Why the Broncos preventing ticket printing is evil

Broncos embrace mobile ticketing for 2018 season

In which by “embrace mobile ticketing”, they mean they’re taking away the ability for season ticket holders to print tickets from home, requiring you to use their ticketing system to broker not only re-selling the tickets but any transfers as well.  I always love the PR spin that acts like they’re giving you something when they take something away.

One one hand, I can understand their justification for doing this, and the selling point that this will cut down on high-margin scalping and counterfeit tickets, which is all well and good, but when I heard about this policy change, I couldn’t stop thinking about two formative stories that shape my view of mobile ticketing.

  1. Back in the fall of 2017, I purchased tickets to Mumford and Sons, only available as a moble ticket. It turned out that I had to travel for work the week of the show, and tried to transfer 2 of the four tickets to my wife and the other two my friend. The ticketing system was so shoddy that it ended up taking days of attempts before I believed the transfers went through. Fast forward to the night of the concert, when I got a call from both of them stating that the tickets I transferred to my friends weren’t coming up.  So there everyone was, in line and stressed out about not being able to get in, while I was far away and essentially powerless to help them out.  The concert attendants weren’t particularly helpful, and who can blame them when they have a compounding line of people eager to get in.  We finally solved the whole problem by me re-claiming the transferred tickets, screen shooting them from my phone and texting the image over to my friend – which I should have just done, to begin with.
  2. This time the last year, the Broncos went on a massive audit of season ticket holders, establishing a newly-formed policy that they would revoke tickets to people who didn’t go to any games that year. They used the only data point that was convenient at the time – the NFL Ticket Exchange and tracking the electronic tickets. I detailed my concerns about this last year, but the bottom line was that for all practical purposes, my tickets should have been revoked and the only thing that saved me was the wherewithal of “selling” (and by selling, it was at-cost to friends and family) the tickets through the printed tickets.

Make no mistake, this is about making sure the Broncos and the NFL have the data points for all ticket transactions and can harvest the data for their own purposes, especially for retroactively enforcing policies that they just made up.  I wouldn’t be surprised after next season they’ll take tickets away from someone who wasn’t able to go, transferring the tickets to friends and family. And yes, I understand that there are fans that abuse their tickets by massively upselling them and not attending any games for years at a time. It would be fair to call their fandom into question. However, there are also many other fans that simply may have had a life event (like a birth, a sickness, a temporary job relocation) disrupt a single year of their attendance, and despite devoutly attending games for a decade before, they’re subject to the same revocation.  The Broncos have every right to do that, but it doesn’t make it a complete jerk move and fan-hostile.

Mobile ticketing ENABLES season ticket audits. I’m all for preventing scalping, but if you were serious about punishing scalpers you could send an intern out on game day, pretend to consider a scalper’s ticket and note the seat #, call the ticket holder the next day.  Sure it takes a little more work, but it punishes those who are egregiously violating your policies, rather than the low-hanging fruit of new parents that sold the tickets to their next-door neighbors.

If you go read the article and the FAQ, they’ll tout that 35% of their fans used mobile ticketing last year, conveniently forgetting that 2/3 of their other fans have never used this process.  I’d get it if 80-90% of the fanbase were using their phones to get into games, but don’t pretend they’re not trying to ram something down fans throats that they didn’t even ask for. Don’t piss on my leg and then tell me that you’re making me fire-retardant.

What about for friends who buy my tickets or if I can’t go? Now they’re all going to need TicketExchange accounts and I will basically need to handhold their app experience. Where’s the convenience in that? Now the Broncos are making their season ticket holders your front-line support for your app. I imagine that many more fans are going to have a similar experience to my Mumford and Sons story from above. Emailing tickets to my friends wasn’t a problem that needed solving.

I went back & forth on Twitter with one of their PR reps (and to their credit, they were at least responding – unlike last year), and he was quick to justify that other teams were doing this and that the NFL is moving over to this.  However, the Avalanche, Nuggets, and Rockies are still providing paper tickets with nice commemorative designs.  Even if many more teams were using this system, just because others (don’t) do it, doesn’t make it right. This is a race to the bottom for the fan experience. Commemorative tix aren’t the issue – introducing a barrier (preventing printing) to my “honest fan” experience, all to collect data to possibly punish me later on – is.

This isn’t about being a luddite or not embracing technology, this is about protecting yourself from data harvesting that is only going to be used to punish you, as the Broncos and NFL continue to squeeze blood out of turnips for their money-printing machines.

New Windsor Library Defeated

The New Windsor Library Initiative, which I adamantly supported, was unfortunately defeated.  After spending this month reflecting on the reasons for the loss, I ultimately attribute it to the following factors:

  1. Members of the community disagreed about the inherent value libraries offer to our community, especially to those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford access to the resources the library provides. Many ultimately decided that the elevated taxes would not result in a positive return on our community.
  2. Members of the community had a fundamental misunderstanding about the Library District, its boundaries, its relationship to other local municipal entities, and the way libraries are funded, both operationally and through facility expansion.
  3. Members of the community had confusion and misunderstanding about how the proposal came to be, how proposed funds would be allocated, and the previous attempts to solicit input and collaboration.
  4. Members of the community did not demonstrate an appreciation for present and anticipated growth, and its impact on current library capacity and their staffing – nor did they appreciate the future capacity planning with the proposed library, seeing it was something that was too large for the present time. I think we only need to look to our newly expanded recreation center to find out what happens when a community expands facilities with current demand in mind, where even mid-morning weekday classes are overfilled with attendees.

    …And finally

  5. Some opponents of the library measure were able to exploit the community’s lack of knowledge (especially for #2 and #3) and instead projected scandalous motives to explain issues that they did not understand. I found it most egregious that terms like “No Transparency” and “No Collaboration” were used when there were numerous public meetings and opportunities for input, as well as hundreds of pages of feasibility studies and proposals were available through the website. Rather than clarify their concerns, many simply used their lack of knowledge as justification for their distrust in our government institutions. While I do think it’s important for our society to be skeptical and scrutinous of our municipalities, many assigned nefarious motives for that which they did not understand, hiding behind their own ignorance.

Ultimately, I do think that our community needs to do a better job to improve issues #2-4, and hope that it can come through meaningful discussion, debate, and consensus towards what is best for our community. I do think there will always be those that fall into the #1 and #5 camps but hope that those can be diminished as we do attempt to improve #2-4. Perhaps it means more meetings and dedicated hearings. Having participated in two previous capital campaigns through my church, having an abundance of listening sessions and solicitation of input help quell concerns that many had. I would be very interested in doing my part to assist in any way I can, hoping that we can continue to provide a quality library that meets the needs of Windsor for generations to come.

More on the Windsor Library Mill Levy

I wanted to share some more thoughts that I composed on the NextDoor discussion regarding the Clearview Library District Mill Levy proposal. People brought up some great points about whether we need to build the new library now and why the library can’t finance it out of the current taxes they receive.

I’ll be the first to say that I don’t understand how Libraries are funded, but let’s assume that a portion of their funding of their $2.6m operating budget comes from our taxes, and that revenue may have increased over the years due to additional growth. Even then, we’re still talking about operational budget.

I don’t know how your household works, but if you’re a homeowner, chances are that you didn’t purchase your house outright with 100% cash. If my family was expected to save for the complete value of our home using only my operational budget, it would take a lot longer than 30 years for me to buy my home – and by the time I could afford it, my kids would be grown and we’d be too old to manage a house the size that we needed back when our family was young.

Good thing we have mortgages, where the bank takes a chance on us and assumes I can make incremental payments out of our operational budget for the next 30 years, making a return on their investment through interest.  We’re able to benefit because we can buy the house that fits our needs now (although I’d recommend buying the house you need 5-10 years from now, if you can afford it – but that’s another post).

While the Mill Levy is not a mortgage loan, it enables the financing to construct needed facilities now, rather than 20 years from now, 10 years too late. Rather than getting interest payments, the community benefits by being able to use the new modern facilities now, rather than having to wait 20 years (imagine if the bank said they’d forgo interest in exchange for being able to regularly use your home).

People raise valid points when they examine current needs and weigh them against priorities, wondering if we should wait until the need becomes more evident. However, we’ve already seen how this played out in how we’ve deferred I-25 and I-70 improvements – and now look at how terrible traffic has become. I wish I could go back in time 10 years and convince younger me to fervently push for an Interstate train, or at least more northern lane expansion between Johnstown and Fort Collins. Now it almost seems like too-little, too late.

One last thing to consider: that proposed area of land, once on the outskirts of Windsor, is really the last opportunity for us to have a centrally-located library. The current location is land-locked, and the architecture doesn’t support vertical expansion, without starting anew. We have an opportunity now to choose what’s going on that proposed plot of land. It’s prime real estate, and something is going to be built on it – are you sure you’ll be happier with what’s built there over a library?

Windsor’s Library Mill Levy

The Clearview Library District in my town of Windsor has recently announced that they’re seeking a Mill Levy increase in this November’s ballot. As you can imagine, this has generated a significant amount of discussion and debate within the community, reflected in sites like NextDoor. I wanted to my thoughts I recently posted on that site, in response to people who were considering voting against this measure because of dissatisfaction with how the library is run, or it’s current conflict with their own needs.

I would really encourage people to not make this mill levy a referendum on your current view of the library or its management, but rather what you want Windsor to stand for, as well as the roles libraries have in providing access to knowledge, resources and serving as a community space.

It’s easy to forget just how many resources are offered by libraries, I didn’t realize the value until I had kids of my own. With two girls under 5, it’s important for them to have space for them to interact with other kids, have stories read to them, and to be able to discover new books and learning tools. We do our best to enforce proper library etiquette, but kids at play are not always quiet. it’s become apparent that space has become an issue and that town growth has outpaced the current capacity.  To those that are upset by the children: what alternative do you have aside from more space or a better design?

I hate to break it to you, but Windsor is going to continue to grow. We can either put our heads in the sand and complain, or acknowledge the growth and take a civic role in shaping our community.  Citizens – namely children – are going to need places to gather. You can choose whether it’s going to be at a welcoming place that has the space to accommodate them, or be forced to choose somewhere else that invites trouble.

The Mill Levy isn’t about what’s going on right now, it’s about what’s going to happen in the next decade. You can either play checkers with your ballot, or play chess and think a few moves ahead  – I’m sure you can use the library to help up your game.

Since then, a healthy debate has formed in the discussion of this topic. While people obviously disagree, it does sound like many do believe we’re in need of a new library, but question whether a Mill Levy is the appropriate fund-raising avenue.  There were questions as to whether a Sales Tax increase would be a more fair taxation. I actually got clarification on the taxation issue, learning that the Library District isn’t supported by the city/town municipality and thus does not have access to sales tax revenue. It’s actually considered a state entity and like many public schools, can only receive funding through Mill Levy increases.

Fair points have been raised as to whether Mill Levy’s punish small businesses by requiring their owners to pay twice, with the commercial assessment being far greater than personal property.  I do agree that there should be a debate and exploration as to whether Mill Levy’s taxation on businesses should be re-examined, but also must acknowledge that all citizens – not just business owners – carry the burden of taxation.  It’s not like this is a cigarette tax or sin tax, it’s affirming that the entire community is committing to something that will better our town.  We shouldn’t avoid building the house just because we only have hammers in our toolbox, but let’s see if we can refine our tools.

Raising False Internet Hysteria

Reacting to some neighborhood drama:

“Hey Water Valley friends, neighbors and taxpayers. There has been a lot of Internet hysteria and hubbub about Water Valley changing the lake ownership to ‘public.’ Please relax and remember YOU as metro district taxpayers OWN the lakes. NOTHING is changing. The PTMD board is simply housecleaning the rules to properly define ‘non-resident’ use.

Please come to the 9 a.m., Thur. April 27 meeting in the Pelican Lakes Banquet Room and learn the truth and facts about how this beautiful place operates.

Enjoy your weekend, don’t allow false Internet hysteria to cause you any concern. Water Valley is a proven winner and its districts are ridiculously successful in preserving your values and amenities!

Enjoy the weekend see you next week.”

Martin Lind
Water Valley Land Company CEO & PTMD Board President

I really appreciate Martin Lind’s reply and addressing these issues that have concerned many of us. I also am grateful for what he’s done to ensure we have a very nice place to live and play. However, I am disappointed with the disdaining implication that residents like myself generated “false Internet hysteria”.

The lack of context surrounding the introduction of these policies set the stage for vast confusion. The lack of communication, followed by vague statements fertilized the confusion into concern and conjecture. With little information available, concerned residents were forced to resort to speculation based on the limited information they could find.

Nextdoor wasn’t responsible for this. Facebook wasn’t responsible for this. The lack of information, communication, and the challenging of long-held assumptions are the culprits in this confusion.

This document isn’t perfect. My primary concern was surrounding the wording around alcohol usage. The PTMD acknowledged it was a mistake and has committed to correcting this. It’s crucial that all residents review all aspects of the policies – especially those that potentially impact them – and send concerns and comments through the appropriate avenues. Some residents have sacrificed their own time and money to ensure their neighbors are aware of these proposed policies and have their opportunity to comment. To encourage people to participate in the process and ask questions is not raising hysteria.

I am glad that the PTMD is encouraging people in attending their board meeting and moving it to a larger location, although I do wish that a meeting so crucial to the residents could be held at a time that would enable residents to attend and learn the truth and facts.

At the end of the day, we can all agree that our community is best served by informed and involved residents. The PTMD has requested review and comments, and it’s my hope that every resident is aware and supportive of perfected proposed policies, as we’re all expected to abide by them.