How Relevant is your (victorian) club (The Age June 3)

[The_Wookie]

The Sweeney Sports Report, the authoritative sports marketing analysis used by advertisers and sponsors to measure performance and market penetration of sports and clubs, uses Australian Bureau of Statistics-weighted market surveys to assess the market. It found that of people across Australia who admitted to following AFL as their preferred sport, the Bulldogs were ranked lower than the Gold Coast and above only Greater Western Sydney.

When that filter was refined to AFL followers in Victoria alone, North Melbourne was the least supported team below Melbourne, then the Bulldogs and the Saints. Collingwood and Geelong were equal on top, with Hawthorn next.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-your-club-20140603-zrwo2.html#ixzz33cNdfZOi

 

[The_Reaper]

Makes sense that North gets a boost from interstate viewers given their following in WA and Tassie.

I can't see much in the way of Bulldogs support outside their heartland

 

[madmug]

Makes sense that North gets a boost from interstate viewers given their following in WA and Tassie.

I can't see much in the way of Bulldogs support outside their heartland

What makes you think they have much more support ( relative to other clubs) here?.
Just because they are paid to play here it doesnt indicate any real increased level of support I would have thought.
Memberships may be an indicator but are often purchased because its the cheapest package you can get to go & watch a game. Its certainly a lot cheaper than a trip to Launceston or Melbourne.

 

[hcd199]

The term "relevant" gets bandied about a lot without ever really being defined - relevance to what, exactly? What is the relevance in relation to? I get what the article is saying about smaller clubs only commanding interest when they're performing well (as opposed to bigger clubs who command interest regardless of their on-field strength), but I just don't see a good reason for the discussion to be couched in such terms.

Any idea why Melbourne have so few Facebook "friends" (surely one 'likes' a club page, not becomes friends with it?), or why the Saints' social media presence in general is higher than crowd/membership and TV viewing figures would suggest?

 

[brisbane13]

im over the moon that Essendon still stays rather relevant as they are aside from being shite the last 13 years.
the teams that gets me are the Tigers. they haven't done anything for 30 plus years, and are pretty much a let down to their fans every year but still have such strong support

 

[SelwoodTaylor]

When that filter was refined to AFL followers in Victoria alone, Collingwood and Geelong were equal on top, with Hawthorn next.

What does this bit mean?

 

[Kwality]

The Sweeney Sports Report, the authoritative sports marketing analysis used by advertisers and sponsors to measure performance and market penetration of sports and clubs, uses Australian Bureau of Statistics-weighted market surveys to assess the market. It found that of people across Australia who admitted to following AFL as their preferred sport, the Bulldogs were ranked lower than the Gold Coast and above only Greater Western Sydney.

The bolded comment says more than the Fairfax Press Melbourne centric report.

 

[Crawb]

In the whole national comp, Brisbane are probably more irrelevant than the Bulldogs...

 

[Kwality]

In the whole national comp, Brisbane are probably more irrelevant than the Bulldogs...

How so?

 

[Albert Ross]

The term "relevant" gets bandied about a lot without ever really being defined - relevance to what, exactly? What is the relevance in relation to?

"Sweeney Sports Report, the authoritative sports marketing analysis used by advertisers and sponsors to measure performance and market penetration of sports and clubs"

Pretty clear it is relevance to marketers in terms of knowing how much bang for their buck they will get, and therefore how much they should pay. It is a quantifiable measure that you should pay at least 3x more to sponsor Collingwood than North.

 

[1873 United]

It all depends on where and when these types of surveys take place. I this survey was run in say 2009 the Saints would be right near the top, with Hawthorn mid table. The relevance of this table is that there is no relevance.

Champion data keep real stats, surveys and ratings are nothing more than a hypothetical number. Fact in 2014 the Saints have won 3 games through 10 matches = poor attendance's and lower interest.

 

[brisbane13]

In the whole national comp, Brisbane are probably more irrelevant than the Bulldogs...

now really. the Lions are still in NRL heart land, & still get an ok average or around 22, 23k home crowd, which isn't bad considering that they have been a basket case on the slide for the last 12 years, for for several of those years they where out drawing the broncos, which are by miles the biggest NRL team.
but some needs needs to be done about them to stop the slide, or other wise support will continue to slowly fall away

 

[Ned_Flanders]

im over the moon that Essendon still stays rather relevant as they are aside from being shite the last 13 years.
the teams that gets me are the Tigers. they haven't done anything for 30 plus years, and are pretty much a let down to their fans every year but still have such strong support

We are the guy who still thinks at 4:30am he can hook up

Yes, it hasnt happened in years

But god damn it, its TIGER TIME!!!!! (well not this year anyway..... )

 

[GrassKat]

The Sweeney Sports Report, the authoritative sports marketing analysis used by advertisers and sponsors to measure performance and market penetration of sports and clubs, uses Australian Bureau of Statistics-weighted market surveys to assess the market. It found that of people across Australia who admitted to following AFL as their preferred sport, the Bulldogs were ranked lower than the Gold Coast and above only Greater Western Sydney.

When that filter was refined to AFL followers in Victoria alone, North Melbourne was the least supported team below Melbourne, then the Bulldogs and the Saints. Collingwood and Geelong were equal on top, with Hawthorn next.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-your-club-20140603-zrwo2.html#ixzz33cNdfZOi

es

Is this to suggest that Melbourne Bulldogs (53000 members) and St Kilda Kangaroos (58000 members) are the way to go?
I am sure that quite a few members will drop off, but I am sure that this article was made to flame merger talks in the community.

 

[Albert Ross]

es

Is this to suggest that Melbourne Bulldogs (53000 members) and St Kilda Kangaroos (58000 members) are the way to go?
I am sure that quite a few members will drop off, but I am sure that this article was made to flame merger talks in the community.

Ummm no. Talk about imposing an agenda on a story

 

[Hawkk]

It all depends on where and when these types of surveys take place. I this survey was run in say 2009 the Saints would be right near the top, with Hawthorn mid table. The relevance of this table is that there is no relevance.

Champion data keep real stats, surveys and ratings are nothing more than a hypothetical number. Fact in 2014 the Saints have won 3 games through 10 matches = poor attendance's and lower interest.

Hawthorn just won the flag in 2008 and had the biggest membership in the AFL in 2009 (the first Victorian club to break 50,000 (52496) members). I doubt we would have been mid table.

In 2009 the Saints 'sat' 7th amongst the Victorian clubs for members (31906), behind Hawthorn (52496), Collingwood (45972), Carlton (42408), Essendon (40412), Geelong (37160) and Richmond (36981).

In 2010 they improved to 'sit' 6th...Collingwood (57408), Hawthorn (53978), Essendon (40589), Carlton (40480), Geelong (40326) and St Kilda (39021).

By 2011 they dropped back to 7th...Collingwood (71271), Hawthorn (56224), Carlton (43791), Essendon (42559), Richmond (40184), Geelong (39393), St Kilda (39276)

If you look at 'Twitter' followers in recent years there is a strong correlation between 'followers' on social media and membership figures posted by the clubs.

 

[Hawkk]

I've long said that Twitter is probably the best indicator with respect to club support amongst Gen X and Gen Y supporters...

In which case...

Collingwood - 61300
Essendon - 59300
Carlton - 51900
Hawthorn - 44800
Richmond - 42100
Geelong - 42100
St Kilda - 31000
Melbourne - 28900
North Melbourne - 28300
W Bulldogs - 22400

 

[Albert Ross]

It all depends on where and when these types of surveys take place. I this survey was run in say 2009 the Saints would be right near the top, with Hawthorn mid table. The relevance of this table is that there is no relevance.

Champion data keep real stats, surveys and ratings are nothing more than a hypothetical number. Fact in 2014 the Saints have won 3 games through 10 matches = poor attendance's and lower interest.

From the article

"If you construct a business where you rely on the idea that winning games and on-field success is the only story you have to tell, that is a very fragile approach.''

 

[Albert Ross]

Hawthorn just won the flag in 2008 and had the biggest membership in the AFL in 2009 (the first Victorian club to break 50,000 members). I doubt we would have been mid table.

I think people are making the mistake of thinking that the Sweeney Report and the graphic with numbers at the top of the article are related. They are not. The graphic says it comes from Bastian http://www.bastioneba.com.au/

The Sweeney report uses a different methodology http://sweeneyresearch.com.au/sport-market-research/sweeney-sports-report

I doubt the rankings would change that much year on year. Club support is more long-term than that.

 

[brisbane13]

Hawthorn just won the flag in 2008 and had the biggest membership in the AFL in 2009 (the first Victorian club to break 50,000 (52496) members). I doubt we would have been mid table.

In 2009 the Saints 'sat' 7th amongst the Victorian clubs for members (31906), behind Hawthorn (52496), Collingwood (45972), Carlton (42408), Essendon (40412), Geelong (37160) and Richmond (36981).

In 2010 they improved to 'sit' 6th...Collingwood (57408), Hawthorn (53978), Essendon (40589), Carlton (40480), Geelong (40326) and St Kilda (39021).

By 2011 they dropped back to 7th...Collingwood (71271), Hawthorn (56224), Carlton (43791), Essendon (42559), Richmond (40184), Geelong (39393), St Kilda (39276)

If you look at 'Twitter' followers in recent years there is a strong correlation between 'followers' on social media and membership figures posted by the clubs.

hawthorn had a big spike in memberships when then took off and started playing games in Tassie. to their total membership totals include, Tassie memberships and extra large family membership packages

 

[Arwib]

A couple of blog posts on a very similar topic covering every club in the league.

First one just looked at Google Trends topic data: http://footymaths.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/guest-post-google-trends-and-popularity.html

Second one then going into other measures: http://footymaths.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/guest-post-more-analysis-of-club-support.html

 

[Hawkk]

hawthorn had a big spike in memberships when then took off and started playing games in Tassie. to their total membership totals include, Tassie memberships and extra large family membership packages

Really?

Hawthorn stared playing games in Tasmania in 2001.

Hawthorn in 2000 had 26879 members, in 2001 they had 30140. This is somewhat masked because in 1999 the Hawks had 32130 members...

...but you could be talking about the current 7/4 arrangement (2007). Or could you?

In 2006 Hawthorn had 28003 members (this was the season where we could only play 5 home games at the MCG due to the Commonwealth Games) in 2007 we spiked at 31065. This however was small beer compared to the jumps we experienced in 2008 (41436, +10371), 2009 (52496, +11060) and the progressive 4k to 5k spikes we've received in 2010, 11, 12, 13 and 14...

In fact according to the last 6 Hawthorn Annual Reports the break up of Mainland / Tasmanian members has been...

2014 - ?????/67436 (TBC)
2013 - 8567/63353 (13.5%)
2012 - 8731/60841 (14.35%)
2011 - 8500/56643 (15%)
2010 - 8222/54473 (15%)
2009 - 7335/52929 (13.8%)
2008 - 4180/41686 (10%)

I'm sure you're well aware of these figures. More so the fact that Hawthorn has had the exact same family membership arrangement since Ian Dicker took over the presidency in 1997.

...but carry on

 

[Power Raid]

The doggies seem to have room to grow their supporter base in the growing western suburbs.

I think Melbourne is in a tougher position long term.

 

[sverik25]

The doggies seem to have room to grow their supporter base in the growing western suburbs.

I think Melbourne is in a tougher position long term.

I agree, but the Bulldogs would want to start making some inroads in the Western suburbs soon or their financial position could become untenable.

 

[gopies1981]

I've long said that Twitter is probably the best indicator with respect to club support amongst Gen X and Gen Y supporters...

In which case...

Collingwood - 61300
Essendon - 59300
Carlton - 51900
Hawthorn - 44800
Richmond - 42100
Geelong - 42100
St Kilda - 31000
Melbourne - 28900
North Melbourne - 28300
W Bulldogs - 22400

Would say that is pretty spot on with nation wide support for afl club followers.

Also in terms of Facebook friends they were wrong with Melbourne's total they actually have 61,000 not 35,000