Attendance

[ewokpelts]

The White Sox have topped two million fans in only 13 of the 33 years during the Reinsdorf ownership, so Jerry's not going to win any awards for getting those turnstyles to spin. My point is that the primary reason for this inability to draw better is that the location simply doesn't have the greatest reputation. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the area isn't the safest, but it also has to do with the fact the area around the ballpark isn't considered to be all that exciting. That has been the rap for years, and unfortunately no matter what the organization has tried, from ballpark renovations to price reductions to 10 pound ice cream sundaes, they have not been able to overcome that stigma to consistently draw the types of crowds one would expect from a large market team.

Yet you IGNORE that the Sox have never drawn better under any other ownership group. The TOP TWENTY attendance totals are under the current ownership. And with 16 of them in the current facility that apparently no one likes.

 

 

Numbers don't lie. The 2013 White Sox, the 2nd worst of all time, still outdrew the 1960 team that was coming off a world series appearance.

 

[thxfrthmmrs]

Yet you IGNORE that the Sox have never drawn better under any other ownership group. The TOP TWENTY attendance totals are under the current ownership. And with 16 of them in the current facility that apparently no one likes.

 

 

Numbers don't lie. The 2013 White Sox, the 2nd worst of all time, still outdrew the 1960 team that was coming off a world series appearance.

 

The danger of using raw numbers. Were we dead last in attendance in the 1960's? Time has changed man

[Buehrle>Wood]

Did we drop a lot of in park advertisers or is just me? Bacardi at the park is gone, nothing behind home plate anymore and 200 level adds there are nothing.

[greg775]

Yes, many other forms of live entertainment have gotten disproportionately expensive recently. I don't do many of those things as well, because the cost is outsized to the value I perceive of the product. Concerts, Great America, the Zoo...everything.

 

In the early 2000s, I made about half the money I make now but I found a way to go to about 20 games a year. Nowadays, I'm lucky if I make it to one, even though I have way, way more money.

 

Why? Because my HOME entertainment options are way better. I have better television programming alternatives, I have a better internet. I also now have a high definition huge TV and a DVR to cut out commercials.

 

Personally, I don't go to White Sox games anymore largely because I can watch them on crystal clear high definition television - without commercials - for zero cost. Suddenly, an all night commitment...getting to the ballpark.....all night there.... at $30-$40 plus food becomes a whenever-I-want-thing for 60 minutes at no money. It would be substantially more attractive to me if the cost was more in line with what I perceive the value to me to be.

 

That's just me, though. It could be different for different people. However, if you have a family of four, and the average cost to get them all into the ballpark is $25-$40 a ticket....plus other stuff.....for just a regular season ball game....that would seem to me to be very outsized from what most people can afford to blow on a couple hours of entertainment.

 

Hibbard's last two paragraphs are golden in my opinion I think a lot of people have the exact same philosophy. Hibbard you hit the nail on the head. You seem brilliant. You are a Brother Rice grad right? No wonder.

[The Mighty Mite]

The danger of using raw numbers. Were we dead last in attendance in the 1960's? Time has changed man

 

Every pro sport team that was around in those days draws more fans now then back then. US population was 200 million in 1964, its now 325 million.

If a MLB team drew 1,000,000 in the 50s and 60s they were doing well. The Sox hit the million mark just about every year from 51 to 67 then for a ton a reasons attendance was horrible until Dick Allen showed up. First Blackhawk game I went to in 1960 drew 9,700.

The Chicago Packers NBA expansion team of 1961 and 1962 averaged about 3,500 a game before they moved to Baltimore in 63 and became

the Bullets. The Bulls in their early years were not a great draw very seldom over 10,000 a game.

The only Chicago team that sold out their games all these years are the Bears but they only played 6-8 home games a year, not a fair

comparison to other sports.

Edited April 18, 2014 by The Mighty Mite

[caulfield12]

We would have to average 23,413 per game over the next 64 games to equal last year's total of 1,768,413.

 

Right now, we're currently 29th (ahead of the Indians) and averaging only 16,873 fans per game through the first 16. (IT'S ALL ADAM DUNN'S FAULT, haha).

 

2014---29th (1,366,713 at current/projected pace)

2013---25th

2012---22nd

2011---19th

2010---15th traditional 5 year cutoff date for the effects of a World Series championship to stop trickling down

2009---13th

2008---13th

2007---13th

2006---8th (2,957,411)

2005---12th (2,342,833)

 

 

http://hundenpartners.com/database/?tag=hu...ers&paged=3

http://www.chicagosportandsociety.com/2013...isfa-agreement/

 

Essentially, the White Sox haven't been paying any fees/taxes on tickets sold since the 2011 campaign, just around $1.5 million per season for facility/stadium rental.

Edited May 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

The annual debate over the Indians' attendance is predictable and fruitless. But we'll throw the numbers out there for context: The team ranks last in the majors at fewer than 15,000 per game.

 

Taking sides are those extremists who want to label this a terrible baseball town and those crazies who blame ownership for the downturn. Count me among those in the middle who believe it's actually more complicated than that.

 

April and May could bring long winning streaks and weather so warm the Hinckley buzzards move up their flight schedule, and it won't matter until the Indians rebuild their season-ticket base with three to five years of serious contention and frequent appearances. At the current pace of every six years, $1 hot dogs 81 times a year won't be enough to drive traffic to the ballpark.

 

Not only can't the season-ticket base get rebuilt in one winter of Terry Francona, Michael Bourn, Mark Reynolds and Nick Swisher, it wouldn't be a good bet over two winters. Not when the season ticket base slipped by nearly 20,000 over the last decade.

 

A promising start in 2013 isn't enough to stem that tide, says Bud Shaw.

 

The Indians don't need a hot month or two. They've been 30-15 as recently as two seasons ago after all. They don't need a Cy Young candidate to attract big crowds. They had two winners in consecutive seasons.

 

They need consecutive playoff appearances, and perhaps another World Series appearance, at the very least to move the needle. That's the only way they're going to put Indians' tickets back on the family Christmas list.

 

The comparisons between the relatively blind allegiance awarded the Browns versus the tepid following of the Indians is as moot now as it was when closer Chris Perez raised it. This is a football town, which is not the same as saying it's a terrible baseball town.

 

I once attended a press conference at Auburn where basketball coach Sonny Smith was announcing his departure, in part because he felt basketball was an afterthought in football-crazed Alabama. Head football coach Pat Dye, who was also the athletic director, made the announcement.

 

First question: "Sonny, tell us about your decision to leave."

 

Second question: "Coach Dye, how's football recruiting going?"

 

Cleveland isn't quite Auburn, Ala. But waking up the sleeping giant in the 1990s required a new ballpark, a robust economy, an exciting team with a Murderer's Row lineup, a poor division and the sense that October baseball was a given.

 

Oh, and the Browns moving to Baltimore.

Waking up those echoes is going to take more than a good start or even a good season. There are a lot of reasons for it. It's just so much easier to narrow it down to bad fans or cheap ownership and cover them up with blame.

 

cleveland.com (Bud Shaw)

 

 

 

The most ideal spot for a new baseball team may be Northern New Jersey, as the Newark/New York area sports nearly 3.5 million people according to the 2010 Census. The problem with moving to New Jersey, however, comes from the flack that they would receive from the other two franchises within 25 miles of Newark (Mets and Yankees) and the other that is less than 90 miles away (Phillies).

 

Other possible destinations mentioned by The Bleacher Report in 2011 include El Paso, Omaha, Louisville, Charlotte, Albuquerque, Sacramento, Boise, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Nashville, Indianapolis, Las Vegas and, of course, New Orleans. In 2012, Baseball Prospectus lists the top ten locations that could support a baseball team as Norfolk, San Juan (Puerto Rico), Montreal (Canada), Monterrey (Mexico), San Antonio, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Portland, Sacramento and Newark. Any of these locations could be a more hospitable location for the Indians than Cleveland—a city that’s population is decreasing and hit a 100-year low of 396,815 at the 2010 Census. Perhaps a somewhat-less painful move to the middle of the state of Ohio to Columbus would make some sense as well.

 

http://didthetribewinlastnight.com/blog/20...movewould-they/

 

 

 

 

Cleveland’s new (old) reality

Cleveland’s baseball attendance story is sensational. Just as the beautiful Jacobs Field opened in the mid-‘90s, the Indians became a powerhouse, the economy was surging, downtown was booming and the Browns were leaving town. It was a prefect confluence of several unique factors.

 

Now, the baseline has returned. The Indians are consistently ranking in the bottom seven in MLB attendance, just like before in old Municipal Stadium. The perfect storm is over.

 

An under-reported factor is the fact that four new baseball teams have popped up in Northeast Ohio during this span: the Akron Aeros (moved from Canton in 1997), the Mahoning Valley Scrappers (1999), the Lake County Captains (2003) and the independent Lake Erie Crushers (2009).

 

Thus, the Indians must work harder than ever to even remain competitive in the constantly surging MLB attendance picture. Just back in March, Baseball Prospectus wrote on the franchise’s analytic-based promotional efforts. Obviously, April and May always will remain a killer for attendance. It’s incredibly difficult for an outdoor team to draw fans in sub-50 degree weather.

 

Previous research has shown that major external events – such as a playoff appearance – spark lagged attendance changes. That certainly will be the hope for the Indians as they head into 2014. This past offseason’s spending spree, the hiring of Terry Francona and the impressive July 2013 could eventually lead to a moderate rebound.

 

The Indians also lowered concession prices and added a nostalgia-packed promotional schedule for 2013. Their new ticket pricing system has been labeled as innovative yet controversial. The new online system for managing season tickets – Tribe Rewards – could be described as confusing or unnecessary, which is never a good thing for your bread-and-butter customers. Their handling of major promotions also has come under question.

 

The main issue affecting the Indians is their complete lack of a season ticket holder base. The franchise’s attendance varies so widely because there is no consistent flow of attendees. According to a late 2012 Crain’s Cleveland article from now-Indians employee Joel Hammond, the team reportedly had just around 6,000 full-season equivalents.

 

It’s disheartening for a competing major league team, making its case as a legitimate contender, to play in front of sub-20,000 fan crowds on a consistent basis. Now-quiet closer Chris Perez certainly had a point in his very controversial comments last season.

But per the numbers, the decline of Indians attendance over the last decade could be called disappointing and any number of adjectives, but certainly can’t be considered shocking. The existing data on “honeymoon” effects is too overwhelming for us to be too surprised by this development.

 

http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2013/08/...dance-analysis/

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

The annual debate over the Indians' attendance is predictable and fruitless. But we'll throw the numbers out there for context: The team ranks last in the majors at fewer than 15,000 per game.

 

Taking sides are those extremists who want to label this a terrible baseball town and those crazies who blame ownership for the downturn. Count me among those in the middle who believe it's actually more complicated than that.

 

April and May could bring long winning streaks and weather so warm the Hinckley buzzards move up their flight schedule, and it won't matter until the Indians rebuild their season-ticket base with three to five years of serious contention and frequent appearances. At the current pace of every six years, $1 hot dogs 81 times a year won't be enough to drive traffic to the ballpark.

 

Not only can't the season-ticket base get rebuilt in one winter of Terry Francona, Michael Bourn, Mark Reynolds and Nick Swisher, it wouldn't be a good bet over two winters. Not when the season ticket base slipped by nearly 20,000 over the last decade.

 

A promising start in 2013 isn't enough to stem that tide, says Bud Shaw.

 

The Indians don't need a hot month or two. They've been 30-15 as recently as two seasons ago after all. They don't need a Cy Young candidate to attract big crowds. They had two winners in consecutive seasons.

 

They need consecutive playoff appearances, and perhaps another World Series appearance, at the very least to move the needle. That's the only way they're going to put Indians' tickets back on the family Christmas list.

 

The comparisons between the relatively blind allegiance awarded the Browns versus the tepid following of the Indians is as moot now as it was when closer Chris Perez raised it. This is a football town, which is not the same as saying it's a terrible baseball town.

 

I once attended a press conference at Auburn where basketball coach Sonny Smith was announcing his departure, in part because he felt basketball was an afterthought in football-crazed Alabama. Head football coach Pat Dye, who was also the athletic director, made the announcement.

 

First question: "Sonny, tell us about your decision to leave."

 

Second question: "Coach Dye, how's football recruiting going?"

 

Cleveland isn't quite Auburn, Ala. But waking up the sleeping giant in the 1990s required a new ballpark, a robust economy, an exciting team with a Murderer's Row lineup, a poor division and the sense that October baseball was a given.

 

Oh, and the Browns moving to Baltimore.

Waking up those echoes is going to take more than a good start or even a good season. There are a lot of reasons for it. It's just so much easier to narrow it down to bad fans or cheap ownership and cover them up with blame.

 

cleveland.com (Bud Shaw)

 

 

 

The most ideal spot for a new baseball team may be Northern New Jersey, as the Newark/New York area sports nearly 3.5 million people according to the 2010 Census. The problem with moving to New Jersey, however, comes from the flack that they would receive from the other two franchises within 25 miles of Newark (Mets and Yankees) and the other that is less than 90 miles away (Phillies).

 

Other possible destinations mentioned by The Bleacher Report in 2011 include El Paso, Omaha, Louisville, Charlotte, Albuquerque, Sacramento, Boise, Portland, Memphis, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Nashville, Indianapolis, Las Vegas and, of course, New Orleans. In 2012, Baseball Prospectus lists the top ten locations that could support a baseball team as Norfolk, San Juan (Puerto Rico), Montreal (Canada), Monterrey (Mexico), San Antonio, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Portland, Sacramento and Newark. Any of these locations could be a more hospitable location for the Indians than Cleveland—a city that’s population is decreasing and hit a 100-year low of 396,815 at the 2010 Census. Perhaps a somewhat-less painful move to the middle of the state of Ohio to Columbus would make some sense as well.

 

http://didthetribewinlastnight.com/blog/20...movewould-they/

 

 

 

 

Cleveland’s new (old) reality

Cleveland’s baseball attendance story is sensational. Just as the beautiful Jacobs Field opened in the mid-‘90s, the Indians became a powerhouse, the economy was surging, downtown was booming and the Browns were leaving town. It was a prefect confluence of several unique factors.

 

Now, the baseline has returned. The Indians are consistently ranking in the bottom seven in MLB attendance, just like before in old Municipal Stadium. The perfect storm is over.

 

An under-reported factor is the fact that four new baseball teams have popped up in Northeast Ohio during this span: the Akron Aeros (moved from Canton in 1997), the Mahoning Valley Scrappers (1999), the Lake County Captains (2003) and the independent Lake Erie Crushers (2009).

 

Thus, the Indians must work harder than ever to even remain competitive in the constantly surging MLB attendance picture. Just back in March, Baseball Prospectus wrote on the franchise’s analytic-based promotional efforts. Obviously, April and May always will remain a killer for attendance. It’s incredibly difficult for an outdoor team to draw fans in sub-50 degree weather.

 

Previous research has shown that major external events – such as a playoff appearance – spark lagged attendance changes. That certainly will be the hope for the Indians as they head into 2014. This past offseason’s spending spree, the hiring of Terry Francona and the impressive July 2013 could eventually lead to a moderate rebound.

 

The Indians also lowered concession prices and added a nostalgia-packed promotional schedule for 2013. Their new ticket pricing system has been labeled as innovative yet controversial. The new online system for managing season tickets – Tribe Rewards – could be described as confusing or unnecessary, which is never a good thing for your bread-and-butter customers. Their handling of major promotions also has come under question.

 

The main issue affecting the Indians is their complete lack of a season ticket holder base. The franchise’s attendance varies so widely because there is no consistent flow of attendees. According to a late 2012 Crain’s Cleveland article from now-Indians employee Joel Hammond, the team reportedly had just around 6,000 full-season equivalents.

 

It’s disheartening for a competing major league team, making its case as a legitimate contender, to play in front of sub-20,000 fan crowds on a consistent basis. Now-quiet closer Chris Perez certainly had a point in his very controversial comments last season.

But per the numbers, the decline of Indians attendance over the last decade could be called disappointing and any number of adjectives, but certainly can’t be considered shocking. The existing data on “honeymoon” effects is too overwhelming for us to be too surprised by this development.

 

http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2013/08/...dance-analysis/

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=19854

 

The best article I've ever seen about trying to link sports marketing with SABR analysis/metrics.

 

Very thought-provoking, thorough, and definitely worth the read.

 

 

One wonders how they feel about the system as of today, since the Indians are a full 2,500 per game behind the White Sox in attendance?

 

If you search for THINKVINE (the marketing/data analysis company), you can't find any articles about whether the Indians considered the 2013 partnership a success or not...or whether they were going to continue their relationship into 2014.

http://thinkvine.com/who-we-are/newsroom/p...-marketing.html

 

 

 

Just about 1/10th of the full article.

 

Armed with that information, the Indians are attempting to maximize revenue by optimizing their promotional schedule. King showed a bar chart displaying the effectiveness of each promotion, broken down by year. “Dollar Dog” days, for instance, were the biggest draw, better than bobbleheads or Kids Fun Days. But they weren’t necessarily the most dependable; Dollar Dog days did better when the Indians were winning, whereas fireworks nights were highly resistant to team performance: people apparently want to see fireworks whether their team is winning or not.* Nor were Dollar Dog days the most profitable; that distinction went to hat/cap giveaway days, presumably because the low cost of caps relative to the extra attendance generated offers the best return on investment. Not only can the Indians determine which promotions to schedule and when, but they can also arrive at the correct quantities for giveaway days: at the 15,000-item level, only hats are profitable; at 10,000, almost everything is.

 

*The fireworks finding was my favorite, because of my fondness for Hall of Fame former Indians owner Bill Veeck. Veeck was writing about the positive effects of fireworks over 50 years ago, and putting his ideas into practice even earlier. Using what passed for a scientific approach to promotions at the time, Veeck learned that fireworks would bring fans to the park even if a bad team was playing. He’d have loved to see the data I saw on Saturday, and he’d be even happier that the Indians were the source.

 

Veeck believed that good promotions had a compound benefit: they’d not only pump up attendance, but also increase concession sales. The impact of promotions on concessions wasn’t mentioned during King’s presentation, so I asked Ragusa via email whether they were considered. “We built the model around ticket sales but did all the backend ROI math considering merch and concession,” Ragusa said. “We are working on a project to build in more sense of lifetime value of different consumer groups in the model. This will include more direct/indirect impacts on both merch and concession simultaneous to ticket sales.”

 

We can already see the effect that information has had on the Indians’ schedule. The team will always vary its promotional offerings, both to keep things fresh for the fans and to provide more exposure for their corporate partners. But now the Indians are emphasizing the ones that work. King didn’t say how they’d make use of their new awareness of the profit-generating powers of headwear (hat/cap giveaways), but it’s easy enough to see. The team’s 2013 promotional calendar includes no fewer than four cap/hat giveaways. Last year’s didn’t have any.* That’s satisfying in the same way that seeing Jose Molina play in a career-high 102 games at age 37 is satisfying: it’s a decision we can explain from afar, because we know it’s driven by recently discovered data which even we outside observers are aware of. And to take the parallels to the sort of sabermetrics we’re used to even further, King presented a “heatmap” of the optimal days of the week for each promotion.

 

*Another tidbit: King revealed that it’s tough to break even on concerts. That surprised me, since the Rays run a summer concert series at Tropicana Field, and the Rays generally don’t do things that aren’t backed up by the data. Cleveland is putting on only one concert this summer.

Edited May 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

If you think it's only the Sox with an attendance problem, turn on ESPN. Half full Wrigley for a Sunday night Cubs Cards. Baseball is dead in Chicago.

[zenryan]

If you think it's only the Sox with an attendance problem, turn on ESPN. Half full Wrigley for a Sunday night Cubs Cards. Baseball is dead in Chicago.

 

 

maybe its been said on here already but @EmptySeatsPics on twitter is proof its a problem for just about every MLB team.

 

The Yankees announced something like 40k+ tickets sold today but I would bet they had 25k in the seats.

[lord chas]

I expect that some sort of pitch clock will be put in soon. Games just drag too long

[southsider2k5]

I expect that some sort of pitch clock will be put in soon. Games just drag too long

 

Expand the strike zone a bit. Start calling the high strike again.

[caulfield12]

I expect that some sort of pitch clock will be put in soon. Games just drag too long

 

 

Plus, the replay system isn't helping matters.

 

Actually, it's just too easy to follow the games by audio, mobile devices, MLB.TV (depending on where you live) and sitting at home with your mammoth flatscreen t.v.

[caulfield12]

If you think it's only the Sox with an attendance problem, turn on ESPN. Half full Wrigley for a Sunday night Cubs Cards. Baseball is dead in Chicago.

 

 

Yeah, I noticed going back through all the attendance records that the Cubs had the best attendance in baseball in 2005. Not a coincidence, as the White Sox were also the hottest ticket in Chicago in 2006 and have been sliding backwards ever since that follow-up season.

[greg775]

I expect that some sort of pitch clock will be put in soon. Games just drag too long

 

It's too expensive to go to a ballgame. There, I said it again.

Yes, I know, if you bring your own peanuts and water and stay away from the concession stand it's fine. And I know it's expensive to go to a movie. But for the regular Joe and Jane and their two kids, Jack and Jill, it's too expensive. You can always watch it on TV. I'm glad baseball is being embarrassed by attendance problems. It's just ridiculous what it costs to park a vehicle for a fricking meaningless baseball game.

[Jake]

Maybe it doesn't matter if all the games sell out when the teams continue to make money? I'm just as much of a baseball fan as ever and while I want to go to games, there's only so much I will do. I make at least one game a year, sometimes two. A playoff team would probably increase that to three or four (or would have under my previous living circumstances). I watch the team all the time, though. I miss maybe 15 games per year on TV. I'm profitable

[sin city sox fan]

If you think it's only the Sox with an attendance problem, turn on ESPN. Half full Wrigley for a Sunday night Cubs Cards. Baseball is dead in Chicago.

 

And if they weren't playing the Cardinals, it would be even emptier. I think the crowd for St Louis have been almost as vocal as Cubs fans have been tonight.

[caulfield12]

It's too expensive to go to a ballgame. There, I said it again.

Yes, I know, if you bring your own peanuts and water and stay away from the concession stand it's fine. And I know it's expensive to go to a movie. But for the regular Joe and Jane and their two kids, Jack and Jill, it's too expensive. You can always watch it on TV. I'm glad baseball is being embarrassed by attendance problems. It's just ridiculous what it costs to park a vehicle for a fricking meaningless baseball game.

 

Would you have said the same thing in 2005/06, 2008, 2010 (in the middle of our winning streak) and 2012?

 

Right now, the main reason to come to a White Sox game is simply enjoyment from watching Sale or Abreu.

 

 

It clearly wasn't a problem in 2006 when almost 3 million tickets were sold. Of course, we have the financial crisis, but it's more than that.

 

And, as Jake pointed out, teams have so many revenue streams that attendance is only 20-25% of the total revenue generated (look at all the diverse properties teams like the Red Sox (especially), Yankees, Dodgers and Rangers are involved with), rather than the traditional 40-60%.

 

 

That said, I'm sure the front office prognosticators were hoping for 1.6 million, rather than a total attendance number that might realistically come in under 1.5 million.

 

If I was Boyer, I would put all of the marketing power of the organization behind coming out to see Abreu win ROY and/or MVP. In the end, White Sox fans only consistently supporting "great" baseball teams (since the World Series), and so the closest substitute is a great player. Even Quentin alone wasn't enough to move the meter in 2008, and Sale doesn't have nearly the effect on home crowds as say, Greinke when he was with the Royals, Kershaw in LA, Halladay in Toronto, etc.

 

I would also quickly put together an Abreu Bobblehead Day, maybe one for Eaton (if he can prove he can stay healthy for at least a month)...Abreu cap/hat giveaways, t-shirt giveaways, everything centered around Abreu. Along with that, a Cuban flag themed (not the flag itself, but the colors/patterns) t-shirt with Viciedo/Abreu/Ramirez, etc.

Edited May 5, 2014 by caulfield12

[IlliniKrush]

I expect that some sort of pitch clock will be put in soon. Games just drag too long

Yup, they need to do this. Especially with runners on.

 

But, go to the high school rule for the batters box and put the onus on the hitters as well.

[caulfield12]

This would hurt the attendance. Pitchers would become more dominant and hitters would hit even less homers. We all know how the era prior to the current did with all the home runs. There has been a lot of talk about all of the idiosyncratic crap the players do and the dragging games but I'm not sure how that could be handled effectively.

 

I really think baseball just lacks the stars/public interests it used to have.

 

 

Baseball has become more wildly profitable in the last 20 years, but not necessarily more popular.

 

Part of it is simply the fact that live sports t.v. programming/content is much more lucrative than ever before, compared to the costs of producing a television series, unless it's a reality show with a much lower cost basis.

 

I think the split is something like 46% currently have their favorite as the NFL, 32% for MLB.

 

In Chicago, it's even more dramatic in favor of the NBA and Blackhawks over the White Sox for the moment, because of the winning teams and playoff appearances.

 

 

 

You also have to look at the rise of other sports like MMA, golf (with Tiger Woods in his prime) and NASCAR.

 

Then you have to look at the demographics as well, with MLB trending towards older/male fans, NBA mostly twenty-forties, and NHL/NFL attracting almost universally across families, particularly teams like the Bears or Packers. Even when teams like the Hawks play in the Stanley Cup, it's quite common that the entire family becomes emotionally-involved, whereas younger/teenagers girls are often turned off by the pace of baseball, compared to NBA/NHL (violence)/NFL. Part of it's the traditional/conservative/historic nature of the sport itself, as well.

Edited May 5, 2014 by caulfield12

[LDF]

Baseball has become more wildly profitable in the last 20 years, but not necessarily more popular.

 

Part of it is simply the fact that live sports t.v. programming/content is much more lucrative than ever before, compared to the costs of producing a television series, unless it's a reality show with a much lower cost basis.

 

I think the split is something like 46% currently have their favorite as the NFL, 32% for MLB.

 

In Chicago, it's even more dramatic in favor of the NBA and Blackhawks over the White Sox for the moment, because of the winning teams and playoff appearances.

 

 

 

You also have to look at the rise of other sports like MMA, golf (with Tiger Woods in his prime) and NASCAR.

 

Then you have to look at the demographics as well, with MLB trending towards older/male fans, NBA mostly twenty-forties, and NHL/NFL attracting almost universally across families, particularly teams like the Bears or Packers. Even when teams like the Hawks play in the Stanley Cup, it's quite common that the entire family becomes emotionally-involved, whereas younger/teenagers girls are often turned off by the pace of baseball, compared to NBA/NHL (violence)/NFL. Part of it's the traditional/conservative/historic nature of the sport itself, as well.

 

even thou it has been mention, I will do it again, prices of are just too much to go to a game. late 70's and in the 80's, prices was

better suited for everybody, including the teen ager. those teens grew up and became fans and bought season tickets and of

course with their family, it became an outing at the ballpark.

 

now why go when we can catch the game at home, via/tv/cable/satellite/internet.

 

what surprise me was the stats on the cubs.... if they are hurting.....

[LittleHurt05]

They could sell tickets for a dollar and Sox fans would still b**** about how expensive tickets are.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I don't understand how the cost of tickets is even an excuse. Tickets, through the White Sox site, start at $7 ($5 on Sundays) for the upper corners. Better tickets can be had for just a few dollars more. A family of four can get tickets and parking for $48. That's basically the same cost as going to a movie. Sure concessions can get expensive, but then don't buy them. And really, you can eat a meal at the park for basically the same cost as going to McDonald's or Burger King.

[chisox0587]

They could sell tickets for a dollar and Sox fans would still b**** about how expensive tickets are.

 

 

Agreed, White Sox ticket prices really cannot get any lower in the foreseeable future, if anything they will eventually go back up if the Sox start winning again, which we all want to see in upcoming seasons. Chicago is the 3rd largest market in the country, and the prices are dirt cheap mostly to attend a game. No one forces you to to eat at the ballpark. Eat at home, outside the stadium, tailgate etc. Me and my dad always come up from Iowa, get there early eat at Bridgeport Cafe down a few blocks now called something else. Chicago has great transportation for most fans in the Chicago to attend a sox game, even though sox lost 99 games last season still disappointing how small crowds have been, but not surprising at all, still early, hopefully they can pick up attendance a little bit more even after the 2 games at cell against the cubs.

 

What is your guys guess on attendance for the 2 games at the cell against the cubs, series has lost its juice and was in low 30's last year and year before that, could it get lower, could we see a sox cubs game total attendence under 30,000 and high 20's? I still see total tickets sold.. 32, 34 k each game, but would not completely surprise me if under that amount each game.