empty seats

[weneverland]

The issue we have is that we are selling a product that people cannot possibly use to its full extent.

It is impossible for anyone to be available for 11 home games at varying times without clashing with a family or work event or illness or other commitment at some stage.

The Crows don't really care anyway about empty seats. Selling all our season tickets each year means our income doesn't go up and down depending on performance, time slots or opponents. I think I'm right in saying that all the catering, car parking etc goes to the SANFL?

If selling the tickets AND attendance becomes a financial factor for the Crows then I'm sure we'll find a way to solve the problem. At the moment we don't care and don't need to.

Actually I think Stephen Trigg has said the Crows do care. They have even gone and pumped up the attendances for Port Power Showdowns. There is more at stake than just selling out the stadium every week.

 

[feenix67]

[/LIST]
Again, economics works in two directions. The could offer the tickets for a dollar each, and they'd all sell then as well. You still have an economic problem though - you don't make any money.

Basic economics tells you that what you want, ideally, is for the demand to precisely match the supply. However, I think there's room for sentiment, where we reward commonly-attending members at a immediate small economic cost to ensure their continued long-term patronage.


Crow-mo's point is that, currently, the demand outweighs the supply, and high school level ecomonics tells you that you should raise the price when that happens. He has a fair point, but I think there are different issues here. One is about how much a ticket is worth, but the issue I'm looking at is how to get the maximum return for that ticket to the club, and surely it is to make it possible to sell it twice if the first buyer isn't going to use it.

You cant sell something twice. In relation to this issue, the club isnt so much worried about the revenue, moreso the filling of the stadium. So what you do is facilitate one off transfers.

Crow-mo's point is more about the price of the ticket not being high enough to avoid people buying one even though they may not use it every week. It's a valid point but it's a fine line you tread. Given that the stadium is pre-sold, the club has already met it's revenue target in relation to attendance. They want people to fill those seats. So do you pre-sell the stadium and cross your fingers, or do you pre-sell the stadium and give people who cant attend an easy and accessible means to transfer their ticket in the event that they cannot attend? The answer seems like simple high school logic really.

 

[weneverland]

They want people to fill those seats. So do you pre-sell the stadium and cross your fingers, or do you pre-sell the stadium and give people who cant attend an easy and accessible means to transfer their ticket in the event that they cannot attend? The answer seems like simple high school logic really.]

The club needs to lift their game here. I tried to transfer my ticket to a friend as I was going overseas for a while. It didn't work.

I had to wait for the Monday before the match to start the process.
They had to post out the replacement tickets.
The tickets wouldn't get there until the Friday.
They didn't arrive.

Where's the incentive?

 

[Crow-mo]

Crow-mo:

• Currently there is no economic problem - all tickets are sold
• Currently there is an attendance problem - people buy tickets but dont always use them and dont (or have no access to an easy system that allows them to) pass on their tickets.

If you jack up the prices, you do make them more "valuable", but you also place them out of reach for a larger part of your potential market. So you end up not solving your existing problem and adding an attendance problem.

Pricing has a definate effect on uptake when you are dealing with a limited market in a specific demographic. The Crows want bums on seats. So do you make it potentially harder to fill the stadium by making the price higher, or do you make it easier for those with tickets to pass them on to someone else, in the event that they themselves cant use them that day?

In other words, do you want to fix the existing problem or create an extra one?

clearly your ability to read is as impaired as your judgement.

how many times do I need to say I don't think there is a problem?

give me a number, seriously, how many times before it sinks in?

I don't think there is a problem, but IF you want to fix it then raising the prices will. it could lower demand, but it will increased usage.

 

[Crow-mo]

The issue we have is that we are selling a product that people cannot possibly use to its full extent.

It is impossible for anyone to be available for 11 home games at varying times without clashing with a family or work event or illness or other commitment at some stage.

The Crows don't really care anyway about empty seats. Selling all our season tickets each year means our income doesn't go up and down depending on performance, time slots or opponents. I think I'm right in saying that all the catering, car parking etc goes to the SANFL?

If selling the tickets AND attendance becomes a financial factor for the Crows then I'm sure we'll find a way to solve the problem. At the moment we don't care and don't need to.

Essentially you're right.

2 things happen currently:

1. people sometimes can't go
2. they have little incentive to try too hard to be fussed by it.

1. will never change, and 2. is not about method its about motivation.

 

[Crow-mo]

No, I don't think that is right. Every year I expect to get to every game. Unfortunately I usually don't. If the Crows doubled the price I would measure the cost against what being a season member means to me. The possibility of me not getting to a couple of games wouldn't be factored into it. I don't divide the cost of a ticket by 11 or 9 or whatever. Making me pay $100 per game still wouldn't make me miss my daughters wedding.

again 2 things here:

1. if you don't learn from the patterns of your past behaviour then you are a unique outlier here
2. you're trying to reduce this down to what would make you go every week, and that misses the point. you might be the sort of member who needs to be replaced - if you consider it a problem.

and I guarantee you if you pay $100 per game you'll try harder to find someone to take it.

 

[Crow-mo]

What do they lose by allowing the tickets to be resold? As long as it doesn't cost more than their share of a ticket price, it can't possible give them anything other than higher profit and attendances.


And in the age of the internet, it can be set up practically for free.

this is certainly part of the problem?

- what do they lose by allowing re-sale? not very much, approaching nothing.
BUT
- What do they "think" they lose? they lose turnover of members, and make it harder for someone on the waiting list to progress.

if you're not going to go, by not allowing re-sale they are encouraging you to give it up.

no one here seems to think the club could consider them expendable.

 

[Crow-mo]

The club needs to lift their game here. I tried to transfer my ticket to a friend as I was going overseas for a while. It didn't work.

I had to wait for the Monday before the match to start the process.
They had to post out the replacement tickets.
The tickets wouldn't get there until the Friday.
They didn't arrive.

Where's the incentive?

they want you to give it up so someone on the waiting list can have it.

 

[arrowman]

…superficially appealing? yeah, sure thing
especially when you trumpet such empty, hollow rhetoric as : but this is unique, this is different ...
…you have no understanding of economics at all have you? there is little correlation between capacity to pay and willingness to pay.

I do understand economics, actually - to first year University level, anyway. And one of the things I understand about economic theory (or marketing theory, or any other theory that applies to large, diverse populations) is that the more you try to apply it to smaller populations with specific characteristics (in this case, the set of South Australian residents who might wish to attend Crows home games) the less likely it is to be fully applicable.

"But I would argue" is up there with "I would imagine" - that's the level of highly reasoned argument I am dealing with

”I would argue” is a reasonable expression to use in a debate. It’s different from “this is what Economic Theory says, I am 100% right and there is nothing you can say that can possibly refute that.. The debate is over, if you disagree with me you are an economic illiterate whose arguments are facile and irrelevant.”.

…that's not worth a thing, or adds anything to the debate. completely meaningless.

I’m sorry? A list of the main reasons season ticket holders don’t attend some games is “meaningless”? Do these reasons not apply to people who paid more for theit tickets?

if you understood or had bothered to read what had already been written, you wouldn't be recycling such irrelevancies.

it DOESN'T MATTER why. everyone has their own reasons, always will. that misses the point entirely. which explains why your facile suggestions miss the mark, you are trying to compensate for life and what people want.

So - what - the more you have paid for your season ticket, the more likely you are to skip your sister’s wedding? The more likely you are to attend even though you are bedridden with the flu? The more likely you are to forego an opportunity (or a business requirement) to travel?

Is there some special class of people who both (a) have sufficient means to purchase a more expensive season ticket and (b) have no family or business obligations, and are of perfectly rude health throughout every winter?

the real point is that some people expect to attend all games, and some people do not. those people who do not, are the ones you want to replace - if you want to do anything at all. if you consider it a problem

There is no reason to suppose that increasing the price of season tickets will automatically result in a replacement of people who do not expect to attend all games, by people who do.

All that will happen * is that you will replace people who are prepared to pay, say, $40 a game to attend 8 out of 11 games, with people who are prepared to pay, say, $60 a game to attend 8 out of 11 games.

And along the way, you’ll probably replace some people who currently attend all 11 games, but reluctantly decide they can’t afford the increased price, with people who attend 8 or 9 games, and don’t mind paying the increased price.

* For the most part. I don’t disagree that your proposal might have some impact, albeit minor, and offset by the factors I have mentioned.

Further your argument is confused about what elasticity of demand it wants to advocate. if demand is inelastic as you claim above, then the club has a blank cheque to increase prices and effectively print money. now if you argue this, as you appear to, then you are just wrong.

if you argue that people are price sensitive, as they certainly are, then a change in price will change demand and attributes of demand. which you dispute.

Ihaven’t claimed that demand is inelastic. That would appear to be you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, in an attempt to discredit my argument.

if you think the part in bold supports your argument, then I am speechless.

I’m a little speechless myself. What part of the quoted sentence don’t you follow? I’ll be happy to explain further.

…ah the puerile class arguments. if you can demonstrate that people with more money are more likely to waste it or care less about value for money, then there is a prize or two out there with your name on it….
if you want to argue that wealthier people care less about value for money, I'd wonder what dosage was on your medication, it would give me a very clear indication of your personal means and politics, and it might just be the beginnings of your first nobel prize if you can demonstrate that relationship…

Of course wealthier people care about value for money. But (as you yourself have said)

people are prolifigate (or not) because of their own values and incentives, not their means.

to which I would add: And the greater a person’s means, the greater their capacity to indulge their own values / wishes / desires even if the resulting expenditure is not, in a simple sense, “value for money”.

If wealthier people cared exclusively about value for money, there’d be no market for luxury cars. Or 5 star hotels, or luxury houses. Because none of those are “value for money”.

If poorer people really cared about value for money, they’d buy new Scandinavian household appliances that cost 30-40% more than the cheaper brands, but will last, almost literally, a lifetime.

The difference? Disposable income and the limits or otherwise on a person’s options.

There is no reason to assume that a person who has paid more for their season ticket will automatically be more likely to attend more games.

OK, now tell me about my “personal means and politics”. Seriously. I’d love to see a demonstration of your omniscience.

if you raise the price then you will observe 2 things:… if you change the value people place on that commodity, then they are more likely to try and not waste it...

”Raising the price” is not the same as “changing the value that people place on the commodity”.

A Crows season ticket is not just “11 (or 8, or 9) footy tickets”. It offers (some people will care more about these than others)
- When combined with a Gold Membership, a guaranteed GF ticket
- Convenience (no buying a ticket each week, reserved seat)
- Support for your club (proceeds to club, more than daily tickets)
- Status, even, perhaps, to some

It is a single commodity that offers, for a certain $ outlay, one year’s worth of the above. The $/game figure is just one aspect. And there is no reason to suppose that a person who wants that commodity, and can afford to pay, say, $500 for that commodity, is automatically more likely to attend more games.

Practical reality: Not everyone who buys a season ticket will attend every game. Unless you make it easy for people to pass on their unused ticket (i.e. without having to find their own replacement) those seats will remain empty. No matter how much the person paid for them.

If I pay, say, $500-600 for a season ticket, and I can’t attend a game due to unforeseen circumstances, how does the price I paid for that ticket influence the amount of effort I am prepared to expend to ensure that someone else can use it that day?

I am not going to argue this.

Your argument is based on a selective (and I would argue, invalid) application of one aspect of economic theory, ignoring any factors that may apply to the particular population or situation. The fact that you can cite that one piece of economic theory does not make your argument unassailable.

It certainly does not give you grounds for dismissing counter-arguments as “facile”.

 

[arrowman]

...- What do they "think" they lose? they lose turnover of members, and make it harder for someone on the waiting list to progress.

if you're not going to go, by not allowing re-sale they are encouraging you to give it up.

no one here seems to think the club could consider them expendable.

It doesn't matter how many times my ticket goes in to the daily sales pool, as you have pointed out, the fewer games I am able to attend, the more likely I am to give up the membership. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether my ticket is used or not - my decision to renew my membership will be based on other factors, including how many games I am able to attend.

If I attend 5 games in a season, and the club facilitates resale, then my ticket may be used for 11 games. If the club does not facilitate resale, then my seat will be vacant for 6 games.

There is no difference to me, when it comes to deciding whether to renew my membership.

 

[Crow-mo]

It certainly does not give you grounds for dismissing counter-arguments as “facile”.

no, your facile argument gives me grounds to dismiss your counter argument.

because all you are doing reducing the argument to the small picture view of how you think.

I do understand economics, actually - to first year University level, anyway. And one of the things I understand about economic theory (or marketing theory, or any other theory that applies to large, diverse populations) is that the more you try to apply it to smaller populations with specific characteristics (in this case, the set of South Australian residents who might wish to attend Crows home games) the less likely it is to be fully applicable.

there is no such thing as marketing theory, it is not an acknowledged discipline. just thought you might want to know.

and er, you should have stayed in school if you think that's a small population. as far as observable samples go, that is freaking massive. huge.

more to the point, you keep wanting to resort to the rhetorical claims that somehow this population is made up of people who aren't rational economic agents. you can try (good luck) to make this argument - but you haven't yet.

you still caught up in reducing things down to how you feel, and how you want things to be. there is no reason to think the supporters of the Adelaide Football Club are in any way unique. though reading yours and some other's POV's make me wonder.

”I would argue” is a reasonable expression to use in a debate. It’s different from “this is what Economic Theory says, I am 100% right and there is nothing you can say that can possibly refute that.. The debate is over, if you disagree with me you are an economic illiterate whose arguments are facile and irrelevant.”.

I would argue surrounded by a bunch of meaningless, random statements in not valid. especially when it is trying to invalidate basic economics.

it won't be valid when you repeat it again shortly either.

I’m sorry? A list of the main reasons season ticket holders don’t attend some games is “meaningless”? Do these reasons not apply to people who paid more for theit tickets?

you should be sorry, because the reasons don't amount to jack shit.

that you don't understand this, is central to why I have dismissed nearly everything you have said so far.

there will always be reasons why, it doesn't matter why. why doesn't change or influence anything. why, shows up how mis-conceived your argument is.

there will be reasons why whether the prices are $1.00 and reasons why if they are $2,000 - how you feel about those reasons, and what you will do in response is relevant.

So - what - the more you have paid for your season ticket, the more likely you are to skip your sister’s wedding? The more likely you are to attend even though you are bedridden with the flu? The more likely you are to forego an opportunity (or a business requirement) to travel?

look up in the sky, its a bird, its a plane, nooooo its the poiiiinnnnnttttt. sailing way over the top.

frankly I am surprised people only miss 3-4 games a year, every year, with all these sisters weddings, death defying illness and crucial travel requirements.

that's just you wallowing in the belief that "why" matters. which you do, because again you are relating everything to yourself - which is a sample size too small

whether you choose to go to the game is only one part of the issue, what you then do is probably more important?

Is there some special class of people who both (a) have sufficient means to purchase a more expensive season ticket and (b) have no family or business obligations, and are of perfectly rude health throughout every winter?
There is no reason to suppose that increasing the price of season tickets will automatically result in a replacement of people who do not expect to attend all games, by people who do.

more why nonsense.

All that will happen * is that you will replace people who are prepared to pay, say, $40 a game to attend 8 out of 11 games, with people who are prepared to pay, say, $60 a game to attend 8 out of 11 games.

whilst that isn't what I am saying, if that were true why shouldn't the club do that? haven't you just argued for mispricing?

if you can get $60 instead of $40 why not do that? if you can bump revenue by 50% problem solved.

you are also crazy if you think someone values $60 the same way they value $40. not just wrong, insane.

And along the way, you’ll probably replace some people who currently attend all 11 games, but reluctantly decide they can’t afford the increased price, with people who attend 8 or 9 games, and don’t mind paying the increased price.

this might well be true to some extent. but those new people, are more likely to find a use for those tickets. people just do not smoke $100 bills for the fun of it. the more it costs them the more aligned their incentives are to find an alternative user. after all, the club doesn't care WHO uses.

the other tenet that underlies each of your fanciful theories, is that the only thing holding people back from passing their ticket on is method and means. what comes first, always comes first, always will, is motivation.

without motivation, which currently doesn't exist, method doesn't matter.
People have the ability to re-distribute now, they choose not too.

it could be made easier, and if it were it would help, but that doesn't address the root cause - and that is people don't care if they burn their seats 2 or 3 times. if they did, you would see one of two outcomes:
1. higher occupancy
2. reduced renewal rates.

all the random, facile fancies of your imagination will never change that.

do you know how many $2,000 seats on the halfway line for the Chicago Bears goes unsold? do you know how many get left empty on game day?

I suspect you can get guess right.

* For the most part. I don’t disagree that your proposal might have some impact, albeit minor, and offset by the factors I have mentioned.
Ihaven’t claimed that demand is inelastic. That would appear to be you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, in an attempt to discredit my argument.

no you just haven't understood that your argument demands that. if you say changes in price won't significantly alter behaviour (which you do) then that is based on a necessary assumption of inelastic demand.

but yes, that does discredit your argument

I’m a little speechless myself. What part of the quoted sentence don’t you follow? I’ll be happy to explain further.
Of course wealthier people care about value for money. But (as you yourself have said)to which I would add: And the greater a person’s means, the greater their capacity to indulge their own values / wishes / desires even if the resulting expenditure is not, in a simple sense, “value for money”.

do you have any basis for suggesting wealthier people value a dollar less?

If wealthier people cared exclusively about value for money, there’d be no market for luxury cars. Or 5 star hotels, or luxury houses. Because none of those are “value for money”.

lol. you are kidding right? that might be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. and might explain, why you are reducing this whole argument down to your own perspective.

I wouldn't do that, or I can't do that therefore I don't want to, is not the same as I wouldn't want to do that if I understood it more or could.

I participate in some very high level restaurant/food type discussion boards. The usual refrain from newcomers and those trying to learn, is that some super expensive restaurant isn't good value for money because you can get something superficially similar for less. after probing them for a while, it usually becomes clear that the same old chestnut applies - that they think of a meal at a certain level in terms of sustenance. which is not only wrong, its not the way those people who do truly value and frequent such places think. the same argument appears all over the shop across various products and interests that may or not appeal to each of us. However, because I don't understand the market for fine watches, doesn't mean there isn't anything to know.

put another way: Aesthetics vs Utility is a common and clumsy (not to mention misguided) debate.

If poorer people really cared about value for money, they’d buy new Scandinavian household appliances that cost 30-40% more than the cheaper brands, but will last, almost literally, a lifetime.

again, the utility debate.

mind you I think you'll find a certain scandinavian household supply company is doing quite well. and that design is a huge part of their approach, as well as function.

The difference? Disposable income and the limits or otherwise on a person’s options.

but it doesn't change their ambitions and values. Most people can't afford a ferrari, doesn't mean they don't appreciate or aspire to own one.

There is no reason to assume that a person who has paid more for their season ticket will automatically be more likely to attend more games.

there is no reason to assume anyone ever said that.

someone who pays more is more likely to use it or find someone to use it = end result the same.

OK, now tell me about my “personal means and politics”. Seriously. I’d love to see a demonstration of your omniscience.

you've done a great job of this, again.

”Raising the price” is not the same as “changing the value that people place on the commodity”.

actually it is. unless the demand is inelastic, as you tried to pretend (badly) you weren't arguing earlier. nice work.

A Crows season ticket is not just “11 (or 8, or 9) footy tickets”. It offers (some people will care more about these than others)
- When combined with a Gold Membership, a guaranteed GF ticket
- Convenience (no buying a ticket each week, reserved seat)
- Support for your club (proceeds to club, more than daily tickets)
- Status, even, perhaps, to some

we can all reading the market blurb thanks.

It is a single commodity that offers, for a certain $ outlay, one year’s worth of the above. The $/game figure is just one aspect. And there is no reason to suppose that a person who wants that commodity, and can afford to pay, say, $500 for that commodity, is automatically more likely to attend more games.

do you think repeating the same misrepresented point, somehow makes it more true?

Practical reality: Not everyone who buys a season ticket will attend every game. Unless you make it easy for people to pass on their unused ticket (i.e. without having to find their own replacement) those seats will remain empty. No matter how much the person paid for them.

its method vs motivation again.

you have invented this idea that finding their own replacement is the issue. without any basis mind you.

effort vs reward is a fairly well understood concept, for most people anyway.

doesn't seem to be too many problems re-distributing grand final tickets. its not legal, its not "easy" but it happens plenty. and whats the big difference between a $20 ticket and a $1500 ticket.

would you like to ask the audience? maybe phone a friend?

NB. I gave up here, too much of the same repetitive, redacted stuff over and over.

I am not going to get sucked into another debate with you waiting for someone to drop out through boredom and attrition. saves actually engaging with the points I guess.

if you have something new to say let me know.

 

[Crow-mo]

It doesn't matter how many times my ticket goes in to the daily sales pool, as you have pointed out, the fewer games I am able to attend, the more likely I am to give up the membership. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether my ticket is used or not - my decision to renew my membership will be based on other factors, including how many games I am able to attend.

If I attend 5 games in a season, and the club facilitates resale, then my ticket may be used for 11 games. If the club does not facilitate resale, then my seat will be vacant for 6 games.

There is no difference to me, when it comes to deciding whether to renew my membership.

what did I say about you reducing everything down to how your own small picture view of the world sees things.

so *YOU* won't change, big deal. smash the system

 

[arrowman]

what did I say about you reducing everything down to how your own small picture view of the world sees things.

so *YOU* won't change, big deal. smash the system

Sorry, I should have realised you'd take my "I" literally.

 

[feenix67]

and I guarantee you if you pay $100 per game you'll try harder to find someone to take it.

Funniest thing Ive read in quite some time

 

[arrowman]

… because all you are doing reducing the argument to the small picture view of how you think…

Not at all. I don’t have a sister, for a start

I am well aware of the pitfalls of extrapolating one’s personal view/circumstances/values etc to the general case. (e.g. I don’t mind going to AAMI Stadium for the footy, so I don’t see why anyone else should prefer a new venue) And that is not what I am doing. You choose to think that that is what I am doing, because it suits you.

there is no such thing as marketing theory, it is not an acknowledged discipline. just thought you might want to know.

I know a few marketing professionals who might disagree with you.

and er, you should have stayed in school if you think that's a small population. as far as observable samples go, that is freaking massive. huge.

And, er, I didn’t say it was all about size.

If you think that the population of SA residents who might be interested in attending Crows games is a legitimate target for a general application of economic theory without taking into consideration any other factors, just because of the “sample size”, then good for you.

you still caught up in reducing things down to how you feel, and how you want things to be.

Sigh.

there is no reason to think the supporters of the Adelaide Football Club are in any way unique.

I didn’t say they were (unique).

I would argue surrounded by a bunch of meaningless, random statements in not valid. especially when it is trying to invalidate basic economics.

I’m not trying to “invalidate basic economics”, just pointing out that the application of “basic economics” to the exclusion of all other factors is misguided and limited. Then again, you don’t think marketing is a legitimate discipline so I suppose that’s to be expected.

there will always be reasons why, it doesn't matter why. why doesn't change or influence anything. why, shows up how mis-conceived your argument is.

Apparently you are having trouble understanding my point. I’m not saying the “why” matters, I’m saying that the “whys” are (by and large) the same or similar for all people, regardless of their disposable income, and there is no reason to suppose that a wealthier person would be more likely to use their ticket, or make sure someone else used it, given the same set of circumstances.

there will be reasons why whether the prices are $1.00 and reasons why if they are $2,000 - how you feel about those reasons, and what you will do in response is relevant.

And, according to you, people who have paid more for their ticket will be more likely to try to find someone to take their place at the game. That does not follow.

Your argument is valid in one sense - if tickets are priced at higher levels, and (and this is important) a rare commodity, almost impossible to come by, then the person who owns the ticket is more likely to find themselves besieged by friends and relatives wanting to use it. But that does not mean that the person who owns the ticket is necessarily more likely to want to see it used, or is prepared to put in more effort to ensure that it is used.

whether you choose to go to the game is only one part of the issue, what you then do is probably more important?

Yes, exactly. It seems you were unable to understand why I was talking about reasons why people miss games. You really shouldn’t be so arrogant, dismissive and didactic when you can’t follow the other person’s argument.

you are also crazy if you think someone values $60 the same way they value $40. not just wrong, insane.

How about acknowledging and possibly rebutting the point about disposable income, instead of resorting to abuse?

Or, to put it another way: You are crazy if you think that someone with an annual income of $200,000+ will be just as concerned about making sure their $60 football ticket is used, as someone on the average wage. Not just crazy ...

this might well be true to some extent. but those new people, are more likely to find a use for those tickets. people just do not smoke $100 bills for the fun of it. the more it costs them the more aligned their incentives are to find an alternative user. after all, the club doesn't care WHO uses.

Since we’re focusing on basic economics here, would you care to explain just why a person who has chosen to pay, say, $600 for a season ticket, expecting they will attend, say, 8 games in the season, is somehow more motivated to find a replacement for the other 3 games? What difference does it make to that person if their seat is vacant, or not?

the other tenet that underlies each of your fanciful theories, is that the only thing holding people back from passing their ticket on is method and means. what comes first, always comes first, always will, is motivation.

Of course motivation comes first. But method and means are important, too.

If the club wants to increase attendances, they need to make it easy for people to find replacements. They shouldn’t just rely on people being motivated to go to extra effort.

One analagous argument is that of recycling. It’s one thing to appeal to people’s better natures, but if you don’t provide an easy means (e.g. council collections of recycling bins), then it won’t happen - at least not to the extent that you would like.

do you know how many $2,000 seats on the halfway line for the Chicago Bears goes unsold? do you know how many get left empty on game day?

Not all Crows season tickets are on the halfway line.
Tickets to Crows games are not almost impossible to get.
Bears tickets on the halfway line are not valued only because they are expensive - they are valued because they are in very short supply.
People who hold $2,000 tickets are likely to be surrounded by friends, acquaintances and family who have their hands out for “you know, any time you can’t go…”.

Speaking of fanciful ideas: Putting Crows season tickets in the same class as seats on the halfway line for the Chicago Bears, and assuming the same principles will apply to the way people buy and use those tickets

do you have any basis for suggesting wealthier people value a dollar less?

No, because that’s not what I was suggesting. "Value"? No, they don't value it less. But people with higher disposable incomes are less likely to be concerned about the waste of a commodity they have purchased out of that income.

I participate in some very high level restaurant/food type discussion boards.

That doesn’t surprise me

The usual refrain from newcomers and those trying to learn, is that some super expensive restaurant isn't good value for money because you can get something superficially similar for less. after probing them for a while, it usually becomes clear that the same old chestnut applies - that they think of a meal at a certain level in terms of sustenance. which is not only wrong, its not the way those people who do truly value and frequent such places think….

My point is made and you have dodged it.

An expensive item (luxury car, dinner in a fine restaurant etc) can only be considered “value for money” if you include personal desires, values, interests etc in the equation, in addition to pure utility. (Not to mention, in a lot of cases, pure w@nk value.)

A ticket to the footy is not exactly in the same class as dinner at a fine restaurant, or a fine watch.

mind you I think you'll find a certain scandinavian household supply company is doing quite well. and that design is a huge part of their approach, as well as function.

Sell a lot of their appliances to the lower end of the socio-economic scale, do they?

but it doesn't change their ambitions and values. Most people can't afford a ferrari, doesn't mean they don't appreciate or aspire to own one.

Doesn’t mean a Ferrari is value for money, though.

you have invented this idea that finding their own replacement is the issue. without any basis mind you.

I am simply putting it forward as a plausible explanation for why there is not a greater takeup of unused seats. Do you not think it is plausible?

NB. I gave up here, too much of the same repetitive, redacted stuff over and over.

I wasn’t aware I had redacted anything. I did snip some of my quotes of your post, for brevity. Is that what you’re talking about?

you've done a great job of this, again.

No, I’m deadly serious. Please describe my “personal means and politics”. After all, you are the one who is making self-serving assumptions about the motivation for my arguments.

And no, I’m not going to keep on at this like a dog with a bone, hoping for you to drop out through boredom and attrition.

I’ve grown out of that

 

[feenix67]

[Crow-mo]the other tenet that underlies each of your fanciful theories, is that the only thing holding people back from passing their ticket on is method and means. what comes first, always comes first, always will, is motivation.

[arrowman]Of course motivation comes first. But method and means are important, too. If the club wants to increase attendances, they need to make it easy for people to find replacements. They shouldn’t just rely on people being motivated to go to extra effort.

One analagous argument is that of recycling. It’s one thing to appeal to people’s better natures, but if you don’t provide an easy means (e.g. council collections of recycling bins), then it won’t happen - at least not to the extent that you would like.

There is an additional factor here that Crow-mo overlooks. Making it easier to transfer your ticket, via an online exchange function for example, also increases the likelihood of the ticket being taken up. Rather than promoting the availability to family and circle of friends and acquaintances, it's being promoted to any potential interested party.

Maximise your market reach - Marketing 101

 

[cmndstab]

this is certainly part of the problem?

- what do they lose by allowing re-sale? not very much, approaching nothing.
BUT
- What do they "think" they lose? they lose turnover of members, and make it harder for someone on the waiting list to progress.

if you're not going to go, by not allowing re-sale they are encouraging you to give it up.

no one here seems to think the club could consider them expendable.

I must admit, this is an angle I hadn't really considered. I wonder if there have been any studies of this on our market?

I have an uncle who is still working 70 hour weeks of physical labour at the age of 70 because he doesn't have enough money to retire yet. He has season silver members tickets, as does his wife. He attends around 3 games a year. He sometimes tries to give the tickets away. More often than note, however, those seats go empty.

He got those tickets back in 1991. He hasn't been a regularly attendee of matches since the premiership years. He pays his money for the seats each year, and they go empty most matches, but he's never shown any sign of wanting to give them up. This is not a guy who is rolling in money.


Is he representative of our ticket holders, or an outlier? Does not allowing re-sale actually encourage a nontrivial percentage of our non-attending ticketed members to cancel their seat?

 

[Crow-mo]

Funniest thing Ive read in quite some time

funnier than your stuff on Matthew Lloyds redefined kicking action?

surely not.

 

[Crow-mo]

An expensive item (luxury car, dinner in a fine restaurant etc) can only be considered “value for money” if you include personal desires, values, interests etc in the equation, in addition to pure utility. (Not to mention, in a lot of cases, pure w@nk value.)

A ticket to the footy is not exactly in the same class as dinner at a fine restaurant, or a fine watch.

lets park the endless blah, dull.

I'm interested in this. specifically the idea that somehow referencing someone's knowledge and specialty interest is unusual or atypical?

take art or antiques, the knuckle scraping luddites may not get it - but are you saying that their view of the worth is the true value, and those with knowledge, education and interest are somehow distorting the market?

just out of curiousity how many, and which, subjects do you think its valid to label wank without having any personal, informed knowledge of the subject?

Art, Food, Classical Music, Theatre, Cars, Literature, Wine, Watches etc etc. which ones?

if it helps, you could just refer to those subjects that you have detailed speciality knowledge of and still consider "wank".

NB. "I know what I like" is not a valid input

 

[Crow-mo]

I must admit, this is an angle I hadn't really considered. I wonder if there have been any studies of this on our market?

I have an uncle who is still working 70 hour weeks of physical labour at the age of 70 because he doesn't have enough money to retire yet. He has season silver members tickets, as does his wife. He attends around 3 games a year. He sometimes tries to give the tickets away. More often than note, however, those seats go empty.

He got those tickets back in 1991. He hasn't been a regularly attendee of matches since the premiership years. He pays his money for the seats each year, and they go empty most matches, but he's never shown any sign of wanting to give them up. This is not a guy who is rolling in money.


Is he representative of our ticket holders, or an outlier? Does not allowing re-sale actually encourage a nontrivial percentage of our non-attending ticketed members to cancel their seat?

incidentally I am not sure I think prohibiting resale encourages people to give up their seats, I do think that is part of the concern though. that no one will give up the tickets, and the waiting list remains static if no one needs to relinquish their seat.

obviously if everyone thinks like Arrowman, then they should raise the price to $5,000 per ticket. the situation won't change, no one will give up their seats, but the club will be rolling in it nonetheless.

if you take the view of the club, if you sit in Trigg's seat, how do feel about your uncle when there are new wannabe members on the waiting list?

 

[cmndstab]

if you take the view of the club, if you sit in Trigg's seat, how do feel about your uncle when there are new wannabe members on the waiting list?

I feel pretty much the same way now as I would in Trigg's shoes - I wish he'd relinquish the tickets and just buy a seat when he wants to go. I don't understand why you'd hang on to it for what is obviously more money than it would cost to just buy the tickets when you want to go. If I were him, I'd just change myself to an unticketed member (which is what I am since I'm rarely free on weekends).


However, being that he has no intention to give it back, unless the ticket prices rise to crazy levels (which I really don't like as a solution), I'd like to see some easy way for his tickets to be made available to be re-sold to the public. I don't see why this can't happen. Unless we're going to use the argument that other ticketed members might not want the "riff raff" sitting next to them all of a sudden.

 

[feenix67]

funnier than your stuff on Matthew Lloyds redefined kicking action?

surely not.

1000 times funnier

 

[weneverland]

again 2 things here:

1. if you don't learn from the patterns of your past behaviour then you are a unique outlier here
2. you're trying to reduce this down to what would make you go every week, and that misses the point. you might be the sort of member who needs to be replaced - if you consider it a problem.

and I guarantee you if you pay $100 per game you'll try harder to find someone to take it.

Why? The money has been spent. Lending my ticket out doesn't change my position no matter what I paid for it at the beginning of the year.

 

[cmndstab]

Why? The money has been spent. Lending my ticket out doesn't change my position no matter what I paid for it at the beginning of the year.

This is good logic, but people aren't generally creatures of logic. It does start to get harder to justify to yourself why you spent money when you're not getting any kind of return out of it. The act of passing the ticket on is a small return, but it is a return in the form of feeling good and doing a favour to someone nonetheless.

The more you spent, the worse you feel about not getting any return out of it, even if you've already spent the money.


I suppose it's the same reason gamblers get into trouble. Once their money is on the table, it's spent, but they don't see it that way.

 

[subaru]

I have Cat 1 and every other year have made it to at least 5 or 6 Port games as well as most of the Crows home games. I must admit though, the weather this year saw me go to only about 2 Port games.

I will not be renewing as Cat 1 this year - I learnt to live without going to Port games! Guess that makes me one of Port's bandwaggoners!
Cat 2 fine for me.