Analysis by Taylor Tuccito, Alyssa Hall, and Ashley Adams in SRM 435
Showing posts with label tickets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tickets. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
"Brewers selling awesome 'Timeless Ticket' for $1,000"
From USA Today
Analysis by Margo Savage in KIN 501
Tickets that never expire? Sounds like something that only Disney could pull off, but now the Milwaukee Brewers have joined the ranks of other everlasting tickets. According to an article published by the USA Today, the Milwaukee Brewers Organization had released a “Timeless Ticket” that has no expiration date attached to it. The article explains that the ticket costs $1,000 and is only available to the first 1,000 purchasers. The ticket was, originally, released in October, but it was not until January that the organization publically marketed the ticket. The tickets are good for any 10 future games, including one opening day or World Series game. Additionally, these Timeless Ticket Holders are able to purchase three additional tickets for the same game, if they are available.
As someone who works in marketing, I think that this is an innovative idea, and something that can bring added value to an organization. The concept of a timeless ticket has tangible financial value that fans will be able to see over the years. For the Brewer’s marketing team, just the fact that people are talking about them is positive for everyone involved. The more than people in the sports world are talking about a specific team or promotion, the more publicity it is bringing to the organization. I think that this promotion was targeted at life-long “die hard” fans, but I think that the buzz it is creating will bring other people to look at Brewer’s tickets. With this promotion, it is evident that the company wants in invest in the future of the team and help show the success that the team is striving for.
Additionally, with the purchase of the Timeless Ticket, fans receive a brass ticket that is engraved with their name and exclusive ticket number. This will sit on their desk, or somewhere in their house, and be a constant reminder of the investment they have taken part in. I think that it will also spawn questions from other people, and that will, in turn, bring more publicity to the Brewers. As this promotion continues, it will bring more lifelong fans and help people to invest in the Brewer’s organization as a whole. I think that the ticket will help the “most enthusiastic” Brewers fans share their love for the game with others, and aid in the building of the fan base in Milwaukee. Finally, I think that fans will see the value in this promotion because of the exclusivity associated with the tickets. There will only be 1,000 ticket sold which, in the grand scheme of the 41.900 seat stadium, is not that many. This ticket can also prove its worth simply if the Brewers make the World Series and host Game 7.
Brewer’s fans now have an opportunity to invest in their hometown baseball team and be a part of history if they ever go back to the World Series. By having a Timeless Ticket, they are able to attend any 10 games that they want during their lifetime, including a World Series game and a home opener. It provides an opportunity for people to talk about the Milwaukee organization and to bring publicity to their tickets. It also gives the organization an opportunity to break into the field with a promotion that hasn’t been seen before in the baseball world. I think that this promotion will definitely be one that other teams will take on in the future and it will bring a new and exciting element to the game for baseball fans across the country.
Analysis by Margo Savage in KIN 501
Tickets that never expire? Sounds like something that only Disney could pull off, but now the Milwaukee Brewers have joined the ranks of other everlasting tickets. According to an article published by the USA Today, the Milwaukee Brewers Organization had released a “Timeless Ticket” that has no expiration date attached to it. The article explains that the ticket costs $1,000 and is only available to the first 1,000 purchasers. The ticket was, originally, released in October, but it was not until January that the organization publically marketed the ticket. The tickets are good for any 10 future games, including one opening day or World Series game. Additionally, these Timeless Ticket Holders are able to purchase three additional tickets for the same game, if they are available.
As someone who works in marketing, I think that this is an innovative idea, and something that can bring added value to an organization. The concept of a timeless ticket has tangible financial value that fans will be able to see over the years. For the Brewer’s marketing team, just the fact that people are talking about them is positive for everyone involved. The more than people in the sports world are talking about a specific team or promotion, the more publicity it is bringing to the organization. I think that this promotion was targeted at life-long “die hard” fans, but I think that the buzz it is creating will bring other people to look at Brewer’s tickets. With this promotion, it is evident that the company wants in invest in the future of the team and help show the success that the team is striving for.
Additionally, with the purchase of the Timeless Ticket, fans receive a brass ticket that is engraved with their name and exclusive ticket number. This will sit on their desk, or somewhere in their house, and be a constant reminder of the investment they have taken part in. I think that it will also spawn questions from other people, and that will, in turn, bring more publicity to the Brewers. As this promotion continues, it will bring more lifelong fans and help people to invest in the Brewer’s organization as a whole. I think that the ticket will help the “most enthusiastic” Brewers fans share their love for the game with others, and aid in the building of the fan base in Milwaukee. Finally, I think that fans will see the value in this promotion because of the exclusivity associated with the tickets. There will only be 1,000 ticket sold which, in the grand scheme of the 41.900 seat stadium, is not that many. This ticket can also prove its worth simply if the Brewers make the World Series and host Game 7.
Brewer’s fans now have an opportunity to invest in their hometown baseball team and be a part of history if they ever go back to the World Series. By having a Timeless Ticket, they are able to attend any 10 games that they want during their lifetime, including a World Series game and a home opener. It provides an opportunity for people to talk about the Milwaukee organization and to bring publicity to their tickets. It also gives the organization an opportunity to break into the field with a promotion that hasn’t been seen before in the baseball world. I think that this promotion will definitely be one that other teams will take on in the future and it will bring a new and exciting element to the game for baseball fans across the country.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
"Rays Tout New 'Flex Packs' Ticketing as Unique to MLB"
From Athletic Business
Analysis by Rick Reardon in KIN 501
The Tampa Bay Rays are unveiling a new marketing campaign that also couples with their new idea of how to sell single game tickets to fans. Their new campaign centers on the phrase “Rays Up”. This phrase is supposed to link the team with the fans by making it a joint effort to turn the season around. Mark Fernandez, senior vice president, said when referring to the new slogan, “Let’s do this thing together.” After finishing last in the MLB in attendance last year, the Rays are using a new ticket plan, called Flex Packs to improve home field attendance. Flex Packs are targeted at single game ticket buyers who usually just buy the one game. With Flex Packs, a fan can buy a three, six, or nine game pack. The fan can then use these Flex Packs to go to any game as long as it is not sold out. This includes marquee games such as the Yankees, Red Socks, or even the season opener with no up-charge on those certain games. The only catch is that they cannot redeem the Flex Pack for sold out games, which makes sense. Tampa Bay has already started their marketing campaign focused around these Flex Packs by displaying billboards all around the city featuring star players and manager Joe Madden that displays their slogan Rays Up. The three game Flex Packs start at $49 and they have already sold 10,000 Flex Packs (of all varieties).
From a marketing stand point I think this is a genius idea. A lot of the problem, I believe, with increasing attendance to home games especially in baseball is getting people to attend multiple games in a season. With the Flex Packs, it could save family money that is just coming in for the weekend and wants to go watch a weekend series or for a fan that lives in the city but is not sure which games they can attend. The only down side I could see with this would be that fans might start buying Flex Packs instead of season tickets. This way the fan could choose which games they want to go to without having to buy all the tickets to the home games. With that being said, I believe a team will still have their regular die-hard fans that will continuously buy season tickets. However for the fans on the fence deciding whether they want season tickets or not, I think this would be a good way to get their foot in the door and hopefully convert them to season ticket holders. If a fan buys the nine game Flex Pack and continually enjoys going to the game then eventually they might think it would save them some money just buying season tickets. Selling tickets is just one part of the equation though. If fans do not enjoy being at the game and are not leaving with a memorable experience then they will not be willing to come back or buy tickets later. So I do not know if the reason Tampa Bay was last in attendance last year was because of ticket prices or plans, or for the game day atmosphere. But both sides of the equation need to be looked at. I still believe that this is a great way to get new fans in the seats and it’s always good to try something fresh and new.
This relates to our course of when we talked about fans and creating fan loyalty. The best way to get a new fan is getting them out the games to watch and creating an identity with the team. With these Flex Packs, the team is getting more on the fence fans that cannot afford season tickets or that only usually come to one game. If you have a fan that usually only comes to one game you can try to push this ticket package on them by saying they can come to three more of their choice without any commitment up front. I think that this is a great way to establish new fans and also expand the loyalty of certain fans.
The Tampa Bay Rays are unveiling a new marketing campaign that also couples with their new idea of how to sell single game tickets to fans. Their new campaign centers on the phrase “Rays Up”. This phrase is supposed to link the team with the fans by making it a joint effort to turn the season around. Mark Fernandez, senior vice president, said when referring to the new slogan, “Let’s do this thing together.” After finishing last in the MLB in attendance last year, the Rays are using a new ticket plan, called Flex Packs to improve home field attendance. Flex Packs are targeted at single game ticket buyers who usually just buy the one game. With Flex Packs, a fan can buy a three, six, or nine game pack. The fan can then use these Flex Packs to go to any game as long as it is not sold out. This includes marquee games such as the Yankees, Red Socks, or even the season opener with no up-charge on those certain games. The only catch is that they cannot redeem the Flex Pack for sold out games, which makes sense. Tampa Bay has already started their marketing campaign focused around these Flex Packs by displaying billboards all around the city featuring star players and manager Joe Madden that displays their slogan Rays Up. The three game Flex Packs start at $49 and they have already sold 10,000 Flex Packs (of all varieties).
From a marketing stand point I think this is a genius idea. A lot of the problem, I believe, with increasing attendance to home games especially in baseball is getting people to attend multiple games in a season. With the Flex Packs, it could save family money that is just coming in for the weekend and wants to go watch a weekend series or for a fan that lives in the city but is not sure which games they can attend. The only down side I could see with this would be that fans might start buying Flex Packs instead of season tickets. This way the fan could choose which games they want to go to without having to buy all the tickets to the home games. With that being said, I believe a team will still have their regular die-hard fans that will continuously buy season tickets. However for the fans on the fence deciding whether they want season tickets or not, I think this would be a good way to get their foot in the door and hopefully convert them to season ticket holders. If a fan buys the nine game Flex Pack and continually enjoys going to the game then eventually they might think it would save them some money just buying season tickets. Selling tickets is just one part of the equation though. If fans do not enjoy being at the game and are not leaving with a memorable experience then they will not be willing to come back or buy tickets later. So I do not know if the reason Tampa Bay was last in attendance last year was because of ticket prices or plans, or for the game day atmosphere. But both sides of the equation need to be looked at. I still believe that this is a great way to get new fans in the seats and it’s always good to try something fresh and new.
This relates to our course of when we talked about fans and creating fan loyalty. The best way to get a new fan is getting them out the games to watch and creating an identity with the team. With these Flex Packs, the team is getting more on the fence fans that cannot afford season tickets or that only usually come to one game. If you have a fan that usually only comes to one game you can try to push this ticket package on them by saying they can come to three more of their choice without any commitment up front. I think that this is a great way to establish new fans and also expand the loyalty of certain fans.
Monday, February 24, 2014
"Georgia Tech May Auction Tickets to Clemson Game"
From Athletic Business
Analysis by Kristina Mohler in KIN 501
Georgia Tech University is looking into adapting a new ticketing approach that Northwestern University has found to be successful. This approach is a Dutch-auction style, modified from a Netherlands style of selling flowers. Northwestern University economics professors Jeff Ely and Sandeep Boliga pitched their customized version of this auction to the athletics department for their ticket sales.
In this case, Northwestern would tailor ticket prices according to demand and popularity and set them accordingly. As game days approached, ticket prices would drop until the section was sold out. However, differing from normal Dutch auctions, if you bought a ticket at a higher price than the final buyer, you would be refunded the difference in prices in the same section. This way, everyone in the same section pays the same price and no one feels cheated. For example, if tickets go on sale for $80.00 and you buy one right away, but the price drops to $65.00 right before the game, you would be refunded $15.00. A “price floor” would be set to never go below what season ticket holders pay. This method encourages fans to not wait to buy tickets, increases revenue, fills seats, and makes season tickets more appealing. The sooner you buy, the better seats you are guaranteed. Additionally, there is a chance that the ticket price will drop and you could receive a rebate. Season tickets may be more appealing because you avoid the chance of tickets selling out at a higher price, and you avoid the auction all together.
Some schools and professional teams have started using dynamic pricing systems. These two systems are similar that their ticket prices fluctuate according to demand. However, dynamic pricing can go up or down, increasing as demand increases or decreasing as demand decreases. Therefore, someone who buys the first ticket to a game or event will pay less than the person who buys the last ticket. The Dutch auction style will only decrease, never increase. Also, dynamic pricing locks the buyer in at the price they purchase at. Northwestern’s “Purple Pledge” allows for a refund if the price drops in their section after purchasing. Both styles encourage fans to buy tickets early.
Georgia Tech’s Bobby Dodd stadium holds 55,000. Adjusting ticket pricing to higher and lower demand games could help fill seats and increase revenue. Clemson will be the largest selling game of Georgia Tech’s 2014 season, but I bet hosting Georgia in 2015 could be an even greater revenue generator. In the article, it states that Georgia Tech struggles to break even financially and does not currently fully fund scholarships for its track, cross country, or swim programs. As long as Georgia Tech truly uses increased revenue for positive incentives such as scholarship funding, I think this is a great method that could be adapted across the board.
One of my favorite parts about this is how it potentially cuts out the “second market” (StubHub, Craigslist, etc.). Some have also proposed the idea of venues having a buyback option of which they can resell for profit, instead of having a final sales policy which causes buyers to resell their tickets on such second market venues. This could be lost revenue for the original venue, especially for sold out events. To me, it makes the most sense to offer a full refund for tickets that they could then resell, especially for high-demand or sold out events. I understand how not having a buyback system avoids sales loss for events that do not sell out however. Most second markets charge a fee of their own, so fans do not receive their full money back, and new buyers usually overpay (unless tickets are marked way down). A venue buyback could potentially be a win-win for themselves and buyers, and could help eliminate second markets and perhaps some scalping. I tried selling tickets on StubHub, and it was going to be impossible for me to get my money back. The demand for the game had decreased since I bought the tickets, and I would have had to post them for more than I bought them for in order to end up with my money back after StubHub got their percentage of the sale.
The article states that Northwestern did not offer sales figures to Georgia Tech, but said that the auctions had been successful. I am interested to see final numbers for both schools for both the higher demand games and the lower demand games.
View from the Northwestern News Network
Georgia Tech University is looking into adapting a new ticketing approach that Northwestern University has found to be successful. This approach is a Dutch-auction style, modified from a Netherlands style of selling flowers. Northwestern University economics professors Jeff Ely and Sandeep Boliga pitched their customized version of this auction to the athletics department for their ticket sales.
In this case, Northwestern would tailor ticket prices according to demand and popularity and set them accordingly. As game days approached, ticket prices would drop until the section was sold out. However, differing from normal Dutch auctions, if you bought a ticket at a higher price than the final buyer, you would be refunded the difference in prices in the same section. This way, everyone in the same section pays the same price and no one feels cheated. For example, if tickets go on sale for $80.00 and you buy one right away, but the price drops to $65.00 right before the game, you would be refunded $15.00. A “price floor” would be set to never go below what season ticket holders pay. This method encourages fans to not wait to buy tickets, increases revenue, fills seats, and makes season tickets more appealing. The sooner you buy, the better seats you are guaranteed. Additionally, there is a chance that the ticket price will drop and you could receive a rebate. Season tickets may be more appealing because you avoid the chance of tickets selling out at a higher price, and you avoid the auction all together.
Some schools and professional teams have started using dynamic pricing systems. These two systems are similar that their ticket prices fluctuate according to demand. However, dynamic pricing can go up or down, increasing as demand increases or decreasing as demand decreases. Therefore, someone who buys the first ticket to a game or event will pay less than the person who buys the last ticket. The Dutch auction style will only decrease, never increase. Also, dynamic pricing locks the buyer in at the price they purchase at. Northwestern’s “Purple Pledge” allows for a refund if the price drops in their section after purchasing. Both styles encourage fans to buy tickets early.
Georgia Tech’s Bobby Dodd stadium holds 55,000. Adjusting ticket pricing to higher and lower demand games could help fill seats and increase revenue. Clemson will be the largest selling game of Georgia Tech’s 2014 season, but I bet hosting Georgia in 2015 could be an even greater revenue generator. In the article, it states that Georgia Tech struggles to break even financially and does not currently fully fund scholarships for its track, cross country, or swim programs. As long as Georgia Tech truly uses increased revenue for positive incentives such as scholarship funding, I think this is a great method that could be adapted across the board.
One of my favorite parts about this is how it potentially cuts out the “second market” (StubHub, Craigslist, etc.). Some have also proposed the idea of venues having a buyback option of which they can resell for profit, instead of having a final sales policy which causes buyers to resell their tickets on such second market venues. This could be lost revenue for the original venue, especially for sold out events. To me, it makes the most sense to offer a full refund for tickets that they could then resell, especially for high-demand or sold out events. I understand how not having a buyback system avoids sales loss for events that do not sell out however. Most second markets charge a fee of their own, so fans do not receive their full money back, and new buyers usually overpay (unless tickets are marked way down). A venue buyback could potentially be a win-win for themselves and buyers, and could help eliminate second markets and perhaps some scalping. I tried selling tickets on StubHub, and it was going to be impossible for me to get my money back. The demand for the game had decreased since I bought the tickets, and I would have had to post them for more than I bought them for in order to end up with my money back after StubHub got their percentage of the sale.
The article states that Northwestern did not offer sales figures to Georgia Tech, but said that the auctions had been successful. I am interested to see final numbers for both schools for both the higher demand games and the lower demand games.
Monday, February 17, 2014
"Reseating Plan Blamed for Low WVU Hoops Attendance"
From Athletic Business
Analysis by Kevin Albright in KIN 501
The article that I came across was in the Athletic Business Journal and it deals with a reseating plan at West Virginia University basketball games. More specifically sources think that this reseating plan has lead to lower attendances for this season’s games. Season ticket holders seats were taken from them and the new reseating plan gave the better seats to those who were larger donors to the program. The first game of the season there was a good attendance but since then the average is nearly half of that first game. The author then goes on to examine if this reseating plan truly is harming the attendance. Although the number of season ticket renewals went down they do not think it is a result of the reseating plan because their donations increased and more money was raised from season ticket holders this year compared to last. He explains that last year the Mountaineers didn’t perform that well and this year is a rebuild year which is why attendance may be lacking. The author feels that the attendance numbers are down because the students are not coming out to support their team and he feels this is an area of concern across the country.
Attendance to sporting events is a huge focus of sport marketing and I think it is often tough to tell why or why not fans may be attending games. There are a lot of different factors that may affect attendance as you can see with this article. The issue that I would like to focus on is the lack of student support. I agree with the author that a lot of schools are suffering from minimal student support and it takes away from the college basketball atmosphere. Based on my experiences the students tend to be the most boisterous fans and they can have an impact on the game and create that home court advantage. Being at JMU I have seen great crowds for a college game and I have also seen poor crowds for a college game and in my opinion a lot of it has to do with the students. I understand that season ticket holders bring in the money which is a primary focus, I feel that to create that ideal atmosphere you need a good group of student fans. For example, Duke has the Cameron Crazies which is the name they give their student fans who show up regularly and camp out for tickets, stand the whole game, paint their faces, and are extremely loud. Duke is a program with a rich basketball history and has a habit of being very competitive so that may make it easier for student fans to rally behind the team.
I found this article interesting because like the author said, every school seems to be losing student fans and the sports marketing departments can help to recruit those fans back to games. I believe that seating does have an impact on the amount of fans that come weather they are season ticket holders or students. The better your seat is or the closer you are to the court the more you feel involved in the game which is the experience fans want to have. Obviously not everyone can have the best seats but I would be interested to see in venues around the country what seems to be the most beneficial seating arrangement for fans to maximize attendance.
The article that I came across was in the Athletic Business Journal and it deals with a reseating plan at West Virginia University basketball games. More specifically sources think that this reseating plan has lead to lower attendances for this season’s games. Season ticket holders seats were taken from them and the new reseating plan gave the better seats to those who were larger donors to the program. The first game of the season there was a good attendance but since then the average is nearly half of that first game. The author then goes on to examine if this reseating plan truly is harming the attendance. Although the number of season ticket renewals went down they do not think it is a result of the reseating plan because their donations increased and more money was raised from season ticket holders this year compared to last. He explains that last year the Mountaineers didn’t perform that well and this year is a rebuild year which is why attendance may be lacking. The author feels that the attendance numbers are down because the students are not coming out to support their team and he feels this is an area of concern across the country.
Attendance to sporting events is a huge focus of sport marketing and I think it is often tough to tell why or why not fans may be attending games. There are a lot of different factors that may affect attendance as you can see with this article. The issue that I would like to focus on is the lack of student support. I agree with the author that a lot of schools are suffering from minimal student support and it takes away from the college basketball atmosphere. Based on my experiences the students tend to be the most boisterous fans and they can have an impact on the game and create that home court advantage. Being at JMU I have seen great crowds for a college game and I have also seen poor crowds for a college game and in my opinion a lot of it has to do with the students. I understand that season ticket holders bring in the money which is a primary focus, I feel that to create that ideal atmosphere you need a good group of student fans. For example, Duke has the Cameron Crazies which is the name they give their student fans who show up regularly and camp out for tickets, stand the whole game, paint their faces, and are extremely loud. Duke is a program with a rich basketball history and has a habit of being very competitive so that may make it easier for student fans to rally behind the team.
I found this article interesting because like the author said, every school seems to be losing student fans and the sports marketing departments can help to recruit those fans back to games. I believe that seating does have an impact on the amount of fans that come weather they are season ticket holders or students. The better your seat is or the closer you are to the court the more you feel involved in the game which is the experience fans want to have. Obviously not everyone can have the best seats but I would be interested to see in venues around the country what seems to be the most beneficial seating arrangement for fans to maximize attendance.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
"Is Dynamic Ticket Pricing Hurting MLB Attendance?"
From Forbes.com
Review by Courtney Hamner in KIN 501
The article “Is Dynamic Ticket Pricing Hurting MLB Attendance?” starts out by discussing the Yankee’s decrease in attendance. Their attendance is down 3.5 percent year-over-year. The Yankee’s are traditionally a standard bearer for sports franchises. This leads other MLB team managers to worry if the same is going to happen to them. The article discusses the possible reasons behind the decreased attendance of the economy, and bad on-field performance. The writer points out that these are just convenient excuses.
One of the main reasons the article points out is the use of Stub Hub. This is a secondary market for ticket sales. Stub Hub is dramatically undercutting the face value of tickets available on the official Yankee website or physical box office. According to Dead Spin, the more expensive the face value, the more likely it is going to be sold under face value. This causes the Yankees to underestimate the market. Another reason could be that the Yankee’s don’t use dynamic ticket sales. But as the article goes on it discusses how all MLB teams are struggling with attendance.
The writer says a number of things can be causing decreased ticket sales. But if we try and say the Yankees ticket sales and attendance numbers are caused by misreading the market or not using dynamic ticket sales, than what explains the other team’s decreases? The main focus is based around ticket sales being too confusing.
Dynamic ticket sales are full of flaws. The first flaw is that it offers too many choices. Yes, human beings love to have many options but when given too many options we are faced with not being able to make a choice. This leaves us feeling dissatisfied. Dynamic ticket pricing often includes a daily (sometimes hourly) fluctuation in price. The second flaw is pricing schemes often shift the burden of pricing decision and activity from the franchise to the fan. Fans are tasked with trying to determine what the right price for a ticket is. The last flaw the article discusses is that dynamic ticket pricing may tax franchise personnel more than establishing ticket prices in the off-season and sticking with them for the 162-game slate.
I feel that these factors can be attributed to decreased attendance. I think that dynamic ticket sales can change the pricing of tickets so much that fans wonder if they really are getting a good deal. But at the same time I think that dynamic ticket sales have a lot of positive attributes as well. Dynamic ticket sales help in a bad economy by offering prices that fans can afford. Yes, ticket prices may change frequently, but they change within the level of demand, type of customer, and weather. Therefore, the customer is being put first. Although ticket sales are getting very confusing, I think that it is not the main culprit for decreased attendance. I think that the economy and a bad on-field performance are convenient but very true excuses for poor attendance. Not just one factor can be given for the decreased attendance this year.
Review by Courtney Hamner in KIN 501
The article “Is Dynamic Ticket Pricing Hurting MLB Attendance?” starts out by discussing the Yankee’s decrease in attendance. Their attendance is down 3.5 percent year-over-year. The Yankee’s are traditionally a standard bearer for sports franchises. This leads other MLB team managers to worry if the same is going to happen to them. The article discusses the possible reasons behind the decreased attendance of the economy, and bad on-field performance. The writer points out that these are just convenient excuses.
One of the main reasons the article points out is the use of Stub Hub. This is a secondary market for ticket sales. Stub Hub is dramatically undercutting the face value of tickets available on the official Yankee website or physical box office. According to Dead Spin, the more expensive the face value, the more likely it is going to be sold under face value. This causes the Yankees to underestimate the market. Another reason could be that the Yankee’s don’t use dynamic ticket sales. But as the article goes on it discusses how all MLB teams are struggling with attendance.
The writer says a number of things can be causing decreased ticket sales. But if we try and say the Yankees ticket sales and attendance numbers are caused by misreading the market or not using dynamic ticket sales, than what explains the other team’s decreases? The main focus is based around ticket sales being too confusing.
Dynamic ticket sales are full of flaws. The first flaw is that it offers too many choices. Yes, human beings love to have many options but when given too many options we are faced with not being able to make a choice. This leaves us feeling dissatisfied. Dynamic ticket pricing often includes a daily (sometimes hourly) fluctuation in price. The second flaw is pricing schemes often shift the burden of pricing decision and activity from the franchise to the fan. Fans are tasked with trying to determine what the right price for a ticket is. The last flaw the article discusses is that dynamic ticket pricing may tax franchise personnel more than establishing ticket prices in the off-season and sticking with them for the 162-game slate.
I feel that these factors can be attributed to decreased attendance. I think that dynamic ticket sales can change the pricing of tickets so much that fans wonder if they really are getting a good deal. But at the same time I think that dynamic ticket sales have a lot of positive attributes as well. Dynamic ticket sales help in a bad economy by offering prices that fans can afford. Yes, ticket prices may change frequently, but they change within the level of demand, type of customer, and weather. Therefore, the customer is being put first. Although ticket sales are getting very confusing, I think that it is not the main culprit for decreased attendance. I think that the economy and a bad on-field performance are convenient but very true excuses for poor attendance. Not just one factor can be given for the decreased attendance this year.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
"StubHub, Paciolan go mobile for four schools"
From SportsBusiness Journal
Review by William Spreen in KIN 332 (section 1)
Smart phones have made it possible to access immeasurable amounts of information and the ability to perform services anywhere a person could possibly desire. Whether it is checking the score of a game, finding directions with GPS coordination, shopping, or even renting your favorite movie to watch in the palms of your hands these phones continue to change the ways in which both businesses and individuals conduct business and leisure activities everyday. “StubHub, Paciolan Go Mobile For Four Schools” is an eye-opening article in the August 27th issue of the Sports Business Journal discussing the introduction of mobile ticketing to NCAA college football.
North Carolina, Purdue, Tennessee and Texas are the four schools that are introducing mobile ticketing for this upcoming season. In the words of Greg Ivry, Stubhub’s business development manager, “Mobile is a seamless experience that allows fans to buy a ticket on their phone. Receive a new barcode for that ticket and then scan it at the gate and get your seat.” Forget stopping by the box office or even printing out the tickets at home, this new form of service provides consumers with the convenience of having a ticket within a matter of seconds. Making it this easy for the consumer to purchase will result in new marketing and sales strategies for both Stubhub and the University introducing mobile ticketing.
Stubhub is affiliated with thirty colleges for ticketing services, however only a few maintain legitimate sponsorship deals. With more universities embracing the secondary ticket market industry I believe that this new form of convenience will soon become the norm of the college sports world. According to Paciolan eighty percent of school’s currently have the technology to scan barcodes off of phones. The Internet in recent years has proved to be a major game changer bringing in new ways for fans to purchase tickets. This leaves you to wonder what is in store for the athletic marketing and sales world with the dawn of the Smartphone era.
Review by William Spreen in KIN 332 (section 1)
Smart phones have made it possible to access immeasurable amounts of information and the ability to perform services anywhere a person could possibly desire. Whether it is checking the score of a game, finding directions with GPS coordination, shopping, or even renting your favorite movie to watch in the palms of your hands these phones continue to change the ways in which both businesses and individuals conduct business and leisure activities everyday. “StubHub, Paciolan Go Mobile For Four Schools” is an eye-opening article in the August 27th issue of the Sports Business Journal discussing the introduction of mobile ticketing to NCAA college football.
North Carolina, Purdue, Tennessee and Texas are the four schools that are introducing mobile ticketing for this upcoming season. In the words of Greg Ivry, Stubhub’s business development manager, “Mobile is a seamless experience that allows fans to buy a ticket on their phone. Receive a new barcode for that ticket and then scan it at the gate and get your seat.” Forget stopping by the box office or even printing out the tickets at home, this new form of service provides consumers with the convenience of having a ticket within a matter of seconds. Making it this easy for the consumer to purchase will result in new marketing and sales strategies for both Stubhub and the University introducing mobile ticketing.
Stubhub is affiliated with thirty colleges for ticketing services, however only a few maintain legitimate sponsorship deals. With more universities embracing the secondary ticket market industry I believe that this new form of convenience will soon become the norm of the college sports world. According to Paciolan eighty percent of school’s currently have the technology to scan barcodes off of phones. The Internet in recent years has proved to be a major game changer bringing in new ways for fans to purchase tickets. This leaves you to wonder what is in store for the athletic marketing and sales world with the dawn of the Smartphone era.
Monday, April 16, 2012
"Packers Catching Flak Over New ADA-based Ticket Policy"
From Athletic Business
Review by Brad Newell in KIN 435 (section 1)
"Packers Catching Flak Over New ADA-based Ticket Policy" written by Paul Steinbach is an article that brings awareness to an issue regarding the ticket sales policy change of the Green Bay Packers. With the new Packers policy Green Bay will no longer sell single game tickets to people with disabilities. The main issue is that a previous handicap friendly policy is being changed and blamed on new regulations imposed by Americans with Disabilities Act which states that people with disabilities need to be treated in the same way of those without regarding sales. The Packers claim to interpret this as saying that their previous policy is in conflict with the ADA regulation thus forcing them to change their policy. The claim that this is in violation of the regulations by being unfair in favor of those who are handicap thus not being equal.
In my opinion, the Packers are using the new ADA regulation as a opportunity to change their policy. Knowing that handicap individuals wouldn't be happy with the change they blamed the change on ADA regulations. But, I don't see an ethical issue with this change. People with disabilities can still purchase single game tickets online that are being resold by handicap season ticket holders just like non-handicap people. The only issue could be that there are not enough handicap seats.
There could be a negative marketing and sales impact caused by people who believe the policy change is unethical. If a group of people feels strongly enough about the ethics of the change they could boycott Packers games and shine negative publicity on the organization. Boycotts and public opinions can have a big impact on how a company does business. For example in the 1970's Nestles made some questionable ethical decisions and caused a boycott that effected profits enough that forced the company to make business changes. And on the other side of the spectrum many companies make donations that shine positive light on the company and act as a marketing strategy to bring in new customers.
Regulations can also have a huge impact on companies. Companies spend millions of dollars to stay within state and national safety, health, and ethical regulations. While many regulations are necessary some believe that others force unnecessary spending that could be used to produce better products and more profits.
---
Review by Adam Broughman in KIN 435 (section 1)
This article is about the Packers and their new ticketing policy regarding people with disabilities. Since there has been some changes made to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Packers had to change their ticket policies to coincide with the new regulations. According to the article, ticket sales have to be the same for people with or without disabilities. Since the Packers don’t personally sell single game tickets to able-bodied fans, they also have to withhold single game tickets for disabled people as well. If disabled people want to purchase tickets to a game and not go through a secondary market, they have to buy season tickets, which carry a hefty price tag.
While this may sound like it will hurt ticket sales, representatives from the Packers feel that they will sell all of the tickets reserved for disabled people. I feel like this is a lofty goal and that it will be harder to sell the tickets than they think. While the Packers are abiding within the confines of the law, I feel like they are in a moral grey area. The purpose of the ADA is to help people with disabilities, but I feel like these new changes have hindered them. I think that buying single game tickets would be more cost efficient for disabled people and would allow them to come out to more games. With this new policy in place, I feel like less disabled people will be able to come out to the games. I think this new policy will not only anger disabled fans, but their families as well. It will now be more difficult to obtain tickets for disabled people and that might also keep able-bodied fans with disabled family members from coming out to games. Overall, I think this change will affect ticket sales in a negative way.
Review by Brad Newell in KIN 435 (section 1)
"Packers Catching Flak Over New ADA-based Ticket Policy" written by Paul Steinbach is an article that brings awareness to an issue regarding the ticket sales policy change of the Green Bay Packers. With the new Packers policy Green Bay will no longer sell single game tickets to people with disabilities. The main issue is that a previous handicap friendly policy is being changed and blamed on new regulations imposed by Americans with Disabilities Act which states that people with disabilities need to be treated in the same way of those without regarding sales. The Packers claim to interpret this as saying that their previous policy is in conflict with the ADA regulation thus forcing them to change their policy. The claim that this is in violation of the regulations by being unfair in favor of those who are handicap thus not being equal.
In my opinion, the Packers are using the new ADA regulation as a opportunity to change their policy. Knowing that handicap individuals wouldn't be happy with the change they blamed the change on ADA regulations. But, I don't see an ethical issue with this change. People with disabilities can still purchase single game tickets online that are being resold by handicap season ticket holders just like non-handicap people. The only issue could be that there are not enough handicap seats.
There could be a negative marketing and sales impact caused by people who believe the policy change is unethical. If a group of people feels strongly enough about the ethics of the change they could boycott Packers games and shine negative publicity on the organization. Boycotts and public opinions can have a big impact on how a company does business. For example in the 1970's Nestles made some questionable ethical decisions and caused a boycott that effected profits enough that forced the company to make business changes. And on the other side of the spectrum many companies make donations that shine positive light on the company and act as a marketing strategy to bring in new customers.
Regulations can also have a huge impact on companies. Companies spend millions of dollars to stay within state and national safety, health, and ethical regulations. While many regulations are necessary some believe that others force unnecessary spending that could be used to produce better products and more profits.
---
Review by Adam Broughman in KIN 435 (section 1)
This article is about the Packers and their new ticketing policy regarding people with disabilities. Since there has been some changes made to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Packers had to change their ticket policies to coincide with the new regulations. According to the article, ticket sales have to be the same for people with or without disabilities. Since the Packers don’t personally sell single game tickets to able-bodied fans, they also have to withhold single game tickets for disabled people as well. If disabled people want to purchase tickets to a game and not go through a secondary market, they have to buy season tickets, which carry a hefty price tag.
While this may sound like it will hurt ticket sales, representatives from the Packers feel that they will sell all of the tickets reserved for disabled people. I feel like this is a lofty goal and that it will be harder to sell the tickets than they think. While the Packers are abiding within the confines of the law, I feel like they are in a moral grey area. The purpose of the ADA is to help people with disabilities, but I feel like these new changes have hindered them. I think that buying single game tickets would be more cost efficient for disabled people and would allow them to come out to more games. With this new policy in place, I feel like less disabled people will be able to come out to the games. I think this new policy will not only anger disabled fans, but their families as well. It will now be more difficult to obtain tickets for disabled people and that might also keep able-bodied fans with disabled family members from coming out to games. Overall, I think this change will affect ticket sales in a negative way.
Friday, March 16, 2012
"Nationals limiting group sales to boost Take Back the Park campaign"
From the Washington Post
Review by Kristen Rauch in KIN 435 (section 2)
Looking at the crowd in Nationals Stadium on Opening Day two years ago, one would have thought they were at Citizens Bank Park, home of the Philadelphia Phillies. Phillies fans flooded the capital in 2010, which is why the Washington Nationals have launched a promotion campaign called “Take Back the Park” for this season’s series against the Phillies in May. Andrew Feffer, the Nationals’ COO, claims that this year is “a different day,” as the campaign aims to get the majority of seats filled with Washington fans.
The Take Back the Park promotion offers a special presale of single-game tickets available only to those who live in DC, Maryland, or Virginia. The presale opened at 7:00 am on Friday, February 3rd, and will continue until a yet-to-be-specified date. During this time, Nationals season-ticket holders and residents of the DMV area are encouraged to register for the offer, although eligibility for presale does not guarantee availability of those tickets; tickets are subject to a first-come, first-served basis. Along with this promotion, Feffer has made an appeal to local fans that “filling the park is not only about the Nationals and Phillies, but rather a civic issue.” He hopes the community will band together and take advantage of this opportunity to reclaim what is theirs: Nationals Park.
What does Take Back the Park mean for Phillies fans? They will not be able to purchase tickets to the series until the conclusion of the promotion, and even then, the group tickets they do buy will be at a non-discount rate. This has upset many of the Philadelphia tour operators who generate their income by grouping bus tickets to Nationals Park with tickets to the games. Feffer wants to make sure that Nationals fans get the opportunity to get a ticket to the game before Phillies fans, but once the promotion is over the remaining single-game tickets will go on sale to anyone.
In my opinion, this promotion plan has potential for short-term success. I think that Take Back the Park will get local Nats fans to become more aware of the rivalry with the Phillies, and realizing that this opponent has really “taken away” their stadium, competitiveness will set in and Washington fans will want to reclaim what is theirs. In the long-run, however, attendance ratios at Nationals-Phillies games will really depend on whether or not the Nats win. The new promotion idea will excite the people of Washington for the first series, but if the Nationals are not winning it will have a negative effect on the number of DMV residents who take advantage of the presale and attend future games. Furthermore, limiting group ticket sales may anger Phillies fans, potentially resulting in poorer sportsmanship from those that do end up getting seats in the stadium.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
"Nationals Fight Invasion of Phillies Fans with Ticket-Sale Restrictions"
From Athletic Business
Review by Tarik Hislop in KIN 435 (section 1)
In the article, “Nationals Fight Invasion of Phillies Fans with Ticket-Sales Restrictions,” National’s Chief Operating Officer Andy Feffer told the Post, "Forget you, Philly. This is our park, this is our town, these are our fans, and it's our time right now." His goal is to prevent the Philly Fans from taking over their ballpark. In doing so, Feffer and the Nationals Organization are selling single-game tickets only to people who live in the DMV area. This is one way of controlling the type of fans that attend the baseball game.
Feffer is really annoyed by Phillies fans, which he expresses in this quote. "We've heard it enough, we've seen it enough, and I don't like it any more than anyone else," he said. "We're trying to build a team here, and nothing irks me personally or the people here more than to see another team's fans - particularly Philly fans - in our ballpark, holding up signs. That's not the way it should be. And I think we've got an opportunity here to do something different." Andy Feffer wants to change the culture of the organization, and turn the Nationals Baseball Team into a winning program, which is very evident in his efforts to attract more of “their” fans.
I believe this strategy will work IF they actually convince fans to come out and support. Hopefully, an increase of fan support will give the Nationals something to play for and improve their record so their fan base can continue to increase. These are all things Andy Feffer and The National’s Organization are working towards.
---
Review by Ryan Smith in KIN 435 (section 1)
I chose to read the article “Nationals Fight Invasion of Phillies Fans with Ticket Sales Restrictions." This article discusses how the Washington Nationals are fed up with the Phillies fans taking over their ballpark. The Nationals Chief Operating Officer is even quoted saying “forget you Philly. This is our ballpark, this is our town, these are our fans, and it’s our time right now.” It is easy to see how this problem arises because with the Phillies winning success and their devoted fan base, they don’t have a problem with traveling to see their baseball team play. Not to mention that driving from Philly to Washington isn’t all that bad of a drive.
So in a plan to “Take Back to Park” as the Nationals call it, they have strategized for the first series with the Phillies by only selling single-game tickets to Maryland, Washington, and Virginia residents. This ticket restriction will go on for the next month before opening ticketing sales up for everyone else to purchase. The Phillies organization basically laughed at this plan implemented by the Washington Nationals. They go on to mention that they (Phillies) have never experienced their park being taken over by another ball team because as long as you are winning games, you don’t have to worry about such a problem.
In conclusion, I believe that this plan that the Nationals has come up with is terrible. I think that it’s just a lousy excuse as for why they can’t get fans to come out to the games. Looking at the bigger picture this might be a good idea for the Washington Nationals but the real solution for this problem is simple, just win games and your fan base will naturally increase.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
"More Fans Can Look Forward to Affordability in 2012"
Article from Athletic Business
Review by Michael Prince in KIN 435 (section 2)
The article talked about how teams have been struggling to fill their stadiums. With the economy not being the best, teams have to find new ways to put people in the seats. The Cincinnati Bengals are coming off playoff appearances in two out of three years and still are having problems with attendance. Cincinnati will reduce prices for more than 14,500 seats in this upcoming 2012 season. They are pushing their youth movement to the fans telling them that they have a lot of talent and are looking to have a big turn out this season.
Not only are teams in the NFL having problems filling their seats but leagues such as the MLB, NBA and college level are rethinking their marketing strategies. Teams are beginning to reduce prices on certain seating to bring in more fans and money. I think this could work out well for the teams that do this. It only seems that the big name teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Patriots are consistently selling out each game. So the teams with the smaller market or the team is just not as good have to find something that can help bring in revenue. Normally you don’t see teams lowering ticket prices, but instead increasing them. In this case, teams are doing the opposite which goes against any basic marketing principle.
Time will only tell if this new marketing style will pay off. Marketers will have to do a good job of letting the public know of the price reductions through social media, television, flyers, etc. I think if the public knows that this is the new trend in sports they will be more prone to going to games. I know personally I will be going to more Orioles/Nationals games if they do some sort of price reduction on their seats. This article is just the start of more to come for other teams. I think as teams see how well reducing prices does for teams, you will start to see more and more teams begin to reduce prices. Overall, I believe that this will be beneficial for both the organizations and fans.
Review by Michael Prince in KIN 435 (section 2)
The article talked about how teams have been struggling to fill their stadiums. With the economy not being the best, teams have to find new ways to put people in the seats. The Cincinnati Bengals are coming off playoff appearances in two out of three years and still are having problems with attendance. Cincinnati will reduce prices for more than 14,500 seats in this upcoming 2012 season. They are pushing their youth movement to the fans telling them that they have a lot of talent and are looking to have a big turn out this season.
Not only are teams in the NFL having problems filling their seats but leagues such as the MLB, NBA and college level are rethinking their marketing strategies. Teams are beginning to reduce prices on certain seating to bring in more fans and money. I think this could work out well for the teams that do this. It only seems that the big name teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Patriots are consistently selling out each game. So the teams with the smaller market or the team is just not as good have to find something that can help bring in revenue. Normally you don’t see teams lowering ticket prices, but instead increasing them. In this case, teams are doing the opposite which goes against any basic marketing principle.
Time will only tell if this new marketing style will pay off. Marketers will have to do a good job of letting the public know of the price reductions through social media, television, flyers, etc. I think if the public knows that this is the new trend in sports they will be more prone to going to games. I know personally I will be going to more Orioles/Nationals games if they do some sort of price reduction on their seats. This article is just the start of more to come for other teams. I think as teams see how well reducing prices does for teams, you will start to see more and more teams begin to reduce prices. Overall, I believe that this will be beneficial for both the organizations and fans.
"Virginia and Virginia Tech football struggle to sell tickets to their bowl games"
Review by Julie Fox in KIN 435 (section 1)
Many college football teams are finding themselves in difficult positions now that it is bowl season again. Virginia and Virginia Tech are two of the many ACC schools struggling to sell all of their allotted tickets. According to this article, Tech had only sold about 53% of their ticket allotment to the 2012 Sugar Bowl game and Virginia was expected to fall at least 4,000 tickets short of their allotment to the 2012 Chik-fil-A bowl. The problem with the decline in ticket sales is that the school and the ACC Conference are responsible for the unsold tickets. Tech was expected to receive its largest-ever bowl payout as a result from being in the bowl game. Due to the unsold tickets, Tech will not receive nearly as large payout as expected.
Virginia Tech’s reputation was on the line for this bowl game. Tech was selected to play in the game because of their reputation as having a large fan base that travels well. The school was expected to fill a lot of seats and a lot of hotel rooms, but found themselves failing. Head Coach Frank Beamer transformed himself into a salesman, pleading with students at halftime of a men’s basketball game to buy their bowl game tickets through the school.
The problem lies within the secondary ticket market. The secondary ticket market used to consist of people selling tickets on corners outside of stadiums. Now people can go online and buy better, cheaper tickets. StubHub listed more than 7,000 available tickets for the Sugar Bowl and 4,000 for the Chik-fil-A bowl. To fix this problem, Tech needed to implement some sort of incentive for students and fans to buy their tickets through the school. Why should students buy a random ticket in the nose-bleed section through Tech, when they could buy their ticket on Stubhub and pick their own seat? They needed some sort of program where if fans bought their ticket through the school, they got a discounted price on transportation to the game. While it is understandable that the ACC has rules about ticket allotments, it might be time for them to realize that secondary ticket markets are becoming the primary source of ticket sales. It is unfair to put so much financial burden on the schools when it is constantly getting harder for them to sell tickets. I feel a good solution would be to lower the ticket allotment to each school and put more tickets for sale on websites such as StubHub where they ultimately would make more of a profit.
---
Review by Bekah Jarzombek in KIN 435 (section 1)
For the 2012 Bowl Championship Series, ACC schools were feeling the pressure to meet ticket sales numbers. The secondary ticket market was stealing fan’s business by providing lower ticket prices and convenience. Specifically, as of December 12, 2011, Virginia Tech had only sold 53% of the 17,500-ticket allotment for the Allstate Sugar Bowl on January 3, 2012. There was strong concern considering the game was less than a month away. Failure to sell tickets meant Virginia Tech and the ACC must pay for the unsold tickets. Less profit would be made off of the game. In desperation, Coach Beamer of Virginia Tech spoke at a men’s basketball game. He attempted to persuade students to buy their Sugar Bowl tickets from Virginia Tech. In addition, football players threw Mardi Gras beads into the crowd for extra motivation.
Other than the men’s’ basketball event, the article did not expand on ways Virginia Tech was attempting to fix the ticket problem. It seems the school and ACC should have recognized the problem earlier. With that said, resorting to Beamer’s begging session, three weeks before the game, was not an effective way to persuade students’ ticket decisions. The root of the problem is the Virginia Tech ticket prices are more expensive than companies such at StubHub. They can beg all they want, but a student is not going to buy a more expensive ticket if they know they can get it for a cheaper price. That doesn’t mean the fans lack passion for Virginia Tech. Their job is to go the game, and that is what they are doing…at a cheaper price.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
"Marketing the 'Big Game': Developing a Student Rewards Program in College Basketball"
From Sports Marketing Quarterly
Review by Ryan Richardson in KIN 332 (Section 2)
Kansas State University found the student population to be sparse at non-marquee games leading up to the historically sold-out Kansas State vs. Kansas University basketball game (also known as the “Sunflower Showdown”). KSU also had a “first come, first serve” seating policy for students at home games, which created a mad rush when the gates were opened. To increase student turnout on the non-marquee games leading to the Sunflower Showdown and to create a safer alternative to students rushing to seats, KSU created a student rewards program.
Students were encouraged to sign up for the program in groups of two to ten people. Students were awarded a point for each home game they attended. The average number of games attended by members of the groups determined their seating for the
Sunflower Showdown. Pre-determined seating would eliminate the unsafe rush for marquee games and rewarding students with seats to the Sunflower Showdown would give students incentive to attend the games leading to it.
The program consisted of 3,324 students in 999 groups. Grouping the students would encourage entire groups to attend games. Registering in groups also emphasizes attending sporting events because of their social nature. Pressure is created on the students to organize and connect with members of the group for each game. This social aspect would also impact less committed spectators who want to be involved in a group. Also, if an individual’s reference group approves of going to the game, the game experience itself is perceived more favorably. Any student who only attended marquee games would be forced to attend other games.
Student attendance to the nine games leading up to the Sunflower Showdown increased on average by 1246 a game when compared to the previous season. That is an 18.2% average increase per game! The program was so successful KSU incorporated it into their other sports. This article shows marketing a rivalry is good. A rival can create an Us vs. Them mindset which helps increase the value of that specific game. Students will also be willing to attend other games to get seats for a rivalry game. It brings in the question of what else students will do to get seats to an important game. The rewards program could be implemented across all sports so attendance to less popular sports increases. The students are provided with a motivation to attend games. The perceived value or importance of non-marquee games increases. This could generate more hype and students not even involved in the program may attend because so many others are.
The program’s reward must be appealing to the customer segment you are targeting. Also, existing marketing activities such as half-time giveaways and entertainment must still be provided. It is important to keep marketing strategies focused on forming stronger connections with the team during a rewards program. Also, the social aspect of attending a game should be highlighted so win or lose, the fans enjoy their experience.
In the article it discussed how UNLV was losing attendance at their sporting events and how Kansas St faced a similar issue. It outlined the problem and solution that K. State came up with, and how UNLV could apply it to their own problems. I though the article was very interesting and the idea behind it was very clever, but I don’t think it was necessary to add the UNLV section to it in addition to the Kansas State. I understand that it set up the rest of the article but they could have just based it on Kansas State as they were the ones who were actually implemented the reward system. However, I think the rewards system in a great idea and that it could be used not only in college sports but in all sports as well. I think that JMU could greatly benefit from this system as well. My friends and I only go to a few select games, similar to the situation at Kansas St. and if this reward system was in place I think it would greatly increase student attendance. Also this could be an effective strategy in the 25 strong campaign as well for next year and even for when more renovations are done on Bridgeforth. Kansas State was able to achieve an 18.2% increase in student ticket sales, combine that kind of success with all sports and you can see the potential. This article also had interesting points as to the reason people attend games. The main distinction was between fans and spectators; fans attended because of a deep rooted connection with a team and a spectator attended just to attend. So this system could also potentially turn casual spectators into die-hard fans which would increase profits in not just ticket sales but other areas as well.
Review by Ryan Richardson in KIN 332 (Section 2)
Kansas State University found the student population to be sparse at non-marquee games leading up to the historically sold-out Kansas State vs. Kansas University basketball game (also known as the “Sunflower Showdown”). KSU also had a “first come, first serve” seating policy for students at home games, which created a mad rush when the gates were opened. To increase student turnout on the non-marquee games leading to the Sunflower Showdown and to create a safer alternative to students rushing to seats, KSU created a student rewards program.
Students were encouraged to sign up for the program in groups of two to ten people. Students were awarded a point for each home game they attended. The average number of games attended by members of the groups determined their seating for the
Sunflower Showdown. Pre-determined seating would eliminate the unsafe rush for marquee games and rewarding students with seats to the Sunflower Showdown would give students incentive to attend the games leading to it.
The program consisted of 3,324 students in 999 groups. Grouping the students would encourage entire groups to attend games. Registering in groups also emphasizes attending sporting events because of their social nature. Pressure is created on the students to organize and connect with members of the group for each game. This social aspect would also impact less committed spectators who want to be involved in a group. Also, if an individual’s reference group approves of going to the game, the game experience itself is perceived more favorably. Any student who only attended marquee games would be forced to attend other games.
Student attendance to the nine games leading up to the Sunflower Showdown increased on average by 1246 a game when compared to the previous season. That is an 18.2% average increase per game! The program was so successful KSU incorporated it into their other sports. This article shows marketing a rivalry is good. A rival can create an Us vs. Them mindset which helps increase the value of that specific game. Students will also be willing to attend other games to get seats for a rivalry game. It brings in the question of what else students will do to get seats to an important game. The rewards program could be implemented across all sports so attendance to less popular sports increases. The students are provided with a motivation to attend games. The perceived value or importance of non-marquee games increases. This could generate more hype and students not even involved in the program may attend because so many others are.
The program’s reward must be appealing to the customer segment you are targeting. Also, existing marketing activities such as half-time giveaways and entertainment must still be provided. It is important to keep marketing strategies focused on forming stronger connections with the team during a rewards program. Also, the social aspect of attending a game should be highlighted so win or lose, the fans enjoy their experience.
---
Review by Jake Kennelly in KIN 332 (Section 2)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)