Attendance 2015

[chitownsportsfan]

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.

 

It is a better area without a doubt. Furthermore, Detroit is obviously a car town and it's quite easy to find parking around there for $5-25 if you're coming in from the 'burbs.

 

Comerica is an easy sell as well with the way they setup the stadium. The sight lines aren't that great from inside but the promenade outside with the statues is an easy gathering spot on warm summer days for anyone (and there are more and more) living and working around downtown Detroit.

Edited May 13, 2015 by chitownsportsfan

[Chisoxfn]

Hey, great speech, now welcome back to the point I was trying to make.

 

Let's try some sustained winning by this organization for a change and see if that doesn't help cure what ails us. We haven't seen it in our lifetimes, of course, but I believe it can and it will. The "reality" is our fan base responds remarkably well to winning. Just look at how that one year of real winning we had in '05 brought a waiting list for season tickets the following year, and almost three million fans through the turnstiles to boot. Nothing fickle or compromising about that. And I can only imagine what the attendance would have been like during the next three or four years subsequent had the team gone on a run and continued to win the division, like the Indians, Tigers, and Twins have somehow managed to do since the Central came into being. You start winning at that clip and then all of a sudden the park is routinely inhabited by 2.8, 2.9 million fans, just like in '06. And then all of these superficial arguments about hands being tied behind the back and lack of resources and irrelevantly comparing us to the Cubs go away. That mindset coming up with those excuses is completely borne of this lifelong lack of a winning culture of which I speak.

 

Simply put - I want reality to be about more winning. Period. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Look at the Angels. Consistently 2nd fiddle in the LA / OC market until they won the world series...they followed that up with multiple division titles and have been consistent contenders for the past decade. Payroll went through the roof and attendance was extremely strong. Sox could have been similar but they couldn't consistently make the playoffs (they consistently contended but fell short too often vs. building some serious momentum).

[ptatc]

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.

They also have a different situation where they own the team and answer to no one. Reinsdorf is a minority owner of the team. He is the Chairman of the Board but that's it. He cannot just spend into negative revenues. It's not his money.

[caulfield12]

Look at the Angels. Consistently 2nd fiddle in the LA / OC market until they won the world series...they followed that up with multiple division titles and have been consistent contenders for the past decade. Payroll went through the roof and attendance was extremely strong. Sox could have been similar but they couldn't consistently make the playoffs (they consistently contended but fell short too often vs. building some serious momentum).

 

 

Right, and there you have an owner who basically challenged the Dodgers and said "we're coming after you!"

 

Of course, the irony is they won the World Series under passive Disney corporate ownership but haven't gotten close to that with Moreno, despite all the free spending, Mike Trout, one of the best managers in the game in Scioscia, etc.

 

Angels tickets (at least when I went over a decade ago) aren't/weren't expensive....same with the Dodgers. It's a volume business out there with the population base being what it is.

 

 

I still don't think we've met the bar of finding a single team whose fans CONSISTENTLY support their team (no matter what) after going through 7-8 non-playoff seasons (with one playoff team without a chance to advance because of the Quentin injury), and only competitive in roughly half of those seasons (2006-08-10-12)....versus 07/09/11/13/15.

 

The Cubs...

The Tigers...50% due to Mike Illitch personally (under Monaghan, not so much in the attendance department after 1987)

 

If you look at all the Midwestern teams (once you get back the Cubs and Cards), you have a LOT of similar teams in terms of fanbase, demographics and economic impact/s from 2007-2008.

 

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

Cincy

Minnesota

KC

 

The team that has done consistently well without being a great team...probably the closest example is the Brewers. How much of that is the new stadium, the move to the NL, the fact that the Commissioner's office helped leveraged support directly and indirectly...being a one-market city, etc.

 

If you want to argue Brewers fans are less fickle and more loyal, then I'll bite on that one. Otherwise, White Sox fans are VERY similar to fans in the five other markets mentioned above. They all support winners and tend to be skeptical by nature...even Twins' fans never believed in their team 100%, that they had the ability to advance in the playoffs (despite winning 6 of 9 AL Central championships).

 

[caulfield12]

They also have a different situation where they own the team and answer to no one. Reinsdorf is a minority owner of the team. He is the Chairman of the Board but that's it. He cannot just spend into negative revenues. It's not his money.

 

 

And that's what it would take, IMO, to truly change the culture.

 

A completely new ownership group with deeper pockets or a stadium located in a different area of the city.

 

Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship unless they show the ability to put a consistently playoff-contending team on the field. (That means 75% of the time, not every other season...and not completely whiffing on "all in" or close to it years like 2011 and 2015 at the very beginning of the season).

[caulfield12]

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.

 

These are among the best posts in the thread because they're well-thought out, logical and reasonable.

 

Everyone is right, and nobody is right. There's no way to be 100% right, so we take extreme positions and speak in hyperbolic terms in order to get the point across.

 

There's no "proving" a point, because you have an entrenched, nearly unchangeable viewpoint. (I'd argue one of the best marketing strengths of the front office has actually been inculcating the feeling in the fanbase that they're somehow lesser, not loyal, should feel guilty...not supporting the team as much as they should, thus the "can't spend $1.00 if you only have 50 cents" type of comments).

 

I posted an article from early 2011 that the number of local Chicago/Illinois fans attending games for the White Sox and Cubs was almost exactly identical...with the 25% split or difference being out-of-state/tourism related fans, or Wrigleyville "social experience" yuppier partygoers.

 

If the White Sox have LOST fans from that point on, it's their own fault...because the Cubs were going into a prolonged rebuilding period. They had huge opportunities in 2006-07 and then again 2011-2014 (specifically 2011) and they blew both by a wide margin.

Edited May 13, 2015 by caulfield12

[LDF]

Right, and there you have an owner who basically challenged the Dodgers and said "we're coming after you!"

 

Of course, the irony is they won the World Series under passive Disney corporate ownership but haven't gotten close to that with Moreno, despite all the free spending, Mike Trout, one of the best managers in the game in Scioscia, etc.

 

Angels tickets (at least when I went over a decade ago) aren't/weren't expensive....same with the Dodgers. It's a volume business out there with the population base being what it is.

 

 

I still don't think we've met the bar of finding a single team whose fans CONSISTENTLY support their team (no matter what) after going through 7-8 non-playoff seasons (with one playoff team without a chance to advance because of the Quentin injury), and only competitive in roughly half of those seasons (2006-08-10-12)....versus 07/09/11/13/15.

 

The Cubs...

The Tigers...50% due to Mike Illitch personally (under Monaghan, not so much in the attendance department after 1987)

 

If you look at all the Midwestern teams (once you get back the Cubs and Cards), you have a LOT of similar teams in terms of fanbase, demographics and economic impact/s from 2007-2008.

 

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

Cincy

Minnesota

KC

 

The team that has done consistently well without being a great team...probably the closest example is the Brewers. How much of that is the new stadium, the move to the NL, the fact that the Commissioner's office helped leveraged support directly and indirectly...being a one-market city, etc.

 

If you want to argue Brewers fans are less fickle and more loyal, then I'll bite on that one. Otherwise, White Sox fans are VERY similar to fans in the five other markets mentioned above. They all support winners and tend to be skeptical by nature...even Twins' fans never believed in their team 100%, that they had the ability to advance in the playoffs (despite winning 6 of 9 AL Central championships).

nice, one of the better post you have done.

 

[ptatc]

And that's what it would take, IMO, to truly change the culture.

 

A completely new ownership group with deeper pockets or a stadium located in a different area of the city.

 

Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship unless they show the ability to put a consistently playoff-contending team on the field. (That means 75% of the time, not every other season...and not completely whiffing on "all in" or close to it years like 2011 and 2015 at the very beginning of the season).

I don't think anyone would argue that an owner who doesn't care about losing alot of money to win would help any team win. However, these are few and far between. even ilitch who you set as an exmple had 13 losing seasons in a row before a winning season and has had 14 losing season in 24 years as ownership. The JR group has done better than that just not in the last 4 which are the tigers only 1st place finishes under this ownership.

 

So an owner willing to go into the negative to win isn't really the answer.

[Balta1701]

I don't think anyone would argue that an owner who doesn't care about losing alot of money to win would help any team win. However, these are few and far between. even ilitch who you set as an exmple had 13 losing seasons in a row before a winning season and has had 14 losing season in 24 years as ownership. The JR group has done better than that just not in the last 4 which are the tigers only 1st place finishes under this ownership.

 

So an owner willing to go into the negative to win isn't really the answer.

The other difference for Illitch is that as a single owner, if he's on average close to breaking even every year, the increasing equity in his team by being a championship contender winds up as increased net worth for him as long as he doesn't lose $50 million every year. The equity increase is nice for an ownership group but they can't cash that out as easily without selling the team.

[ptatc]

The other difference for Illitch is that as a single owner, if he's on average close to breaking even every year, the increasing equity in his team by being a championship contender winds up as increased net worth for him as long as he doesn't lose $50 million every year. The equity increase is nice for an ownership group but they can't cash that out as easily without selling the team.

Yeah, that was my point in the previous answer to his problem with White Sox ownership. That's when he said that the primary Sox problem is ownership that won't spend into the red to win.

[LDF]

These are among the best posts in the thread because they're well-thought out, logical and reasonable.

 

Everyone is right, and nobody is right. There's no way to be 100% right, so we take extreme positions and speak in hyperbolic terms in order to get the point across.

 

There's no "proving" a point, because you have an entrenched, nearly unchangeable viewpoint. (I'd argue one of the best marketing strengths of the front office has actually been inculcating the feeling in the fanbase that they're somehow lesser, not loyal, should feel guilty...not supporting the team as much as they should, thus the "can't spend $1.00 if you only have 50 cents" type of comments).

 

I posted an article from early 2011 that the number of local Chicago/Illinois fans attending games for the White Sox and Cubs was almost exactly identical...with the 25% split or difference being out-of-state/tourism related fans, or Wrigleyville "social experience" yuppier partygoers.

 

If the White Sox have LOST fans from that point on, it's their own fault...because the Cubs were going into a prolonged rebuilding period. They had huge opportunities in 2006-07 and then again 2011-2014 (specifically 2011) and they blew both by a wide margin.

 

i don't know if it is me, but one of the other reasons i got to dislike the owners of the sox is the backhanded insult they have made regarding the fans. like you mention and the other time of the sox are not fans if they do not support the team. i may be paraphrasing this last one, but the point is, we, or i have been a die hard fan and i will support it, when they put the product on the field. i have done that for many yr as a season ticket holder with 4 tickets. so did he ever come out and thank us. not in promo's but thank us for being there?

 

if they do not put the product on the field, i will watch them on tv..... that was my feeling when i was in chicago. even this yr, i mention that if i was back in chi, i would have brought tickets. inspite of not getting another pitcher and catcher.

[caulfield12]

I don't think anyone would argue that an owner who doesn't care about losing alot of money to win would help any team win. However, these are few and far between. even ilitch who you set as an exmple had 13 losing seasons in a row before a winning season and has had 14 losing season in 24 years as ownership. The JR group has done better than that just not in the last 4 which are the tigers only 1st place finishes under this ownership.

 

So an owner willing to go into the negative to win isn't really the answer.

 

 

Right, but it's also not fair to say the Tigers have "better fans" either, because of the unique circumstances surrounding "super fan/hands on" owners like Illitch, Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner.

 

And they did make it to the World Series in 2006 (largely due to Verlander and Cabrera, two huge superstars), which was enough to sustain interest (2009 they were in the race up until the final day, similar to the 2008/10/12 seasons for the White Sox) until 2011.

[Balta1701]

Right, but it's also not fair to say the Tigers have "better fans" either, because of the unique circumstances surrounding "super fan/hands on" owners like Illitch, Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner.

 

And they did make it to the World Series in 2006 (largely due to Verlander and Cabrera, two huge superstars), which was enough to sustain interest (2009 they were in the race up until the final day, similar to the 2008/10/12 seasons for the White Sox) until 2011.

Didn't arrive in Detroit until 2008, was a Marlin.

[LDF]

The other difference for Illitch is that as a single owner, if he's on average close to breaking even every year, the increasing equity in his team by being a championship contender winds up as increased net worth for him as long as he doesn't lose $50 million every year. The equity increase is nice for an ownership group but they can't cash that out as easily without selling the team.

 

i will say this very gingerly, i really believe the money is not even close in the forbe article. plus they make a lot of money with their sub companies, esp with the restaurant companies that provide the team with many vendors and their supplies, under a sub company. so that group makes tons of extra money, which we do not know. kick in the other sub companies that they owned in the basketball side.

 

this part is the liquid money side of the business and let alone the money they give themselves in a salary.... yes the whole board gets a salary.

[caulfield12]

i don't know if it is me, but one of the other reasons i got to dislike the owners of the sox is the backhanded insult they have made regarding the fans. like you mention and the other time of the sox are not fans if they do not support the team. i may be paraphrasing this last one, but the point is, we, or i have been a die hard fan and i will support it, when they put the product on the field. i have done that for many yr as a season ticket holder with 4 tickets. so did he ever come out and thank us. not in promo's but thank us for being there?

 

if they do not put the product on the field, i will watch them on tv..... that was my feeling when i was in chicago. even this yr, i mention that if i was back in chi, i would have brought tickets. inspite of not getting another pitcher and catcher.

 

 

They've made MUCH more of a concerted effort in recent years to show appreciation for the fans, but it feels like "too little, too late." It's only when they were starting to get desperate, dropped dynamic pricing, realized they couldn't get shut out on Sundays and started dropping prices around the board, but by then the product on the field wasn't an easy sell no matter what the ticket price.

 

The funny thing to me is that over all these years, I've always felt the only truly successful marketing (other than the giveaways) has been the weekend fireworks games. All of those other promotions, like Dog Day and Elvis Night, were just window dressing and copies of what numerous minor league teams had already invented and been doing successfully on a small-scale basis for years.

 

It's also little things. They never had a toll-free number for tickets, since I was in middle school. Most MLB teams treated their fans with more respect than forcing them to pay money to call to buy tickets.

 

Maybe they can't do Thirsty Thursdays and Two for Tuesdays (because of the fear of ruining the family atmosphere), but going back to some of the discount (Mon-Thur) day/night promotions (Pepsi) and dollar dogs/Buck Nights or even "bundling" really good food offers with the tickets (like the A's do) couldn't do anything but help.

Edited May 13, 2015 by caulfield12

[LDF]

They've made MUCH more of a concerted effort in recent years to show appreciation for the fans, but it feels like "too little, too late." It's only when they were starting to get desperate, dropped dynamic pricing, realized they couldn't get shut out on Sundays and started dropping prices around the board, but by then the product on the field wasn't an easy sell no matter what the ticket price.

 

The funny thing to me is that over all these years, I've always felt the only truly successful marketing (other than the giveaways) has been the weekend fireworks games. All of those other promotions, like Dog Day and Elvis Night, were just window dressing and copies of what numerous minor league teams had already invented and been doing successfully on a small-scale basis for years.

 

i was talking to my family and was mentioning that the sox, instead of raising the prices, they should have lowered it a little across the board, and fixed the bad PR they got with the ozzie and son thing.

 

no matter what, part of the major problem is the money and the so called not having it..... the biggest problem i thought the sox had was / IS the mismanagement of the FO!!!!!

 

they need someone like Beane, the pres of Balti, someone... even look into the success Atl has done.

[caulfield12]

Didn't arrive in Detroit until 2008, was a Marlin.

 

 

I just remember Verlander's impact, more than anything.

 

I-Rod and Ordonez were the two best "name" hitters, looking back.

 

Thames, Granderson, Monroe, Inge (27!) and Carlos Guillen (monster OPS) all had 19 homers or more. And Chris Shelton was hot for two weeks, lol.

[LDF]

They've made MUCH more of a concerted effort in recent years to show appreciation for the fans, but it feels like "too little, too late." It's only when they were starting to get desperate, dropped dynamic pricing, realized they couldn't get shut out on Sundays and started dropping prices around the board, but by then the product on the field wasn't an easy sell no matter what the ticket price.

 

The funny thing to me is that over all these years, I've always felt the only truly successful marketing (other than the giveaways) has been the weekend fireworks games. All of those other promotions, like Dog Day and Elvis Night, were just window dressing and copies of what numerous minor league teams had already invented and been doing successfully on a small-scale basis for years.

 

It's also little things. They never had a toll-free number for tickets, since I was in middle school. Most MLB teams treated their fans with more respect than forcing them to pay money to call to buy tickets.

 

Maybe they can't do Thirsty Thursdays and Two for Tuesdays (because of the fear of ruining the family atmosphere), but going back to some of the discount (Mon-Thur) day/night promotions (Pepsi) and dollar dogs/Buck Nights or even "bundling" really good food offers with the tickets (like the A's do) couldn't do anything but help.

 

they can't do that, b/c that means they will have to hire someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[caulfield12]

i was talking to my family and was mentioning that the sox, instead of raising the prices, they should have lowered it a little across the board, and fixed the bad PR they got with the ozzie and son thing.

 

no matter what, part of the major problem is the money and the so called not having it..... the biggest problem i thought the sox had was / IS the mismanagement of the FO!!!!!

 

they need someone like Beane, the pres of Balti, someone... even look into the success Atl has done.

 

Beane went through almost a decade of rebuilding, Baltimore 25 years....Atlanta will be rebuilding for 3-4 years while waiting on the benefits of their new suburban stadium.

[LDF]

Beane went through almost a decade of rebuilding, Baltimore 25 years....Atlanta will be rebuilding for 3-4 years while waiting on the benefits of their new suburban stadium.

 

Beane did it with a stricter budget than what was given to the sox and did well.

 

Balti has done well with an owner who only see the budget worst than Oak

 

Alt been doing good without the idea of how much money they have, where they are going to play. basic 3-4 yrs of an uncertain know entity, the backside of Alt baseball.

 

look at the big picture, not what the final line is saying, but the whole story.

[caulfield12]

Beane did it with a stricter budget than what was given to the sox and did well.

 

Balti has done well with an owner who only see the budget worst than Oak

 

Alt been doing good without the idea of how much money they have, where they are going to play. basic 3-4 yrs of an uncertain know entity, the backside of Alt baseball.

 

look at the big picture, not what the final line is saying, but the whole story.

 

Baltimore has spent a ton of money under PETER Angelos, just not wisely until the last 2-3 years (part of it goes to Showalter).

[LDF]

Baltimore has spent a ton of money under PETER Angelos, just not wisely until the last 2-3 years (part of it goes to Showalter).

 

again you are missing the point, i am saying get a person to run the sox org, someone along the lines of those teams, not the internal, lap dogs the owners group depends on.

[ptatc]

Right, but it's also not fair to say the Tigers have "better fans" either, because of the unique circumstances surrounding "super fan/hands on" owners like Illitch, Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner.

 

And they did make it to the World Series in 2006 (largely due to Verlander and Cabrera, two huge superstars), which was enough to sustain interest (2009 they were in the race up until the final day, similar to the 2008/10/12 seasons for the White Sox) until 2011.

Correct. But I thought your point was that to fix the Sox they needed a new ownership that will spend into the negative to win.

 

They did make it to the World Series 14 years after Ilitch became owner.

[Thad Bosley]

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.

Oh don't worry. I would never in a million years suggest that the Oakland White Sox be run like the New York Tigers.

[Y2Jimmy0]

i was talking to my family and was mentioning that the sox, instead of raising the prices, they should have lowered it a little across the board, and fixed the bad PR they got with the ozzie and son thing.

 

no matter what, part of the major problem is the money and the so called not having it..... the biggest problem i thought the sox had was / IS the mismanagement of the FO!!!!!

 

they need someone like Beane, the pres of Balti, someone... even look into the success Atl has done.

 

 

It's not about money. They have the cheapest tickets in the city. I saw Chris Sale vs Max Scherzer for $7 last season.