Attendance 2015

[southsider2k5]

So you both now agree that a major part of the problem is with white sox management? ok.

 

The White Sox couldn't afford Willis, which is why he went to Detroit with Miguel. Again, fans allowing the Tigers resources that the White Sox don't have.

[southsider2k5]

I think the solution is obviously to continue winning 45% of our games and complain louder about having a disloyal fanbase.

 

This is obviously ignoring that this was the case even before the last five years. Fans were leaving even when the White Sox weren't bad.

[flavum]

I'd start with firing the old balls announcers that they have in charge of their daily 3-hour commercial.

[LDF]

So how do we fix this?

 

if this was me, keep Hahn in what he does best as. move kw out. get the ownership who are the presidents to step down and if needed get a family, younger member to run the show.

 

get another baseball person to run the president side of the org. a hard nose smart pres.

 

i think the logistic side of baseball is getting too big.

 

oh btw, change the philosophy of getting the re-threads b/c they are cheaper.

 

then re-audit the team talent and see what is needed.

Edited May 13, 2015 by LDF

[Balta1701]

This is obviously ignoring that this was the case even before the last five years. Fans were leaving even when the White Sox weren't bad.

how about we just try actually putting a non-disappointing team on the field and see what happens? it's been a long time.

[Eminor3rd]

So basically this ownership group needs to go into debt on the hope that they can maybe convince fans to show up after years of winning playoff series. Yeah, good luck with that. If you are waiting for a once in a franchise history kind of run to show up, you might as well find another team to complain about... err, root for.

 

The Tigers have been brought up a bunch in this thread. Go back and look at their history. From 1988 to 2010, they made the playoffs exactly once in a 23 season period. In 2010, the Tigers drew just over 30k a night to Comerica. 2010 was the year before their 4 straight playoff appearances, to see a team that won 81 games. That allowed the Tigers to invest in the minor league system and their major league system in a way that the White Sox, couldn't. For comparisons sake the White Sox were coming off of 3 playoff appearances in 10 years, including the 2005 WS, and drew about 27k a night. Going back to the bottom of Tigers history in 2002 and 2003 when they lost a combined 225 games in two years, they still saw almost 24k a night show up to see a 72 win team in 2004, or about 4k a night more than we had last year.

 

So yes, it is done in other places without winning multiple years in a row. It is another excuse.

 

No, they're making more and more money every year. They're not in debt. They're very much in the black and presumably happy about it. And that's despite ten years of more bad than good.

 

I'm sure they want attendance to increase because it would make them even more in the black. But that's on them. They're a business. "Fan loyalty" at whatever level it's currently at is making them profitable. I don't believe anyone owes them more than that. If they want people to spend $40-200 in their ballpark about ten times a year, then it's on them to make that a worthwhile experience.

[Buehrlesque]

Dear God people, why is this so difficult to understand?

 

The idea is that another team in Chicago (which you brought up as one that sells out all the time despite ticket price, which I mentioned was because they have been extremely successful at the sport they play) saw attendance fall when their win % did, and then the opposite happened. I have stated that if the Sox won as consistently as the Chicago Blackhawks or Detroit Tigers, or even with a fraction of their consistency, their attendance would have gone up from 2011 to 2014, not down. I think that is an impossible claim to refute, but it's also unfortunately impossible to prove.

 

It has nothing to do with stadium capacity, or number of teams allowed in the postseason, or anything like that.

I think the bolded is true of everyone's postulates in this thread. No one's technically "right" or "wrong" because it can't fully be proven. And it doesn't have to be 100% "Sox fans are excuse-making, fickle jerks" OR 100% "Sox team doesn't win enough or try to" anyway. It's probably a combination of things.

 

I think both camps are right to an extent. Sox fans are fickle (and skeptical) — it's not enough for the team to be good (2012) or for management to put an "all in" effort to make the team good (2011, 2015). The front office has to generate a lot of buzz in the offseason AND the team has to play really well in the ensuing season. Unfortunately, this has NEVER happened in recent White Sox memory. Either the team has been unexpectedly good with lower expectations (2008, 2012) or they've been built up with acquisitions and expectations and then thoroughly disappointed (2011, 2015 among others). Sox fans don't buy in in either scenario.

 

The stuff about the Sox being a small market team because of city market share and unresponsive fans, while based in fact and somewhat true, is overblown. The Sox can spend, and have spent. The frustrating part there is that management has put the effort into winning to attract fans, and the team always disappoints in those circumstances, which turns off the fans! At the same time, there are tons of other facts limiting attendance (location, aesthetics, etc.) If the Sox had a beautiful, super new or super retro-new, downtown stadium, they would draw more easily. Unfortunately, they don't. I like the Cell, but objectively it's a generic-looking stadium, without an "aura," located substantially out of the way of the heart of the city.

 

To me, it's an inertia thing. More fans being at the park begets more fans coming to the park. When there's no one there (often the result of a bad team), the park looks empty, lifeless and uninspiring. Truth is, perception (fair or not) is reality. It doesn't inspire someone watching at home to come out. Even if that random fan watching at home did want to go to a game, they know there's no reason to buy a ticket in advance when they could get it day of game and wait to see their home/work schedule, weather, pitching match ups, etc. And so by the time that game rolls around, they find a weather problem or a work problem or whatever other excuse to prevent them from going to the game.

 

Basically, I think it takes commitment and execution from both sides — the team and the fans. The team has to build a winner AND they have to win to get the ball rolling. The fans have to come out and support it. I don't think Sox fans will ever just blindly come out to the Cell, it's just not going to happen. Once the ball is rolling, the rest will begin to take care of itself: more winning means more fans, which means more need to buy tickets in advance, which means more fans committing to coming out in advance regardless of match ups, weather, etc. The opposite — lots of walk up sales for a surprisingly serious late season contender — can happen as well: I remember the insane walk-up crowds late summer 2003 . But that is far less reliable.

 

So I do think the onus is on the Sox to start it out, and it is a little more difficult than it is for other major league team, but that's just the way it is. Good news is, if they ever get it right, the effects could be longer-lasting than we've seen. Remember, the Sox were awful in 2007, yet still drew 2.6 million. They'd kill for that kind of number today. Why did they draw so well? Previous seasons' success raised fan interest and forced/inspired them to buy in advance! So the tickets were already sold before the team tanked.

 

 

[LDF]

No, they're making more and more money every year. They're not in debt. They're very much in the black and presumably happy about it. And that's despite ten years of more bad than good.

 

I'm sure they want attendance to increase because it would make them even more in the black. But that's on them. They're a business. "Fan loyalty" at whatever level it's currently at is making them profitable. I don't believe anyone owes them more than that. If they want people to spend $40-200 in their ballpark about ten times a year, then it's on them to make that a worthwhile experience.

 

BRAVO !!!!!

[southsider2k5]

So it's ok for you to complain incessantly about the fans, yet I have to endure your sarcasm about expressing my dissatisfaction with the futile track record of this ownership group. Got it. It's very clear now.

 

It is OK for me to answer the incessant complaints of people who don't want to look at the whole picture of a situation. Apparently you have a guilty conscious about it.

 

Welcome to being on a message board. Public posts can, and sometimes will, draw responses.

[greg775]

Sox haven't done much since winning the WS. They have nobody to blame but themselves. That was the time to take over the city's baseball fortunes. They could have been known as the "good team" in town. Cubs still would be more popular and draw more probably, but Sox had their chance.

 

It's going to take a division title followed by an ensuing season of success to have 30,000 plus regularly. I used to think KC would never draw because of the cost of going to the game but give them one WS and they've already had 5 sellouts.

[Eminor3rd]

And if anyone ever wants to make the neighborhood argument, go to a game in Detroit, and get back to me.

 

Go live in Detroit and tell me how many better things you have to do. Whatever the number is, it's far less than Chicago.

 

We had a Brewfest scheduled last fall. All of a sudden a bunch of vendors pulled about a month away. Why? Jay-Z and Beyonce announced a free concert in Central Park and they could sell there instead. Context is everything.

[Eminor3rd]

I think the bolded is true of everyone's postulates in this thread. No one's technically "right" or "wrong" because it can't fully be proven. And it doesn't have to be 100% "Sox fans are excuse-making, fickle jerks" OR 100% "Sox team doesn't win enough or try to" anyway. It's probably a combination of things.

 

I think both camps are right to an extent. Sox fans are fickle (and skeptical) — it's not enough for the team to be good (2012) or for management to put an "all in" effort to make the team good (2011, 2015). The front office has to generate a lot of buzz in the offseason AND the team has to play really well in the ensuing season. Unfortunately, this has NEVER happened in recent White Sox memory. Either the team has been unexpectedly good with lower expectations (2008, 2012) or they've been built up with acquisitions and expectations and then thoroughly disappointed (2011, 2015 among others). Sox fans don't buy in in either scenario.

 

The stuff about the Sox being a small market team because of city market share and unresponsive fans, while based in fact and somewhat true, is overblown. The Sox can spend, and have spent. The frustrating part there is that management has put the effort into winning to attract fans, and the team always disappoints in those circumstances, which turns off the fans! At the same time, there are tons of other facts limiting attendance (location, aesthetics, etc.) If the Sox had a beautiful, super new or super retro-new, downtown stadium, they would draw more easily. Unfortunately, they don't. I like the Cell, but objectively it's a generic-looking stadium, without an "aura," located substantially out of the way of the heart of the city.

 

To me, it's an inertia thing. More fans being at the park begets more fans coming to the park. When there's no one there (often the result of a bad team), the park looks empty, lifeless and uninspiring. Truth is, perception (fair or not) is reality. It doesn't inspire someone watching at home to come out. Even if that random fan watching at home did want to go to a game, they know there's no reason to buy a ticket in advance when they could get it day of game and wait to see their home/work schedule, weather, pitching match ups, etc. And so by the time that game rolls around, they find a weather problem or a work problem or whatever other excuse to prevent them from going to the game.

 

Basically, I think it takes commitment and execution from both sides — the team and the fans. The team has to build a winner AND they have to win to get the ball rolling. The fans have to come out and support it. I don't think Sox fans will ever just blindly come out to the Cell, it's just not going to happen. Once the ball is rolling, the rest will begin to take care of itself: more winning means more fans, which means more need to buy tickets in advance, which means more fans committing to coming out in advance regardless of match ups, weather, etc. The opposite — lots of walk up sales for a surprisingly serious late season contender — can happen as well: I remember the insane walk-up crowds late summer 2003 . But that is far less reliable.

 

So I do think the onus is on the Sox to start it out, and it is a little more difficult than it is for other major league team, but that's just the way it is. Good news is, if they ever get it right, the effects could be longer-lasting than we've seen. Remember, the Sox were awful in 2007, yet still drew 2.6 million. They'd kill for that kind of number today. Why did they draw so well? Previous seasons' success raised fan interest and forced/inspired them to buy in advance! So the tickets were already sold before the team tanked.

 

Great post

[LDF]

 

in 2007 they drew well, b/c of the hangover of the world series win. a direct result in the team winning a championship.

 

the fans don't come out when the sox are trying to put a team out there, imo, most fans don't trust the owners to finish putting out the finish product. to completely fix the team to win, not half way.

 

the fans will spend, and i am going use a number someone else came up with, $$ 40-200 per person, at least how many will be there, 2. now include the traffic, for what, a sub 100 team???

 

like it or not, the owners need to get on the ball and get in touch with today world of doing business.

[LDF]

Sox haven't done much since winning the WS. They have nobody to blame but themselves. That was the time to take over the city's baseball fortunes. They could have been known as the "good team" in town. Cubs still would be more popular and draw more probably, but Sox had their chance.

 

It's going to take a division title followed by an ensuing season of success to have 30,000 plus regularly. I used to think KC would never draw because of the cost of going to the game but give them one WS and they've already had 5 sellouts.

 

they failed on taking over chi baseball scene thru bad personnel in the fo, and doing as little as you can to max the profit theme.

 

all they needed to do is invest better in the product on the field, break even or loose for 1 yr or 2 and then bring in the profits later.

[Leonard Zelig]

This is not my favorite thread.

[ptatc]

Haha, fair enough, but I assume those drinks will normally be coming from a bottle in your basement, no?

Getting away to Sox games is a way to do it as well, which is why I have weekend season tickets and Bears season tickets.

 

Who am I kidding your right, most of the time it is hiding in the basement.

[Iwritecode]

If they didn't win the WS again, yes, without a doubt. But if it takes winning the division 4 years in a row for people to attend games, your fan base sucks.

 

Yea it kinda does. The Twins from 1995 to 2001 averaged 14.6K, 17.5K, 17.4K, 14.3K, 14.8K, 12.3K and 22K. Then from 2002 to 2010 they went to the playoffs 6 times and got a new stadium. Their attendance went up steadily until 2011. It's gone down since then because they haven't made the playoffs since. They are on pace for under 2 million this year.

 

I guess their fan base sucks too.

 

 

So basically the White Sox need to spend a five to seven year period as the best team in baseball to get fans to show up.

 

Not best in baseball. Just the division. Or at least 4th best in the AL.

[Thad Bosley]

It is OK for me to answer the incessant complaints of people who don't want to look at the whole picture of a situation. Apparently you have a guilty conscious about it.

 

Welcome to being on a message board. Public posts can, and sometimes will, draw responses.

LOL - "guilty conscious". What kind of crazy talk is that. But to your point about about public posts drawing responses, sure, that's obvious. But also keep in mind that public posts that ridiculously and erroneously condemn a fan base for not blindly supporting a continuously mediocre-to-subpar sports product will also draw responses. I mean, talk about not looking at the whole picture.

[southsider2k5]

LOL - "guilty conscious". What kind of crazy talk is that. But to your point about about public posts drawing responses, sure, that's obvious. But also keep in mind that public posts that ridiculously and erroneously condemn a fan base for not blindly supporting a continuously mediocre-to-subpar sports product will also draw responses. I mean, talk about not looking at the whole picture.

 

This is what happens when even the examples given as to how the White Sox should be run, such as the Tigers, fall apart under closer examination.

[LVSoxFan]

I think the bolded is true of everyone's postulates in this thread. No one's technically "right" or "wrong" because it can't fully be proven. And it doesn't have to be 100% "Sox fans are excuse-making, fickle jerks" OR 100% "Sox team doesn't win enough or try to" anyway. It's probably a combination of things.

 

I think both camps are right to an extent. Sox fans are fickle (and skeptical) — it's not enough for the team to be good (2012) or for management to put an "all in" effort to make the team good (2011, 2015). The front office has to generate a lot of buzz in the offseason AND the team has to play really well in the ensuing season. Unfortunately, this has NEVER happened in recent White Sox memory. Either the team has been unexpectedly good with lower expectations (2008, 2012) or they've been built up with acquisitions and expectations and then thoroughly disappointed (2011, 2015 among others). Sox fans don't buy in in either scenario.

 

The stuff about the Sox being a small market team because of city market share and unresponsive fans, while based in fact and somewhat true, is overblown. The Sox can spend, and have spent. The frustrating part there is that management has put the effort into winning to attract fans, and the team always disappoints in those circumstances, which turns off the fans! At the same time, there are tons of other facts limiting attendance (location, aesthetics, etc.) If the Sox had a beautiful, super new or super retro-new, downtown stadium, they would draw more easily. Unfortunately, they don't. I like the Cell, but objectively it's a generic-looking stadium, without an "aura," located substantially out of the way of the heart of the city.

 

To me, it's an inertia thing. More fans being at the park begets more fans coming to the park. When there's no one there (often the result of a bad team), the park looks empty, lifeless and uninspiring. Truth is, perception (fair or not) is reality. It doesn't inspire someone watching at home to come out. Even if that random fan watching at home did want to go to a game, they know there's no reason to buy a ticket in advance when they could get it day of game and wait to see their home/work schedule, weather, pitching match ups, etc. And so by the time that game rolls around, they find a weather problem or a work problem or whatever other excuse to prevent them from going to the game.

 

Basically, I think it takes commitment and execution from both sides — the team and the fans. The team has to build a winner AND they have to win to get the ball rolling. The fans have to come out and support it. I don't think Sox fans will ever just blindly come out to the Cell, it's just not going to happen. Once the ball is rolling, the rest will begin to take care of itself: more winning means more fans, which means more need to buy tickets in advance, which means more fans committing to coming out in advance regardless of match ups, weather, etc. The opposite — lots of walk up sales for a surprisingly serious late season contender — can happen as well: I remember the insane walk-up crowds late summer 2003 . But that is far less reliable.

 

So I do think the onus is on the Sox to start it out, and it is a little more difficult than it is for other major league team, but that's just the way it is. Good news is, if they ever get it right, the effects could be longer-lasting than we've seen. Remember, the Sox were awful in 2007, yet still drew 2.6 million. They'd kill for that kind of number today. Why did they draw so well? Previous seasons' success raised fan interest and forced/inspired them to buy in advance! So the tickets were already sold before the team tanked.

 

Awesome post. I concur. I've always said that Wrigley has a built-in crowd of super-casual fans just because of its location and its unique landmark look. Somebody once said to me the Cubs and Sox have the same number of diehards--it's in the casual department that they thrive, because you've got non-baseball fans going, people from out of town who want to see it and a trip to Wrigley isn't a one-destination affair because of all the bars and restaurants and nightlife around the area.

 

But when you go to the Sox game, you're turning around and going home when it's over. Even though it's in a "neighborhood" too, it's not a commercialized one like Wrigleyville, not by a longshot.

 

I always wondered why they didn't build the new park on some lakefront lot where it would have sucked all those tourists right into it as they arrived downtown, but alas: what's done is done.

 

That said, in the end people want to see contenders and let's be honest we haven't looked like ones since first half 2006. 2008 was fun but in reality that season was a contest between us and the Twins to see who could lose the division instead of who could win it which, granted, resulted in the unforgettable blackout game. But also the inevitable first-round exit when playing a real contender, Tampa Bay.

 

So with geography against us I'd say yeah: the way to get people to make the trip to The Cell is to have them want to make that trip to see a contender, because that's the only thing you're marketing. You're not marketing a historic ballpark, or a thriving neighborhood where you can party before and after, easily reachable by el or cab. I think Sox fans are dropping off because how many times have we seen this team in the last few years? And then a new year comes and some allegedly big "splash" moves are made (Adam Dunn, anybody) but yet we get the same result. This year there was all this buzz about how we're now favorites to win the Central, forget the Tigers! Ooops.

 

The same result year after year after year tells me this is systemic and not down to this player or that player. I'd start with KW but you could go as high as Reinsdorf. It may very well be this is the future until the new generation owner takes over--like when Rocky Wirtz took over the Hawks--and reboots the entire organization (which, to their credit, the Cubs have pretty much done).

 

It seems like we constantly put off rebuilding from the ground up because KW each offseason decides why, we can win NOW, if we just acquire THAT player! And then it starts all over again.

 

As for the current attendance, all the above notwithstanding, hey: the weather sucks, the far more popular Hawks and Bulls are in the playoffs so of course nobody's going to miss those games to go freeze at the Cell in 50 degree weather outside--including me. It'll jump in June, like it always does.

[LDF]

Awesome post. I concur. I've always said that Wrigley has a built-in crowd of super-casual fans just because of its location and its unique landmark look. Somebody once said to me the Cubs and Sox have the same number of diehards--it's in the casual department that they thrive, because you've got non-baseball fans going, people from out of town who want to see it and a trip to Wrigley isn't a one-destination affair because of all the bars and restaurants and nightlife around the area.

 

But when you go to the Sox game, you're turning around and going home when it's over. Even though it's in a "neighborhood" too, it's not a commercialized one like Wrigleyville, not by a longshot.

 

I always wondered why they didn't build the new park on some lakefront lot where it would have sucked all those tourists right into it as they arrived downtown, but alas: what's done is done.

 

That said, in the end people want to see contenders and let's be honest we haven't looked like ones since first half 2006. 2008 was fun but in reality that season was a contest between us and the Twins to see who could lose the division instead of who could win it which, granted, resulted in the unforgettable blackout game. But also the inevitable first-round exit when playing a real contender, Tampa Bay.

 

So with geography against us I'd say yeah: the way to get people to make the trip to The Cell is to have them want to make that trip to see a contender, because that's the only thing you're marketing. You're not marketing a historic ballpark, or a thriving neighborhood where you can party before and after, easily reachable by el or cab. I think Sox fans are dropping off because how many times have we seen this team in the last few years? And then a new year comes and some allegedly big "splash" moves are made (Adam Dunn, anybody) but yet we get the same result. This year there was all this buzz about how we're now favorites to win the Central, forget the Tigers! Ooops.

 

The same result year after year after year tells me this is systemic and not down to this player or that player. I'd start with KW but you could go as high as Reinsdorf. It may very well be this is the future until the new generation owner takes over--like when Rocky Wirtz took over the Hawks--and reboots the entire organization (which, to their credit, the Cubs have pretty much done).

 

It seems like we constantly put off rebuilding from the ground up because KW each offseason decides why, we can win NOW, if we just acquire THAT player! And then it starts all over again.

 

As for the current attendance, all the above notwithstanding, hey: the weather sucks, the far more popular Hawks and Bulls are in the playoffs so of course nobody's going to miss those games to go freeze at the Cell in 50 degree weather outside--including me. It'll jump in June, like it always does.

 

real nice. why not a new location, i just found out the reason. some one posted that this was the same area of the 1918+ yrs of the white sox - black sox history.

 

moving to the loop will have had that built in fan base.

 

the reason the sox owners haven't been roundly criticize more, b/c the overall fans do like the owners. they help make excuses as i was.... until this yr. i guess i got tired of the same SOP and excuses from the sox fo.

[Iwritecode]

This is what happens when even the examples given as to how the White Sox should be run, such as the Tigers, fall apart under closer examination.

 

The Tigers pretty much followed the same pattern as well. Throughout the 90's they were never able to crack the 2 million mark until 1999 (last year of Tiger Stadium) and 2000 (First year of new stadium). Then not much until they went to the WS in 2006. They started trending down in the 4 years after that but winning the division the past 4 years in a row seems to have perked the attendance right back up again.

 

It's not a secret. Teams that make the playoffs multiple times in a short time span seem to have pretty good attendance.

[LDF]

The Tigers pretty much followed the same pattern as well. Throughout the 90's they were never able to crack the 2 million mark until 1999 (last year of Tiger Stadium) and 2000 (First year of new stadium). Then not much until they went to the WS in 2006. They started trending down in the 4 years after that but winning the division the past 4 years in a row seems to have perked the attendance right back up again.

 

It's not a secret. Teams that make the playoffs multiple times in a short time span seem to have pretty good attendance.

 

in the most part i will agree with you. but when you have a big city like chi and its appreciation for sports, a built in fan base like the northside, great pr person, they could continue to do as is and still bring in the fans.

[caulfield12]

And if anyone ever wants to make the neighborhood argument, go to a game in Detroit, and get back to me.

 

 

Old stadium, yes.

 

Now the area surrounding the park is similar, if not better, than USCF.

 

And how many times did Illitch have negative revenues? He's like Cuban....fans perceive he cares more about winning the World Series than his bottom line. That is something his (Reinsdorf's) supporters won't or can't argue.

 

Illitch is an anomaly (a la Steinbrenner), just like the Cubs with their unique situation.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2015 by caulfield12

[SCCWS]

 

 

I have posted on this site several times that I think the White Sox attendance issues is they do not have enough corporate sponsorship to supplement the walk up crowds. Who do you think is paying $50+ per ticket in Boston and New York? I am not even talking about corporate boxes. Businesses buy up many of the grandstand seats and use them for client and employee incentives.