Attendance 2015

[Eminor3rd]

The Twins have averaged 95.5 losses the last 4 years, their attendance has blown the White Sox away. Of course in 2005, when the team was never not in first place and won the WS, a 3 game home series vs. KC in September drew a total of 50k.

 

...and during those four years, they've had a brand new stadium. That's not apples to apples at all.

[caulfield12]

The Twins have averaged 95.5 losses the last 4 years, their attendance has blown the White Sox away. Of course in 2005, when the team was never not in first place and won the WS, a 3 game home series vs. KC in September drew a total of 50k.

 

 

New stadium.

[Dick Allen]

And yet the team continues to grow its revenues every year, just like every other baseball team, because no matter how many times we have this conversation, everyone keeps pretending like it's 1980 and the internet and regional sports cable networks don't exist.

 

 

 

Everyone is just going to HAVE to accept the fact that going to the game is no longer the most attractive option for following a baseball team. The ballpark experience is unique and valuable, but if you're a "die-hard" fan and want to follow the action, there's a better and cheaper option in your living room. Fortunately, the teams ARE being compensated handsomely for these channels, too.

I'm a die hard fan and I go to as many games possible. Sure I get a better angle on a pitch on TV, but I also get a better view of the fielders and the plays developing at the park as long as you have a decent seat.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[lasttriptotulsa]

The Blackhawks are essentially a dynasty at this point and their attendance mirrors what Sox figures would look like if they had two trophies in five years and playoff berths every year surrounding. That's all I'm saying and you know it's true.

 

I think comparing hockey/basketball attendance to baseball is like apples and oranges. It's a hell of a lot easier to fill a 20,000 seat arena for 41 games than it easy to fill a 40,000+ stadium for 81 games. Would the Sox sell out nearly every game if the stadium held 20,000 and the schedule was cut in half? My guess would be yes. Not to mention the fact the baseball is played outdoors for the most part and the poor April and May weather combined with hot summers definitely keeps a lot of people away.

[southsider2k5]

And yet the team continues to grow its revenues every year, just like every other baseball team, because no matter how many times we have this conversation, everyone keeps pretending like it's 1980 and the internet and regional sports cable networks don't exist.

 

 

 

Everyone is just going to HAVE to accept the fact that going to the game is no longer the most attractive option for following a baseball team. The ballpark experience is unique and valuable, but if you're a "die-hard" fan and want to follow the action, there's a better and cheaper option in your living room. Fortunately, the teams ARE being compensated handsomely for these channels, too.

 

The White Sox had the 3rd lowest TV ratings in MLB last year IIRC.

[southsider2k5]

 

 

That was FAR from true 3-4 seasons ago.

 

They finally lowered prices from higher levels when it was already too late...the team had missed the playoffs for too long and the 2011 disaster happened.

 

Fans actually perceive cheap tickets to be a lesser value than much higher prices for an exciting/interesting/entertaining product.

 

Even at their highest, White Sox tickets were BY FAR the cheapest tickets in town.

[Dick Allen]

...and during those four years, they've had a brand new stadium. That's not apples to apples at all.

average attendance years 2-5 of the White Sox new stadium:

 

33,101

31,865

30,042

22,204

 

average attendance years 2-5 of the Twins new stadium:

39,113

34,275

30,588

27,785

 

The White Sox had 2 division winners those years and a bad team in 1995. Twins average 95.5 losses per season, and in your other post you say TV is a better option. Just more excuses. .

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

I'm a die hard fan and I go to as many games possible. Sure I get a better angle on a pitch on TV, but I also get a better view of the fielders and the plays developing at the park as long as you have a decent seat.

 

I know that YOU do, but you're a season ticket holder, yes? How much do you pay for seats good enough to get a better pitch angle? And when you factor in instant reply, do you REALLY get a better view of what happens on the field?

 

I'm not knocking on your consumption of the team at all -- I think we should all do whatever we can to enjoy the team as much as possible. You have worked for the means to be a STH in a nice seat and you've made the sacrifices necessary to commute back and forth several times a week. And to each his own.

 

But if you compare your cost and time commitment to follow the team with the cost and time commitment to follow the team on TV -- just because someone isn't willing to pay thousands of dollars and several hours on the road per week to get something maybe SLIGHTLY better (in terms of actually following the action) than what they get in their TV package that they already pay for, doesn't make that person a s***ty fan.

[Eminor3rd]

The White Sox had the 3rd lowest TV ratings in MLB last year IIRC.

 

And they were EMBARRASSINGLY bad. And yet their revenue STILL grew.

[Eminor3rd]

average attendance years 2-5 of the White Sox new stadium:

 

33,101

31,865

30,042

22,204

 

average attendance years 2-5 of the Twins new stadium:

39,113

34,275

30,588

27,785

 

The White Sox had 2 division winners those years and a bad team in 1995. Twins average 95.5 losses per season, and in your other post you say TV is a better option. Just more excuses. .

 

25 years difference, completely different metro areas, and the difference is a few thousand per game, lol.

[shysocks]

I think comparing hockey/basketball attendance to baseball is like apples and oranges. It's a hell of a lot easier to fill a 20,000 seat arena for 41 games than it easy to fill a 40,000+ stadium for 81 games. Would the Sox sell out nearly every game if the stadium held 20,000 and the schedule was cut in half? My guess would be yes. Not to mention the fact the baseball is played outdoors for the most part and the poor April and May weather combined with hot summers definitely keeps a lot of people away.

Sure, I know it's not a perfect comparison and I think we're on the same side of this. But my point is that the Hawks muddled along for over a decade, and so did their attendance. Then it spiked when they got good and stayed up when they stayed good.

[southsider2k5]

I know that YOU do, but you're a season ticket holder, yes? How much do you pay for seats good enough to get a better pitch angle? And when you factor in instant reply, do you REALLY get a better view of what happens on the field?

 

I'm not knocking on your consumption of the team at all -- I think we should all do whatever we can to enjoy the team as much as possible. You have worked for the means to be a STH in a nice seat and you've made the sacrifices necessary to commute back and forth several times a week. And to each his own.

 

But if you compare your cost and time commitment to follow the team with the cost and time commitment to follow the team on TV -- just because someone isn't willing to pay thousands of dollars and several hours on the road per week to get something maybe SLIGHTLY better (in terms of actually following the action) than what they get in their TV package that they already pay for, doesn't make that person a s***ty fan.

 

The guilt factor is also pretty high with Sox fans. It is reality that more fans mean more options when building your ball club. If you are going to protest and stay home as a fan base, they need to also accept that it means the teams options for franchise building are extremely limited, when compared to a patient fan base.

 

We have all seen very clearly that when the franchise has money to spend, they spend it. When they don't, they won't.

[southsider2k5]

And they were EMBARRASSINGLY bad. And yet their revenue STILL grew.

 

They got the same thing that every other franchise got. The separator is that their local revenues fell. Again.

[Eminor3rd]

Just more excuses. .

 

Wtf are you talking about with excuses? The team make more money off of their fans EVERY YEAR.

[Dick Allen]

I know that YOU do, but you're a season ticket holder, yes? How much do you pay for seats good enough to get a better pitch angle? And when you factor in instant reply, do you REALLY get a better view of what happens on the field?

 

I'm not knocking on your consumption of the team at all -- I think we should all do whatever we can to enjoy the team as much as possible. You have worked for the means to be a STH in a nice seat and you've made the sacrifices necessary to commute back and forth several times a week. And to each his own.

 

But if you compare your cost and time commitment to follow the team with the cost and time commitment to follow the team on TV -- just because someone isn't willing to pay thousands of dollars and several hours on the road per week to get something maybe SLIGHTLY better (in terms of actually following the action) than what they get in their TV package that they already pay for, doesn't make that person a s***ty fan.

I really don't care about the time commitment, I am going to watch the game anyway. I am just saying it is far more enjoyable to me to watch a game live than on TV. I believe you wrote TV was a better option. I totally disagree, and I love Hawk.

[Eminor3rd]

The guilt factor is also pretty high with Sox fans. It is reality that more fans mean more options when building your ball club. If you are going to protest and stay home as a fan base, they need to also accept that it means the teams options for franchise building are extremely limited, when compared to a patient fan base.

 

We have all seen very clearly that when the franchise has money to spend, they spend it. When they don't, they won't.

 

That's false, at least according to those charts I posted. They make more money every year! They never made money than they did last year. Meanwhile. league-wide revenues have DOUBLED over the past 15 years while salaries have increased about 25%.

[Dick Allen]

Wtf are you talking about with excuses? The team make more money off of their fans EVERY YEAR.

They are making money off baseball fans, not necessarily White Sox fans. I don't think White Sox fans do much to fuel these large national TV contracts. And attendance has dropped every year since 2006.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

And besides the unique/historic nature of Wrigley Field, the Sox brought on a lot of problems themselves with SportsVision...ceding Harry Caray, the respective radio networks, Budweiser, WGN, Sammy Sosa....always beaten in the marketing battle since the days of Rob Gallas.

 

And Reinsdorf always had too much pride to let Mike Veeck help him.

Yeah that free vasectomy promotion will go over well in the MLB.

[ptatc]

The Blackhawks are essentially a dynasty at this point and their attendance mirrors what Sox figures would look like if they had two trophies in five years and playoff berths every year surrounding. That's all I'm saying and you know it's true.

The Hawks have always had great attendance. It doesn't change regardless of the winning or losing. Plus the stadium is much smaller. The Sox would draw like that with the trophies, for a short period of time. Then it would revert back to normal.

 

[Eminor3rd]

I really don't care about the time commitment, I am going to watch the game anyway. I am just saying it is far more enjoyable to me to watch a game live than on TV. I believe you wrote TV was a better option. I totally disagree, and I love Hawk.

 

You disagree, but most people clearly don't. And when you factor in the MASSIVE difference in cost, I can't blame anyone at all. And it's MASSIVE. Those $5 UD Sunday tickets everyone keeps referring to are NOT what you're consuming. Those seats are absolutely not nearly as good for following the game as TV, and they're STILL $5 more expensive than free.

 

When I lived in Chicago, I went to about 4-5 games per year, but watched about 100-120 on TV. My favorite seats to follow the game (that I can afford) are UD, behind homeplate, rows 1 or 2. I would spend an average of about $30 on those seats. I would spend about $20 on food and beer. I would spend 1.5 hours round trip traveling on the Red Line. Those seats were great for seeing all the action, but I still would miss stuff that would get replayed on TV.

 

If I just wanted to follow the game on a given night, it was NEVER worth $50 and a couple hours on the train when I could get it free at home. I would go to the games for the sake of the ballpark experience, not to see the players play. And that ballpark experience was compelling enough for about 4-5 trips per year.

 

This is my whole point: Fans do not need to go to the game to follow the team. Therefore, the decision to go to a game is based on the ballpark experience. They already own the rights to the action. If the Sox want to increase attendance, they have to make the ballpark experience worthwhile. They're already ROLLING in money from the league and Comcast from selling the rights to the action. The Cell is easily the most boring MLB stadium I've ever been to. That's why I applaud efforts like the Shark Tank and the K Zone because, even if those aren't awesome ideas themselves, they're examples of things you can't get at home. They are adding value to the ballpark experience, which is what they need to do in order to successfully double-dip into the fanbase by simultaneouly creating cable revenue AND ticket revenue.

[flavum]

Not sucking in April and May would be a good start to the attendance issue. Knowing there will be games of consequence in June, July, and August will bring out the fans that can afford to go once a month. If they're out of if by June, those three or four games become zero or one.

[Eminor3rd]

They are making money off baseball fans, not necessarily White Sox fans. I don't think White Sox fans do much to fuel these large national TV contracts. And attendance has dropped every year since 2006.

 

But attendance has nothing to do with TV contracts.

[Dick Allen]

But attendance has nothing to do with TV contracts.

But it does have to do with how much money JR is making off White Sox fans.

[shysocks]

The Hawks have always had great attendance. It doesn't change regardless of the winning or losing.

The very post you're replying to linked to a page showing that to be false.

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att...ph.php?tmi=5218

[Eminor3rd]

But it does have to do with how much money JR is making off White Sox fans.

 

But his biggest TV deal is his regional deal. That's money off of White Sox fans.