2021 Membership Thread

[Northernsoul74]

Where can I find this?

Member email yesterday.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

There's a wheel to spin for each member on the dogs website, everyone wins something. Free to spin. I got free shipping for Dogs store. Maybe someone here will get lucky with a major prize like signed jumper?

I can’t believe ‘free shipping’ is a prize. I ended up with a free cap which I can’t wear because I have a peanut-sized head.

 

[maddog37]

I can’t believe ‘free shipping’ is a prize. I ended up with a free cap which I can’t wear because I have a peanut-sized head.

 

[CarnTheScray]

 

[Spiritof82]

View attachment 1195906

How actual is this figure, membership used to be made up of full membership numbers, ie 22 or 11 game memberships, now they count 3 game memberships, one game memberships and pet memberships (every club does it apart from Sh*tney and the plastics who don't have any living members so just use numbers from the local cemeteries).

If we really want to fudge the figure next year and get a record figure we should just only sell one game memberships and push the figure beyond 60,000.

 

[dogwatch]

How actual is this figure, membership used to be made up of full membership numbers, ie 22 or 11 game memberships, now they count 3 game memberships, one game memberships and pet memberships (every club does it apart from Sh*tney and the plastics who don't have any living members so just use numbers from the local cemeteries).

If we really want to fudge the figure next year and get a record figure we should just only sell one game memberships and push the figure beyond 60,000.

Based on what I've read here it's pretty much meaningless.

The only figures that would mean anything to me would be
(1) A detailed breakdown showing sales numbers for all membership categories
(2) Gross revenue from membership (all categories)

Then we might have something that we could compare between clubs or from one year to the next. However I doubt you'll ever see this information published by any club.

Perhaps one other somewhat meaningful figure would be the combined number of 11-game and 22-game memberships sold by the club. It wouldn't be comprehensive but it would be a fair indication for comparative purposes.

 

[Chicago1]

Anyone who criticizes Pet Memberships will have to answer to four year member Zsa Zsa.

On GT-I9505 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CarnTheScray]

Seen doggies fans on Facebook saying we should’ve hit 50k. Yeah we probably should’ve…but put things into perspective.

In the past ten years we have really only been a very very good side in two of those years, 2016 and 2021. Compare that to Geelong (as much as I hate them) who only had 7k more members than us in 2011. They won 3 flags ten years ago AND have been extremely good in the ten years since and haven’t stopped. They have about 24k more members.

So I think for our circumstances especially seeing our membership numbers ten years ago, we are in a good spot.

 

[ScottyDogg]

Based on what I've read here it's pretty much meaningless.

The only figures that would mean anything to me would be
(1) A detailed breakdown showing sales numbers for all membership categories
(2) Gross revenue from membership (all categories)

Then we might have something that we could compare between clubs or from one year to the next. However I doubt you'll ever see this information published by any club.

Perhaps one other somewhat meaningful figure would be the combined number of 11-game and 22-game memberships sold by the club. It wouldn't be comprehensive but it would be a fair indication for comparative purposes.

dogwatch are you suggesting that it’s all a farce? Some sort of membership conspiracy? If everyone else was a part of cheating the system, why would we continue to fight the trend and stick with “true memberships?” How does that help the club?

I absolutely get where your coming from because the leaderboard is hard to comprehend but the only conclusion I can come to is that we are doing something wrong in this department.



Let’s start with Essendon, they have been a rabble for two decades, literally no success, yet have a huge base. I can only assume that is simply a product of history and the ability to geographically dominate a part of Melbourne and convert through generations. A bloody good effort in the last 20 years. Carlton exactly the same. You have to really give it to both clubs, these are no fair weather fans. I would have microwaved my Carlton membership years ago.

St Kilda and North Melbourne are the ones that most boggle the mind. They are in much more competitive areas of Melbourne (we don’t directly compete with anyone, except maybe Geelong) and have a huge pool of potential new fans in our area. Both clubs have shite lists with no real marketable stars. Max King and Tarryn Thomas might become marquee players but aren’t near it yet. And they have both been a rabble for a decade.

I agree that we haven’t been a top 4 caliber team in Bevo’s era but we have been stacked with highly marketable stars, have played a visually appealing brand and won the grand final in an extraordinary way that the media could not have even dreamed up.

There must be some obvious answers to why we can’t convert or create new memberships.

I think we have a lot more to answer for in terms of our own membership approach.

 

[Libbaaaa]

You have to take these figures with a grain of salt. There is no world in which GWS have over 10,000 members or Gold Coast 5,000. All these club records when no one has been able to go to the footy is BS too. Plus I've met more than 50 Demons supporters in my life yet they have 50,000 members, sure.

 

[DognBones]

Irrespective of the composition of the above totals, they certainly don't flatter our membership marketing. With so many indicators in our favour: game style, recruiting, recent performance and expansion into a broader heartland, you would think we could do at least as well as StKilda and far better than North. Perhaps Covid has affected our cohort financially more than others, but whatever reasons we can define, the evidence shows that our numbers have stagnated since 2016.
I'm not saying our membership department doesn't work hard but this result gives ammunition for some soul searching IMO.

 

[CarnTheScray]

Just had a look at the AFL released numbers. Hahaha what a joke. They count my free Carlton and St Kilda memberships in the tally.

I would not be opposed to us doing that ourselves….maybe it would get a few of the seven million bulldogs supporters that I know who don’t buy memberships onboard.

 

[Boristown]

How about the crooks at St Kilda. Hyped up their premiership credentials over the off season and got their fan base all fizzed up. Signed up a record number of members off the back of the marketing spin and then when it came apparent 10 weeks in their list is ****ed and about as shallow as a kiddies swimming pool, they do a 180 and tell the members that NEXT year is actually when they'll start pushing for a flag.

Should be done for false advertising.

 

[Timewillcome]

2017 didnt help us to hold the bandwagon support we received. Early games in 2017 were packed, we lost form and lost a lot of those mid season. May have happened anyway but being competitive and challenging each year helps.

Geelong are interesting in that they are a one team town and successful over an extended period, but are limited to capacity of their stadium. I think they would have more if they had more seating.

These numbers are somewhat fiction. I doubt some of these reported at the top. There is no consistency in what constitures a membership and whether you actually need to be a real person who paid money. Essendon have 80K but play at Marvel to a fully ticketed stadium. Not sure how or why 30,000 people buy a membership where they are unable to attend a home game in any capacity, other than the rare MCG games where capacity is still limited. If it was reported as membership revenue then they are clearly doing very well (assuming they are all paid) but that harder for the average person to understand.

AFL membership with club affliliation will be part of this. Collingwood and Essendon have decent numbers from this.

Most people want to be associated (generally) with a big club that is a winner. This is where its a benefit to fluff these figures for marketing purposes.

I think a smaller number like to be a part of an underdog club that punches above its weight. All clubs have a solid base that varies in size between clubs. Our base is relatively small. Until we consistently produce results we will struggle to maintain our new members. Or start B.S-ing like some others.

 

[LondonBulldog]

Every Carlton 11 and 22 game member got an extra membership this year. So wonder what there true number is, definitely not 81k.

They really need to break it down to 11 and 22 game membership. I'm sure we would still be towards the lower end yet I doubt many clubs would be over 50k in that category, maybe west coast.

 

[Spiritof82]

You have to take these figures with a grain of salt. There is no world in which GWS have over 10,000 members or Gold Coast 5,000. All these club records when no one has been able to go to the footy is BS too. Plus I've met more than 50 Demons supporters in my life yet they have 50,000 members, sure.

Melbourne count MCC members as part of their tally which is why its so high, even though most MCC members don't give a damm about Melbourne

 

[CarnTheScray]

Every Carlton 11 and 22 game member got an extra membership this year. So wonder what there true number is, definitely not 81k.

They’d have around 60-65k paying members.

 

[dogwatch]

dogwatch are you suggesting that it’s all a farce? Some sort of membership conspiracy? If everyone else was a part of cheating the system, why would we continue to fight the trend and stick with “true memberships?” How does that help the club?

I absolutely get where your coming from because the leaderboard is hard to comprehend but the only conclusion I can come to is that we are doing something wrong in this department.

<snip>

Let’s start with Essendon, they have been a rabble for two decades, literally no success, yet have a huge base. I can only assume that is simply a product of history and the ability to geographically dominate a part of Melbourne and convert through generations. A bloody good effort in the last 20 years. Carlton exactly the same. You have to really give it to both clubs, these are no fair weather fans. I would have microwaved my Carlton membership years ago.

St Kilda and North Melbourne are the ones that most boggle the mind. They are in much more competitive areas of Melbourne (we don’t directly compete with anyone, except maybe Geelong) and have a huge pool of potential new fans in our area. Both clubs have sh*te lists with no real marketable stars. Max King and Tarryn Thomas might become marquee players but aren’t near it yet. And they have both been a rabble for a decade.

I agree that we haven’t been a top 4 caliber team in Bevo’s era but we have been stacked with highly marketable stars, have played a visually appealing brand and won the grand final in an extraordinary way that the media could not have even dreamed up.

There must be some obvious answers to why we can’t convert or create new memberships.

I think we have a lot more to answer for in terms of our own membership approach.

Thanks for the graphic, SD. It makes fascinating reading.

In response to your questions:
Are you suggesting that it’s all a farce?

Farce is probably too strong a word. "Charade" might be a better one. I don't have first hand evidence. I'm going on literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of posts here over the years that describe some of the lurks being practised by clubs (including us quite often). Beside your annual 11-game or 22-game membership you have all sorts of things like interstate memberships (usually 5-game), 3-game memberships, pet memberships, giveaways, "pay one forward" memberships, VU student memberships and others that I can't recall now. In simplistic fashion the AFL just adds up all these assorted memberships and reports it to the public as a single bottom-line number. So for these purposes it appears that a pet membership is the same as a 22-game membership. Sorry if you're reading this Zsa Zsa but that doesn't cut it with me.​

​

Some sort of membership conspiracy?

No, it's not a conspiracy because that implies some of the key players are secretly working together to undermine others. Rather I think clubs are acting independently doing what they can to make themselves look good relative to others.​

​

Why would they do this? Clearly inflating the membership tally doesn't increase the gross revenue from those memberships. So what's in it for the clubs? Being higher on the published table is a great selling point to potential sponsors. I know most sponsors will do their own due diligence but consider a hypothetical cashed-up new sponsor wanting to get exposure through an AFL club. It might be an old established local firm (say Coles) or it might be a new entry on the Australian market by a successful overseas company (eg Mission a few years back, or a supermarket chain like Aldi). The ideal club to sponsor would be say a Richmond (100,000+ members) or a Collingwood (80,000+) but they might already have their top-tier sponsors filled (meaning available exposure opportunities with that club are limited) or they might have too high an asking price. So if you look down the list a club like St Kilda or Melbourne could be quite attractive. They might be asking less in cash terms yet on face value have between 64% and 68% of the members that Collingwood has and - so the logic goes- the same level of non-member support in the wider community. This appears to be a more attractive option than sponsoring the WB which on these numbers only have 56% of the membership that Collingwood has.​

​

Of course there is also the benefit of having bragging rights and just looking like a successful club. It's a generalisation but a lot of people would rather throw their lot in with a successful outfit rather than be associated with a battling one. That's why sustained success is probably the only way out of the little league, as it has been for Hawthorn. (Geelong as a regional club is slightly different, but its dynasty from 2007-2021 has certainly helped.)​

​

Broadcasters would have very sophisticated metrics on viewing patterns so they wouldn't pay all that much attention to the crude membership league ladder above. However the same principle applies. The bigger your following the more exposure you'll get (and therefore the more likely it will be that new generations of members will support your club). I imagine broadcasters would have compiled their own league ladder based on viewing audiences for each club and that it wouldn't be much different to the membership table above. A similar thing probably applies in other media, where it never hurts to have a story or a picture featuring Essendon or Collingwood. That will keep the advertisers happy.​

​

If everyone else was a part of cheating the system, why would we continue to fight the trend and stick with “true memberships?” How does that help the club?

Good question. Perhaps we don't stick to "true" memberships any more than the other clubs do? But if we do perhaps we have our own reasons. Whatever the answer is, I am comforted by the evidence of recent years that despite all these disadvantages and seemingly poor performance indicators, we are doing exceptionally well on the indicators that count - on-field results, financial viability and organisational stability. At the end of the day that's all that matters.​

 

[dogwatch]

You have to take these figures with a grain of salt. There is no world in which GWS have over 10,000 members or Gold Coast 5,000. All these club records when no one has been able to go to the footy is BS too. Plus I've met more than 50 Demons supporters in my life yet they have 50,000 members, sure.

I can't comment on Gold Coast but I can certainly believe the GWS numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if they had close to 10,000 in Canberra alone. These would probably only be 3-game memberships for GWS home games played at Manuka. A friend of mine and most of his family are mad Saints supporters but they have a bunch of GWS memberships so they can watch live AFL (whoever is playing GWS). I know of others who do the same. I even bought a $50 membership in the Giants' first year just so we could be certain of having games in the ACT (and back then they usually featured the WB). It doesn't mean all the ACT members are primarily Giants supporters. It might even be a minority who would call them "their" team. It just makes sense to buy a membership if you like watching AFL live in Canberra.

Getting another 20,000 - 25,000 members out of the Sydney region of 5 million+ people shouldn't be that hard. They do look insipid and poorly supported but most Sydneysiders don't display the same overt passion as those in the southern states.

 

[flipper83]

dogwatch are you suggesting that it’s all a farce? Some sort of membership conspiracy? If everyone else was a part of cheating the system, why would we continue to fight the trend and stick with “true memberships?” How does that help the club?

I absolutely get where your coming from because the leaderboard is hard to comprehend but the only conclusion I can come to is that we are doing something wrong in this department.

View attachment 1196267

Let’s start with Essendon, they have been a rabble for two decades, literally no success, yet have a huge base. I can only assume that is simply a product of history and the ability to geographically dominate a part of Melbourne and convert through generations. A bloody good effort in the last 20 years. Carlton exactly the same. You have to really give it to both clubs, these are no fair weather fans. I would have microwaved my Carlton membership years ago.

St Kilda and North Melbourne are the ones that most boggle the mind. They are in much more competitive areas of Melbourne (we don’t directly compete with anyone, except maybe Geelong) and have a huge pool of potential new fans in our area. Both clubs have sh*te lists with no real marketable stars. Max King and Tarryn Thomas might become marquee players but aren’t near it yet. And they have both been a rabble for a decade.

I agree that we haven’t been a top 4 caliber team in Bevo’s era but we have been stacked with highly marketable stars, have played a visually appealing brand and won the grand final in an extraordinary way that the media could not have even dreamed up.

There must be some obvious answers to why we can’t convert or create new memberships.

I think we have a lot more to answer for in terms of our own membership approach.

A few years ago I graphed the membership figures for all the Melbourne clubs from the start of the AFL era. It pretty much showed that, with the exception of Hawthorn, all clubs memberships increased at about the same rate which was also the rate that the population of Melbourne had grown. This was before the Richmond premierships so things might have changed a bit.

I think what it shows us that new members predominantly choose teams based on the influence of other people more so than membership campaigns or even team success.
It's logical to assume that kids will follow the team that their parents are members of and adults who become members might be influenced by friends or colleagues who are members of clubs.
Therefore clubs with more members are more likely to attract new members through their existing members.
To buck this trend clubs need to attract new members who don't have existing influence or contrary to the existing influence.

Team success is one possible way that clubs might be able to do this, as Hawthorn has shown, but it seems like it needs to be extreme, continued success to have much influence.

The other factor is exposure which unfortunately is where big clubs get another advantage.

I've met a few members of Essendon who became members due to the ANZAC day clash. The football became a part of their routine and eventually they became more regular followers of the club.

As a supporter trying to recruit a new supporter it is an easier sell to get them to come to a marquee game than a Sunday Twilight game.
Also people without a personal influence are most likely to get interested by watching football on tv and choosing a club based on that. Clubs that are shown on free to air tv more frequently have an advantage in attracting these supporters.

The last thing to consider is that a lot of people choose their clubs as kids. This is where a big chunk of new members will eventually come from but there is probably a 10 year lag between the choice a kid makes and then becoming a paid up member.

Unfortunately the AFL seems to still be stuck in the past with fixturing with the 'big 4' Cubs still getting favorable fixturing despite having minimal success.

We're lucky that channel 7 actually requested for us to have more primetime games because of our attractive gamestyle. Hopefully we can partner this with some on field success over the next few years and we might be able to increase our members more dramatically.

 

[CarnTheScray]

A few years ago I graphed the membership figures for all the Melbourne clubs from the start of the AFL era. It pretty much showed that, with the exception of Hawthorn, all clubs memberships increased at about the same rate which was also the rate that the population of Melbourne had grown. This was before the Richmond premierships so things might have changed a bit.

I think what it shows us that new members predominantly choose teams based on the influence of other people more so than membership campaigns or even team success.
It's logical to assume that kids will follow the team that their parents are members of and adults who become members might be influenced by friends or colleagues who are members of clubs.
Therefore clubs with more members are more likely to attract new members through their existing members.
To buck this trend clubs need to attract new members who don't have existing influence or contrary to the existing influence.

Team success is one possible way that clubs might be able to do this, as Hawthorn has shown, but it seems like it needs to be extreme, continued success to have much influence.

The other factor is exposure which unfortunately is where big clubs get another advantage.

I've met a few members of Essendon who became members due to the ANZAC day clash. The football became a part of their routine and eventually they became more regular followers of the club.

As a supporter trying to recruit a new supporter it is an easier sell to get them to come to a marquee game than a Sunday Twilight game.
Also people without a personal influence are most likely to get interested by watching football on tv and choosing a club based on that. Clubs that are shown on free to air tv more frequently have an advantage in attracting these supporters.

The last thing to consider is that a lot of people choose their clubs as kids. This is where a big chunk of new members will eventually come from but there is probably a 10 year lag between the choice a kid makes and then becoming a paid up member.

Unfortunately the AFL seems to still be stuck in the past with fixturing with the 'big 4' Cubs still getting favorable fixturing despite having minimal success.

We're lucky that channel 7 actually requested for us to have more primetime games because of our attractive gamestyle. Hopefully we can partner this with some on field success over the next few years and we might be able to increase our members more dramatically.

Could not have said it any better. We need a run of sustained success similar to Geelong and Hawthorns runs if we want to grow exponentially rather than only by a few thousand each year.

Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of the big clubs where we not only have a larger fair weather supporter base that can boost membership by 10,000+ year on year but also more media exposure and marquee slots. The big clubs also attract new supporters simply because people will choose who their other family members and friends go for.

Hawks have broken into the top echelon after 4 flags and multiple grand finals and finals series. Even then they seem to have very variable crowds with one week pulling 70k then they pull 15k the week after.

One good thing we have going for us is that we look to be a good side for a long time and have a market in the western suburbs, with really only the already established big 4 clubs challenging us for members there.

We’ll need to win more flags and also have a good marketing push if we want break out of the little league. No other way really. Though if we achieve this I think we’ll have an easier time retaining the good attendance numbers than Hawthorn.

 

[ScottyDogg]

Irrespective of the composition of the above totals, they certainly don't flatter our membership marketing. With so many indicators in our favour: game style, recruiting, recent performance and expansion into a broader heartland, you would think we could do at least as well as StKilda and far better than North. Perhaps Covid has affected our cohort financially more than others, but whatever reasons we can define, the evidence shows that our numbers have stagnated since 2016.
I'm not saying our membership department doesn't work hard but this result gives ammunition for some soul searching IMO.

100% this

 

[ScottyDogg]

Thanks for the graphic, SD. It makes fascinating reading.

In response to your questions:
Are you suggesting that it’s all a farce?

Farce is probably too strong a word. "Charade" might be a better one. I don't have first hand evidence. I'm going on literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of posts here over the years that describe some of the lurks being practised by clubs (including us quite often). Beside your annual 11-game or 22-game membership you have all sorts of things like interstate memberships (usually 5-game), 3-game memberships, pet memberships, giveaways, "pay one forward" memberships, VU student memberships and others that I can't recall now. In simplistic fashion the AFL just adds up all these assorted memberships and reports it to the public as a single bottom-line number. So for these purposes it appears that a pet membership is the same as a 22-game membership. Sorry if you're reading this Zsa Zsa but that doesn't cut it with me.​

​

Some sort of membership conspiracy?

No, it's not a conspiracy because that implies some of the key players are secretly working together to undermine others. Rather I think clubs are acting independently doing what they can to make themselves look good relative to others.​

​

Why would they do this? Clearly inflating the membership tally doesn't increase the gross revenue from those memberships. So what's in it for the clubs? Being higher on the published table is a great selling point to potential sponsors. I know most sponsors will do their own due diligence but consider a hypothetical cashed-up new sponsor wanting to get exposure through an AFL club. It might be an old established local firm (say Coles) or it might be a new entry on the Australian market by a successful overseas company (eg Mission a few years back, or a supermarket chain like Aldi). The ideal club to sponsor would be say a Richmond (100,000+ members) or a Collingwood (80,000+) but they might already have their top-tier sponsors filled (meaning available exposure opportunities with that club are limited) or they might have too high an asking price. So if you look down the list a club like St Kilda or Melbourne could be quite attractive. They might be asking less in cash terms yet on face value have between 64% and 68% of the members that Collingwood has and - so the logic goes- the same level of non-member support in the wider community. This appears to be a more attractive option than sponsoring the WB which on these numbers only have 56% of the membership that Collingwood has.​

​

Of course there is also the benefit of having bragging rights and just looking like a successful club. It's a generalisation but a lot of people would rather throw their lot in with a successful outfit rather than be associated with a battling one. That's why sustained success is probably the only way out of the little league, as it has been for Hawthorn. (Geelong as a regional club is slightly different, but its dynasty from 2007-2021 has certainly helped.)​

​

Broadcasters would have very sophisticated metrics on viewing patterns so they wouldn't pay all that much attention to the crude membership league ladder above. However the same principle applies. The bigger your following the more exposure you'll get (and therefore the more likely it will be that new generations of members will support your club). I imagine broadcasters would have compiled their own league ladder based on viewing audiences for each club and that it wouldn't be much different to the membership table above. A similar thing probably applies in other media, where it never hurts to have a story or a picture featuring Essendon or Collingwood. That will keep the advertisers happy.​

​

If everyone else was a part of cheating the system, why would we continue to fight the trend and stick with “true memberships?” How does that help the club?

Good question. Perhaps we don't stick to "true" memberships any more than the other clubs do? But if we do perhaps we have our own reasons. Whatever the answer is, I am comforted by the evidence of recent years that despite all these disadvantages and seemingly poor performance indicators, we are doing exceptionally well on the indicators that count - on-field results, financial viability and organisational stability. At the end of the day that's all that matters.​

Spot on with the last bit dogwatch! Would prefer to be behind Melbourne, North and St Kilda on memberships while turning a profit year after year. I think we can only have a real discussion in 5 years time. If we finish top 4 for that period and win a couple flags there is no reason we shouldn’t see our base grow. If it doesn’t, definitely a conspiracy .

 

[CarnTheScray]

Like I’ve said I wouldn’t worry about only being 1k ahead of North in our current circumstance

 

[bobs head soup]

Does anybody publish a table of each clubs revenues raised from memberships? That's surely the most relevant figure.