empty seats

[weneverland]

the tickets are too cheap. people don't value them enough to ensure they are used.

its not flawed logic, its economics.

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

LOL What happens when you start off with a simplistic statement and follow it through blindly? You end up with a statement that borders on the absurd.

The Crows don't want to disenfranchise a large proportion of their members in the hope of getter a 'better' class of patrons through increasing the price of their season tickets. It just won't work. It sets the club up for the charge of elitism, pandering to the Chardonnay set.

The three most effective ways to limit the no shows are:
1) make the product more attractive than the alternatives,
2) when they aren't, make it easy and rewarding to transfer or sell the ticket,
3) introduce packages that are more flexible and suit a wider range of members circumstances.

 

[Huntercrow]

Must've been a slow day in LA

 

[arrowman]

lets park the endless blah, dull.

Fair enough, I'll get on board with that.

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

I'm not sure what you mean by that. .. I .. meh, I don't think it's important to pursue that point, or attempt clarification, given we want to minimise the "blah". I'll get on to the rest of it.

take art or antiques, the knuckle scraping luddites may not get it

Just to say - I don't think it's reasonable to characterise someone who doesn't share your particular interest or aesthetic values as a "knuckle scraping luddite"... but anyway...

- 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?

I don't know about "distorting" - at least, not in the sense of increasing prices on a given commodity in general. For example, there is a market for fine (expensive) restaurants. If the people with a particular predeliction for that aspect of life didn't exist, then the market would not exist. I don't think the market for restaurants in general (right down to McDonald's) is "distorted" by the presence of players who prefer the upper end. Their presence simply provides for the existence of the upper end. Anyway...

No, I am not saying (and frankly I think that should be clear) that the "luddites" are the ones who know the "true value". What I am saying, is this - and take cars as an example:

The first measure of the "value" of an item or commodity is its utility vs cost, and to some extent this can be objectively measured.

If I have a certain number of children (or dogs) and a certain driving pattern (e.g. annual driving holidays) then I will require, to meet my needs, a certain size/type of car. Different makes and models of car will meet those needs at differing costs and the "value for money" can be measured with at least some degree of objectivity.

There is no doubt, for example, that a Commodore station wagon will beat an equivalent-sized Mercedes hands down for value for money - on purchase cost / depreciation alone.

But next we must, and quite reasonably, take into account other factors - equipment levels, appreciation of the finer points of the car, driving skills (whether it really matters to you that a car corners well at speed, or if you're happy to wallow through as if you're steering a boat) etc.

And I have no problem with that. I myself have upgraded from an old clunker to a newer car that is costing me significantly more to run. If $ running costs were the only consideration, I would have kept the clunker.

What I'm saying is, I think it's stretching things a bit to start using examples like fine restaurants and wine, or antiques, in reasoning why a Crows season ticket would somehow be so highly valued by the person who can afford it (after the hypothetical price hike) that they would be more motivated to (a) use it or (b) make sure it is used by others.

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?

Yet again you have taken one side comment and (mis)used it in to misrepresent my point.

What I actually said was

...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.)

Now if it makes it easier, I'll replace "a lot of cases" with "some cases".

And I think the point is perfectly clear and non-controversial. In any market for what we might call "fine" or "high end" products, at least some of the purchasers are motivated at least in part by "w@nk" value.

Unless, that is, you wish to assert that everyone who buys a Ferrari, for example, is motivated purely by appreciation of fine automotive machinery and never to any extent by how they think they'll look, and how others will perceive them.

Not "all". Not even "most". Just "some". As I said, I think that's a perfectly non-controversial point.

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

Given that I never said (and I think that's quite clear - either you have problems with English comprehension or you are wilfully misinterpeting me) that I think any subject is entirely "wank", then there is no point in responding to that.

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

I don't think I have ever said or implied that my argument is based around my personal tastes; that I think "all <subject> is wank" or whatever. Once again you misunderstand/misrepresent what I am saying.

Still and all, let me choose one of my own interests that can combine personal tastes, appreciation of "finer things" and value for money. I speak of photography.

(And I'll get in first - yes, in what follows, I am speaking from my own perspective. As illustration of the point FFS, not trying to project my personal views as though they were the general case. )

I own the best camera I can afford. In this I am motivated by a number of factors including chiefly
- To make sure that the only limit on the photographs is my own skill, not the equipment
- Because I appreciate fine equipment and enjoy using it
- Because I consider it value for money to purchase a camera that I am unlikely to outgrow, or which is unlikely to become seriously obsolete, for some time

Many other amateur photographers are similarly motivated - in fact I would assert that these would be the primary motivations (in different mixes and measure) for most amateur photogs.

And some are motivated, at least in part, by w@ank value. They will, for example, consider only Nikon or Canon, and disdain the Pentax or the Sony, because of the perceived status attaching to those brands. Or they will buy a $13,000 Nikon D3x when they are still struggling to understand the relationship between shutter speed an aperture.

Because they have more money than sense.

After all, you yourself have talked about "appreciation" of such things. Do you seriously assert that every person who has ever bought, say, a fine painting has been motivated entirely by their appreciation for the art?

As I said - an entirely non-controversial assertion on my part, I would have thought.

Or are you unwilling to confront the possibility that your circle of fine food aficianados might include some w***ers?

PS Will probably not be on line for a few days. Apologies in advance for not responding to any further posts for a while. But I did have to reply to this one - quite an engaging subject, actually.

 

[feenix67]

/popcorn

 

[chardonnay]

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.

Excuse my ignorance but, are you a Crows member with access to Port games or a member of neither club?

 

[brucetiki]

Since when?

In fact, the club attempted to actively promote ticket sharing by introducing the print out system, which they hoped would alleviate people who were afraid of loaing out their card in case it was lost or not returned.

Aside from which, for two seasons before getting off of the waiting list I was using the membership of a terminally ill, and then deceased woman who was a friend of my Aunt and Uncle.

SACA and the MCC on the other hand prevent it from happening - and yes, I have seen on more than one occasion people randomly having their signature tested to make sure the card they just used is theirs.

Further to my response on the first page of the thread, this is taken straight from the renewal brochure, pages 27/28, rule 4 (IV)

(iV) Ownership
While people other than the ticket holder may use Silver,Captain’s Club and Gold season tickets for attendance at home games (in the minor round) it is the strict policy of the Club that the AFC retains ownership of a season ticket membership and it is non-transferable for the benefit, gain or advantage of the holder of that season ticket or any other person. The Membership ticket must be produced and/or delivered up to an employee or agent of the SANFL or the Adelaide Football Club upon request.

Any season tickets sold outside normal ticketing procedures will be confiscated by the Club. In the event of the death of a season ticket member (and in cases of hardship) other family members may apply (in writing) to the Club for special dispensation to retain that Season Ticket for another family member. Note that this does not extend beyond immediate
family, and a death certificate will be required, where appropriate.

So yes, our Membership is non-transferrable in the sense that they cannot be on-sold to someone else (which I take it is the same as SACA/AFL/MCC Memberships). However, unlike SACA/AFL/MCC Memberships, the AFC has a more relaxed approach to the lending of tickets, which is encouraged by the AFC but is a strict no-no for SACA/AFL/MCC Memberships.

 

[crowralph]

simple drunken solution. utilise an ebay type piece of software. you log into your member profile and sell your seats. your barcode is relevant to every game of the year that you don't sell it. when you select to sell that barcode (original number is secure), it makes it void on that day and generates a new barcode for your seats. the seats are then sold on an auction site and the new barcode is printed out by the winning bidder. your membership account is credited with part of the value of the sale and the balance goes to the footy club. it may be necessary to cap the value to the member selling tickets, otherwise these things will never change hands. either way, it's not a particularly difficult mountain to climb and will ensure members get value for providing their seats and footy park gets as many bums on seats as possible.

 

[crowman86]

You make it sound so easy, in reality its not that easy to make a site like that. You have to make it accessible to anyone as well not just those who have the net. Making it an auction isn't really the right way to go about it either. If your going to forfiet your ticket for a game it should then just be offered back to the general public for the same price as all the other tickets in that area are sold for. I also dont think you should be credited with any value of that ticket sold, that just further complicates things. Not everyone uses credit cards to pay for their memberships, some people would be using cash or cheque so how would those people get money back from the sale of their ticket?
They already have a similar sort of thing to this with the ticket exchange program where you log on and pass your ticket onto someone else for the match and they can then print out tickets which are valid for that game only. The next step would be to create some sort of forum/discussion board where people who want to exchange their ticket can go on and say they have 2 tickets to give away and then someone who wants to go logs on and is like oh thats nice I want to go, they exchange details and then work out the deal between themselves.

 

[crows dude]

Excuse my ignorance but, are you a Crows member with access to Port games or a member of neither club?

Its an SANFL AAMI Stadium Membership.

There are three Categories

Category One - Ultinate = Gives you access to all Crows and Port games at AAMi as well as 6 SANFL games plus all SANFL Finals. Included in both Crows and Power Membership Tally

Category Two - Crows Essential = Access to all Crows games at AAMI execept for the Power home showdown plys 4 SANFL games and all SANFL Finals. Counts as a Crows Member

Category 3 - Power Essential= Access to all Power games at AAMI execept for the Crows home showdown plus 4 SANFL games and all SANFL Finals. Counts a s a Power Member

 

[chardonnay]

Thanks.

How do the various packages compare with what the clubs offer?

I'm Melbourne based & battle to understand why AFL membership competes with club membership, undercutting cost & better benefits ( finals access).

 

[crowralph]

You make it sound so easy, in reality its not that easy to make a site like that. You have to make it accessible to anyone as well not just those who have the net

well that would make tickets accessible to a fair % of the population. especially potential interstate supporters. to tweak it a little, the club could randomly select x% to hold themselves and make them available for collection at the club.

Making it an auction isn't really the right way to go about it either. If your going to forfiet your ticket for a game it should then just be offered back to the general public for the same price as all the other tickets in that area are sold for.

you may be right, the auction principal was only used because there are already plenty of sites doing it. but yeh, sell them at the standard price for whatever section there in. as long as they're being sold and people are turning up.

I also dont think you should be credited with any value of that ticket sold, that just further complicates things.

well then why would you go to the trouble. i don't think the club is that greedy that they would expect to get paid twice for these transferred seats.

Not everyone uses credit cards to pay for their memberships, some people would be using cash or cheque so how would those people get money back from the sale of their ticket?

reduction to your membership fees for the next year. club merchandise. got any mates who are members at golf clubs where f&b levies, comp wins go back on your member account. the balance is then exchanged for product within the club. the accounting system would already be doing this. when they send out your renewal, you're a/c balance would show that amount owing to them. when you pay, your balance goes to $zero and they would send you out the product you purchased. it is presently unlikely to be capable of this functionality, but the software exists and cash-strapped golf clubs make funds available for it.

They already have a similar sort of thing to this with the ticket exchange program where you log on and pass your ticket onto someone else for the match and they can then print out tickets which are valid for that game only.

so your now suggesting that the idea is not worthy due to the fact that a similar system is already set up, that is probably not performing as well as hoped. perhaps, if you added into some financial reward for transferring your ticket on the day, more people would be doing it.

The next step would be to create some sort of forum/discussion board where people who want to exchange their ticket can go on and say they have 2 tickets to give away and then someone who wants to go logs on and is like oh thats nice I want to go, they exchange details and then work out the deal between themselves.

maybe the board here could be used for such purposes. but, it has it's limitations in terms of coverage. no doubt it's better than putting up an a4 piece of paper at your local pub advising of tickets on offer.

You may well be correct that it's not that easy to put up and maintain an auction type site. It could also be in breach of conditions set out in a contract with the present ticketing company(s). But people will be more likely to offer their unused seat up if they are getting a financial reward. As long as the marketplace is easily accessible for a large number of people, which the net is, then there will be a greater likelihood of more tickets being transferred. It also may be prohibitively expensive to run a secure site like that, but the club could potentially (with regard to existing contractual arrangements) piggy back off an existing site with a sponsorship arrangement or similar.

So the next step is to determine the costs of running your own site of the afc website. Find out whether there are any contractual issues with approaching an auction site and, if not, the costs that would be involved in utilising their site. Once you have determined the costs involved in the various solutions that are on offer, you determine whether you think enough income will be generated to cover those costs. If they think the market will be about 5000 tickets at avge price of $20, then that is $100,000 to be be shared with club, ticket seller and site costs per home game. and it's an extra 5000 at the stadium. but is this enough. is 5000 a ridiculous number to expect, is $20 avge too high, or too low. i never said it was easy, i said it wasn't partiuclarly difficult. and its not. and in fact, it may have already been done and was deemed that the demand for match-day tickets is simply not high enough to cover the costs of running such a site. or it may not have even got past the legal dept. anyway, its not hard or particularly complicated.