property. The conflict comes from falsely
making the team and the city the culprits, like two bad guys on Main
Street shooting it out at high noon. In these cases, the only ones
who benefit are
- the consultants giving bad advice leading to the shootouts, and
- the planners doing the same. Both the shooters (team and city) lose, but the consultants and planners still get paid. Any consultant or planner using this adversarial model will lead to trouble. We recommend the consideration of the 18 Conflict Resolution Models on this web site
- The geographic market is not the issue either, not in a day of TV when teams in smaller markets can still be competitive because of shared revenue. The issue is how much revenue a stadium can generate. Stadium-only revenues will no longer suffice. Mixed-use real estate stadium complexes with stadiums as anchors are the best bet for all.
- The only consultants that should
be used are those using models that solve the problem for both sides,
recognizing that the issue is coordinating independent actors (team
and city) in the teeth of their own autonomy. Neither controls the
other. Therefore, all either/or scenarios are disasters. ONLY both/and
will win the day. As noted, the Conflict Resolution Models on this
web site can be used to resolve these unnecessary and usually falsely
based conflicts.
The Public Relations Challenges for any team are the same:
- Demonstrating that a team and its stadium complex is an important asset to the community and region in BOTH quantitative economic terms AND qualitative quality of life terms
- Providing workable outside the box suggestions that will work that can come up with a resolution for all, at once, and thus being to avoid unneeded fights, obstructions, law suits, and other forms of delay.
- Include all parties, public and private, City and team, not just the city.
- Don't blame having a crummy stadium
on the City.
- Don't say its up to the city
to fix it. Make it a joint venture.
- Praise and thank the city for all the wonderful years, and show how it can be done for the benefit of all parties, public and private, institutional and individual.
- Do a better job of showing how the team benefits the city by being an NFL team.
- Don't make the public have to fight to be a part of the discussion when it should be invited in without having to ask to be invited.
- Become more inclusive: involving county and regional participation in the new football complex AND develop new revenue streams, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER EITHER THE COUNTY OR REGION CONTRIBUTES DIRECTLY (as theyÕll contribute indirectly by helping fill the seats with fans and working to resolve transportation issues). Always leave the door open for them to return to the table to participate
- Invite a wider circle of influencers.
Impact of a 1986 stadium law
Bill Bradley, opposed to local funding of stadiums (talk about biting the hand that fed him) was a sponsor of the 1986 law that says 90% of stadium revenues must go to the teams. He thought this would keep local governments from taking the step. Instead of allowing shared revenues to pay for stadiums it placed the onus on local tax payers. The unintended consequence was to place greater burdens on cities and regions to keep their teams. Stadiums are local problems requiring local solutions and decision makers, and should have been left not having to deal with interference from the Feds. This is what understandably caused the feeding frenzy of stadiums and claim of owners to the revenue. Some now mistake this as owners fault. It is not. This web site shows how to resolve these conflicts. And by making the stadium an anchor of a mixed-use real estate development, it becomes a different entity. There is plenty of revenue to be generated and, thus, revenue to be made by all, whether in the form of taxes or in the form of profits.