News 2015 Membership! Numbers announced (so far)

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If the figures don't mean anything, why do we care about releasing the figures?

 

[Mattrox]

If the figures don't mean anything, why do we care about releasing the figures?

Clearly the club don't until they feel the numbers are meaningful.......

 

[Hank93]

Interesting the Herald Sun has given us an actual figure, 57,103.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter

 

[Elite Crow]

Well it looks like Triggy has struck again

 

[DJ75]

Well it looks like Triggy has struck again

Yes but website hits are through the roof. Doesn't get much better than that

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Well it looks like Triggy has struck again

He is success kryptonite

 

[1970crow]

Well it looks like Triggy has struck again

Well he did promise to engage with the members more. Numbers suggest he's kept his word.

 

[kirky]

At the end of the day, the only real membership count should be based on 11 game memberships not all these other hybrids (country members, pet members, non-attending game members, 3 game members etc).

 

[Godallblighty]

What about interstate members? I pay a decent wack for my Vic membership, I see all the games played over here, as well as occasional games back in Adelaide. I feel like a real member, not some mickey mouse, number padding add-on.

 

[AFC979810]

What about interstate members? I pay a decent wack for my Vic membership, I see all the games played over here, as well as occasional games back in Adelaide. I feel like a real member, not some mickey mouse, number padding add-on.

If clubs want to compare actual members the key comparisons should be as follows:

1. Number of 11 game members
2. Revenue from all memberships.

Thats it. Thats all thats relevant. Clubs counting 3 game memberships is laughable. Its even more laughable that our poor little brothers had a whole bunch of their 'members' who were Crows supporters (the only way people could get a ticket to the first showdown).

I am an international member. I should not be counted as a 'member' in the count.

 

[GROTTO]

I am an international member. I should not be counted as a 'member' in the count.

A very poor post and what a way to alienate those supporters unable to attend games physically, but want to assist and contribute and to be part of the Club.

 

[Jars458]

If the figures don't mean anything, why do we care about releasing the figures?

My earnings don't mean anything but I am not going to release them to you (bad analagy I know). They don't release them because they will be used for evil. Fair point though.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The point I guess is that it's the same for every club and we're the only ones who don't, therefore appear defensive.

To paraphrase Homer:

We're not successful enough to be different.

 

[Mego Red]

If clubs want to compare actual members the key comparisons should be as follows:

1. Number of 11 game members
2. Revenue from all memberships.

Thats it. Thats all thats relevant. Clubs counting 3 game memberships is laughable. Its even more laughable that our poor little brothers had a whole bunch of their 'members' who were Crows supporters (the only way people could get a ticket to the first showdown).

I am an international member. I should not be counted as a 'member' in the count.

I'm an interstate member, and part of me agrees. We need some apples and apples about this.

For me - 11 games, total members, total revenue. Report on all three.

Though it's not THAT interesting ...

 

[Iron]

I'm an interstate member, and part of me agrees. We need some apples and apples about this.

For me - 11 games, total members, total revenue. Report on all three.

Though it's not THAT interesting ...

While a measure of all three would provide the most reasonable comparison for clubs, the allure of one easy measure (wildly misleading though it may be) is always going to be the thing that sticks. Makes it so much easier to create a membership table.

Frankly, it's only really the lesser clubs that should worry about figures anyway. Stadiums have a limited amount of seats. If you've got 53,500 eleven game memberships, who's the idiot trying to buy the 53,501st? That we came first for home crowd numbers last year is all the indication of support we need.

 

[AFC979810]

I'm an interstate member, and part of me agrees. We need some apples and apples about this.

For me - 11 games, total members, total revenue. Report on all three.

Though it's not THAT interesting ...

Yeah would be happy with that. Just think its getting a little ridiculous that membership figures just keep going up and up. Collingwood had 80,000 members last year. Carlton had 48,000. Thats a combined 128,000 members. They struggled to get 40,000 people to a game between them last year.

Not counting interstate members/international/pet members as part of the official tally does not diminish anyone's membership.

 

[jenny61_99]

Membership numbers are meaningless without knowing the breakdown in full season vs 3 game members.

and/or pet memberships.

 

[PrideOf]

Meh. It's a me-too dick-measuring competition that only provides interest if you're at #2 size-wise.

Which is why only the PAPs are interested in it.

Did have a chuckle at how the Herald Sun interprets numbers:

"But it is Port Adelaide that leads the pre-season charge for members, with the club just 1400 short of its 2014 tally more than a month before the 2015 season has started."

O rly? From their own article:

ADELAIDE
So far in 2015: 57,103
Members in 2014: 57,231

Which is a difference of only 128 - and better than 1400 - n'est pas?

 

[Allefgib]

Agree with most on how to look at membership stats through different lenses.

I would suggest a metric of '11 game equivalent' memberships. Similar to an FTE.
I.e 11, 3 game members is equivalent to 3, 11 game members.

 

[GROTTO]

Not counting interstate members/international/pet members as part of the official tally does not diminish anyone's membership.

Of course it does, its a terrible way to act like an exclusive Club which is something that the Crows are not at all about. We want to have interstate members we want to expand and diversify our market. How else will we be able to compete with big Victorian Clubs if we do not expand our membership base both interstate and overseas.

Your logic is mind boggling.

 

[AFC3000]

I think count all members because there are people in all sorts of situations that want to contribute to the club the best way they can.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over who is and isn't reporting the numbers daily or the "race" between clubs to get the most members. As far as I'm concerned any club can play it however they like. The breakdown of categories comes out later in the year.

Rather than the media (Rucci) putting the clubs against each other in the race for members they should do some investigating and try and work out what the breakdown of those members might be and why, how much they contribute to the clubs, how prices might effect membership numbers. There are a ton of different ways to look at it.

 

[GROTTO]

Lets face it, a few posters last year purchased the Power's 3 game pass, but would rather walk over hot coals then be considered a member of the Powder.

 

[Doctor B]

Of course it does, its a terrible way to act like an exclusive Club which is something that the Crows are not at all about. We want to have interstate members we want to expand and diversify our market. How else will we be able to compete with big Victorian Clubs if we do not expand our membership base both interstate and overseas.

Your logic is mind boggling.

If it is only for 11 game memberships, we are unable to sell more as we have sold out Adelaide Oval and have a large waiting list for seats.

 

[GROTTO]

If it is only for 11 game memberships, we are unable to sell more as we have sold out Adelaide Oval and have a large waiting list for seats.

+1

Never thought of that, our membership actually has a ceiling which is the dumbest thing any Club could do is to 1) put a ceiling on memberships numbers and 2) exclude supporters that want to be members all because of geographical location, what a horrible prejudicial way to view our supporter base.

I think in fairness AFC979810 has changed his tune and agrees with the errors of his ways.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I think count all members because there are people in all sorts of situations that want to contribute to the club the best way they can.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over who is and isn't reporting the numbers daily or the "race" between clubs to get the most members. As far as I'm concerned any club can play it however they like. The breakdown of categories comes out later in the year.

Rather than the media (Rucci) putting the clubs against each other in the race for members they should do some investigating and try and work out what the breakdown of those members might be and why, how much they contribute to the clubs, how prices might effect membership numbers. There are a ton of different ways to look at it.

I am not sure I really care. It just sounds like a s**t fight between all the clubs. "we're better than you because we have more members". If I take out 3 x3games that 3 memberships versus only one membership for someone who takes out 1x11games. To me if you really want to measure the memberships it should be about how much money was generated from all the various types of membership only. That way every member is deemed as being important and not categorised into major, minor or lesser likes. Pretty simple really.

However a more important number to me is how many people attended our games during the minor round. That demonstrates the level of support that a club has and also how opposition club members view us. (are we exciting enough to go and see). If you want to spilt the attendances into home games and away games that's fine as well. I am more than happy to have these numbers come out at the end of the season once the detail has been given to the AFL but perhaps the AFL can release the details of each club at the same time.