Atlanta Hawks Majority Owner to Sell Team Due to racist email

[subzero02]

Why is this a problem? It seems like a reasonable possibility to explore. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but I don't think we should be banning people, especially in non-public e-mails, from discussing the possibility. Recognition that prejudice exists and hypothesizing that it may have an effect on business isn't inflammatory itself, right?

The problem arises from designing a marketing strategy to pacify those perceived sentiments... I should've reworded my first sentence.

[Henderson]

Levenson's current project is a partnership to turn white bread into dark brown toast in 3 seconds. No kidding.

[Atldukie79]

I also have lived in Atlanta since the 80's.

Atlanta has a reputation for harboring fair weather fans. To the extend this is true, I believe it is more a function of having pro franchises ranging from wretched to above average over the past 60 years, with few highlights. The Braves of the 90's were rabidly followed for example, when they were consistently above average. The first priority here is college football. And the second and the third. There is little familial connection to the pro sports. You are more apt to see college attire than pro attire around town.

Regarding the Braves relocation to the suburbs, I view that as a practical business move and nothing else. With the internet and cable and HD TV, the suburbanites (and there are more of those in Atlanta than not) find it less worth the time and hassle of driving into town for a game. I suspect the Braves will increase attendance dramatically when they move.

Regarding attendance at Hawks games, it is not necessarily a racist thing to target certain groups of people to market your product to... I suspect I was a core target for the hawks for the past 30 years...an avid hoops fan and rec player. But I did not enjoy the couple of games I have attended. I did not care for the commute (yes...I am a suburbanite), the product (college hoops>pro hoops) and no...I did not care for the music either.

[Henderson]

Local sports radio is talking today about how preposterous Levenson's comments are, but they're really not...they're just a rather tactless expression of a very real rift that runs to the core of Atlanta.

And my, how helpful he was in bridging that divide.

[Atlanta Duke]

The same can be said for Washington, NYC, Boston, and plenty of other cities.

Here is a study of the most transient cities in the US: http://www.creditdonkey.com/where-wanderers.html. Atlanta is not in the top 10.

All I can say is that is what I have seen from living here for over thirty years - a least one recent study seems to support my observation on the transient nature of the Atlanta population

Other top cities Americans moved to this summer were Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas and Portland.

The cities with the most outbound moves after Washington were Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Phoenix, New York and Los Angeles.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...html?page=all

In addition to so many residents coming from somewhere else (the Atlanta metro area has grown from 2 million to 5 million since I moved here - that comes from more than births at Northside Hospital), the roots for the Atlanta pro teams simply are not as deep. The pro teams for the three cities you cite ("Team With Name Many Find Offensive," Yankees/Giants, Red Sox) have both a longer history and no significant college competition (unless you want to count the Terps).

Mark Bradley of the AJC has been here since the mid-80s - his thoughts

We have alums from everywhere. Take a lap around the Perimeter on an autumn weekend, and you’ll see cars bound for Athens, yes, but also farther north to Clemson. And east to Columbia. And west to Tuscaloosa. And north to Knoxville. And south to Gainesville. And southwest to the loveliest village. One lap and you’ll see so many different flags fluttering from vehicles you’d swear you’d happened upon a mobile United Nations...

Only that’s the thing: We’re not united in our collegiate loyalties. We’re split a dozen different ways. That doesn’t mean we care any less about sports. It just means that, unlike hardy New Englanders, we don’t all hang on Papelbon’s next delivery...

Think of it this way: Bobby Dodd and Vince Dooley were coaching against one another when the Braves were still in Milwaukee. Dodd was coaching against Wally Butts when the Braves were based in Boston.

Simply put, we care more about college football than we do about anything else, which isn’t to say we don’t care about the other stuff. But our roots to the college game simply run deeper.

http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-bl...y-sports-city/

I suppose Dallas might be a comparable city to Atlanta and the Cowboys obviously have a devoted following in a State with a great college sports tradition. Having won 5 Lombardis might have something to do with that.

[flyingdutchdevil]

All I can say is that is what I have seen from living here for over thirty years - a least one recent study seems to support my observation on the transient nature of the Atlanta population

Other top cities Americans moved to this summer were Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas and Portland.

The cities with the most outbound moves after Washington were Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Phoenix, New York and Los Angeles.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...html?page=all

In addition to so many residents coming from somewhere else (the Atlanta metro area has grown from 2 million to 5 million since I moved here - that comes from more than births at Northside Hospital), the roots for the Atlanta pro teams simply are not as deep. The pro teams for the three cities you cite ("Team With Name Many Find Offensive," Yankees/Giants, Red Sox) have both a longer history and no significant college competition (unless you want to count the Terps).

Mark Bradley of the AJC has been here since the mid-80s - his thoughts

We have alums from everywhere. Take a lap around the Perimeter on an autumn weekend, and you’ll see cars bound for Athens, yes, but also farther north to Clemson. And east to Columbia. And west to Tuscaloosa. And north to Knoxville. And south to Gainesville. And southwest to the loveliest village. One lap and you’ll see so many different flags fluttering from vehicles you’d swear you’d happened upon a mobile United Nations...

Only that’s the thing: We’re not united in our collegiate loyalties. We’re split a dozen different ways. That doesn’t mean we care any less about sports. It just means that, unlike hardy New Englanders, we don’t all hang on Papelbon’s next delivery...

Think of it this way: Bobby Dodd and Vince Dooley were coaching against one another when the Braves were still in Milwaukee. Dodd was coaching against Wally Butts when the Braves were based in Boston.

Simply put, we care more about college football than we do about anything else, which isn’t to say we don’t care about the other stuff. But our roots to the college game simply run deeper.

http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-bl...y-sports-city/

I suppose Dallas might be a comparable city to Atlanta and the Cowboys obviously have a devoted following in a State with a great college sports tradition. Having won 5 Lombardis might have something to do with that.

I absolutely agree that roots are a very important factor. Being a transient city - while it may seem important - really isn't as important as many think. NYC, Boston, DC, SF all have successful franchises (and these are cities experiencing plenty of in-and-out traffic), and a lot of that has to do with the fact that these teams have deep roots. Sports fans want great experiences, and history/culture will do that.

I honestly think Atlanta needs to do a better job of marketing it's amazing food to free agents. For me, that would be such an important quality from a city perspective. Better food, better free agents. Too simple? Yup. Does it work like that? Nope.

[BigWayne]

If I'm moving into PPB territory, forgive me. I will try to put this as neutrally as possible. However, the response to Levenson's email seems utterly absurd considering that only a short while ago my beloved Atlanta Braves announced that they were moving the team to Cobb County to be closer to their "core" fan base. It is simply impossible NOT to conclude that serious demographic research (which must include race, as well as class and geography) went into that decision. The language of the organization's justification for the move always troubled me, as the Braves seemed to be blatantly giving up any attempt to appeal to Atlanta as a whole and instead decided to focus on a smaller demographic. Call me crazy, but I'm far, far, far more comfortable with Levenson and other ownership groups having conversations about how to diversify the fan base, even if those conversations are crude and based on stereotypes. I certainly hope that society can rise above simple stereotypes, but it is also important that we confront our biases and figure out ways to overcome them. To me, the Braves' move to Cobb County warrants far more scrutiny than Levenson's email.

To bring this back out of PPB territory, I agree with others who think that there is a good chance that rival owners had no problem giving Levenson a reason to cash out. The whole thing is really strange and, ultimately, no one is really harmed. My hope is that the situation forces the Atlanta area into some serious soul-searching about the social dynamics that still obviously play a large role in the workings of the city.

In the past, and I doubt it has changed that much since I moved out of the area, the way the Atlanta and Fulton County governments liked to run things would likely be an incentive for sports teams to move to another political jurisdiction. This may be just as important as the geography and demographics.

[wilson]

And my, how helpful he was in bridging that divide.

Well, as I said, his comments on the divide were tasteless and tactless. But the sentiment among the pundits I've heard today is that he's wrong in his fundamental assumptions, which is not true. They're claiming that there's no divide of the sort referred to in Levenson's email, and they are wrong.

[Reisen]

The problem arises when Levenson outlines the business strategy, which seems to be predicated on fewer black people attending games and lower prominence in the arena in order to appeal to what he assumes is a racially motivated lack of attendance by white Atlanta males. Rather talking about increasing diversity or how to compete for season ticket holders against three other major sports franchises: Hawks, Braves, Thrashers, he accuses his teams own fans of sabotaging their success. He talks about the drop of black attendance as a success and insinuates that 40% black attendance is still too high because "it may feel like 70%" to "southern white males" and that its 4 times that of other teams. He goes on to say things like: "the kiss cam is too black" and that "a lot of blacks don't seem to go as crazy cheering (just another one of my theories)".

I understand that businessmen like Levenson are after the almighty dollar. But rather than to approach the low season ticket holder as a challenge and specifically look for ways to increase the Atlanta Hawk brand among the wider Atlanta community, he uses black attendance as an excuse and seeks to marginalize them in the Arena in order to attract racist white patrons. Instead of better networking for corporate ticket holders or, god-forbid, putting a better team on the floor, he has " I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ed about the kiss cam being too black." Really? Does anyone give a flying *&#^ about the kiss cam when purchasing tickets? Is black people kissing repugnant to whites? His email may not have any overt nastiness in it, but it contains a rancid fruit, and this is completely setting aside the issue of claiming southern white men wont attend Atlanta Hawks games because they are racist...an assumption that should never enter into any strategy session about trying to expand your customer base.

So, I think this is pretty key. Levenson never says he wants to reduce the number of black fans, and certainly not a Sterling-esque "I don't want black people at my games". I suspect his view of going from 90% to 40% black attendance as a success is all about successfully attracting new white fans, not getting rid of existing black fans.

The kiss cam comment was just one of a number of experiential observations, including cheerleaders, music, bars, etc. I didn't read anything more nefarious into it than that. I think the key there is he's not saying "I don't want black people on the kiss cam, I don't want black cheerleaders, and I don't want the stadium playing rap." He's saying "I don't want only black people on the kiss cam, an all-black cheerleading squad, and exclusively rap being played" (I have no idea if any of that is true, btw). Having any business so centered on one racial/cultural demographic is simply self-limiting, whether you're a fast food chain, golf retailer, ski resort, or basketball team. His complaint seemed to be that the in-arena experience was clearly targeted at the black demographic, and he wanted to broaden the appeal to better target white males.

[lotusland]

The problem arises from designing a marketing strategy to pacify those perceived sentiments... I should've reworded my first sentence.

Marketing strategies should be derived to increase profits no? What's wrong with targeting the demographic with the most money? The Hawks didn't cause the socioeconomic issues at play here. You can't have it both ways. If one group suffers from said socioeconomic factors, isn't it acceptable to be aware in marketing that they are less affluent?

I don't see how any segment of society can possibly benefit from being immune to criticism.

[Duvall]

Marketing strategies should be derived to increase profits no? What's wrong with targeting the demographic with the most money? The Hawks didn't cause the socioeconomic issues at play here. You can't have it both ways. If one group suffers from said socioeconomic factors, isn't it acceptable to be aware in marketing that they are less affluent?

I don't see how any segment of society can possibly benefit from being immune to criticism.

What are you talking about?

[lotusland]

What are you talking about?

I just re-read my post and I don't think it is unclear so unfortunately I cannot clarify further.

[sagegrouse]

I just re-read my post and I don't think it is unclear so unfortunately I cannot clarify further.

I understood your post, but I don't think I understand your quadruple negative quoted above.

[lotusland]

[QUOTE=sagegrouse;745086]I understood your post, but I don't think I understand your quadruple negative quoted above.[/QUOTE

So you're saying that you can comprehend "I think I was clear" but not "I don't think I was unclear"?

Or did you just want to be snarky? The post I replied to implied that I was unclear so the way I phased it better reflects the intend of my post and I'm pretty sure it was clear to you and almost anyone else.

[subzero02]

Marketing strategies should be derived to increase profits no? What's wrong with targeting the demographic with the most money? The Hawks didn't cause the socioeconomic issues at play here. You can't have it both ways. If one group suffers from said socioeconomic factors, isn't it acceptable to be aware in marketing that they are less affluent?

I don't see how any segment of society can possibly benefit from being immune to criticism.

The problem is that Levenson is promoting a strategy to reduce the proportion of blacks attending games because he believes some southern whites are scared and uncomfortable around crowds that are over 40 percent black. The validity of Levenson's belief about southern whites is debatable. Anyone who chooses not to attend an event because of the racial makeup of the audience is racist. No NBA franchise should have a marketing strategy designed to appease blatantly racist sentiments regarding audience demographics.

[DukieInKansas]

The problem is that Levenson is promoting a strategy to reduce the proportion of blacks attending games because he believes some southern whites are scared and uncomfortable around crowds that are over 40 percent black. The validity of Levenson's belief about southern whites is debatable. Anyone who chooses not to attend an event because of the racial makeup of the audience is racist. No NBA franchise should have a marketing strategy designed to appease blatantly racist sentiments regarding audience demographics.

Perhaps the intent was to increase attendance and he was looking for a demographic that wasn't attending and how to go about attracting them to reach that goal. If the marketing was successful, the primary goal of increased attendance would be reached. This may have reduced the proportion of one skin color to another due to larger number in attendance but I don't think the plan was to get those already attending to stop coming - just to find ways to get another group of people to attend.

[wilson]

Perhaps the intent was to increase attendance and he was looking for a demographic that wasn't attending and how to go about attracting them to reach that goal. If the marketing was successful, the primary goal of increased attendance would be reached. This may have reduced the proportion of one skin color to another due to larger number in attendance but I don't think the plan was to get those already attending to stop coming - just to find ways to get another group of people to attend.

I think that, generally speaking, you're right, even though Levenson articulated this in terribly poor fashion. I also think that, for the most part, he's not that sad to sell his interest, given the acrimony that has defined his tenure and the mediocrity that has defined the Hawks franchise for, like, its entire existence.

[sagegrouse]

I think that, generally speaking, you're right, even though Levenson articulated this in terribly poor fashion. I also think that, for the most part, he's not that sad to sell his interest, given the acrimony that has defined his tenure and the mediocrity that has defined the Hawks franchise for, like, its entire existence.

The Clippers sold for $2B. I expect Levenson is hoping to get $1B+ for the Hawks, and all the rest is subterfuge and indirection.

Kindly, Sage

[Black Mambo]

I am not a fan of hypocrisy, although I understand historically where it comes from. It is generally unacceptable to deride people of different faiths, except if that faith is the societal majority (I said generally). It is generally unacceptable to deride women, but subconsciously okay to deride men (20/20 did a story on this a few years back). It is generally unacceptable to say we want a larger proportion of white people (even when they are the substantial minority, as in this case), but it would be a non-story to say we want more minorities to increase diversity. Well, in this particular case, wouldn't adding white people be in the spirit of increasing diversity (and possibly revenue)?

I agree with Kareem. Levenson had some cringe-worthy assumptions (right or wrong) about the mechanism by which to increase diversity. But I must hold my nose at anybody who tries to make this a "such and such is a racist" story. There are plenty of real race problems. This is not one of them (though it points to a real racial divide that permeates Atlanta).

I guess I should add the following race disclaimer: I don't just know a guy who is black. My best friend just is not black. Rather, I am black. Seriously. And actually my best friends is Filipino.

[theAlaskanBear]

Perhaps the intent was to increase attendance and he was looking for a demographic that wasn't attending and how to go about attracting them to reach that goal. If the marketing was successful, the primary goal of increased attendance would be reached. This may have reduced the proportion of one skin color to another due to larger number in attendance but I don't think the plan was to get those already attending to stop coming - just to find ways to get another group of people to attend.

But thats the crux of the issue. Higher attendence, specifically more season ticket holders was the raison d'etre of the email. Instead of talking about strategies about how to raise the profile of the Hawks among white, middle-aged men and corporations that would purchase season tickets, he spends the entire email denigrating the black fans who attend the game, including unverifiable stereotypes such as black people don't cheer as hard and discussing trite cosmetic issues like the racial-ratio of the Kiss Cam. Levenson addresses the issue by treating it like a zero-sum game where having a "black image" is negative, rather than identifying real marketing approaches to engage a broader community.

Instead of looking at deficiencies in the Hawk's marketing and the product that they put on the court, it's easier for Levenson to blame southern males for being racist, and black fans for making racists uncomfortable. That's offensive to everyone (not just black people) and the exact opposite of the constructive analysis required by someone who owns an NBA team. With someone like that as controlling owner maybe it's no surprise the Hawks are a moribund franchise with declining attendance for the last 4 years.