Attendance 2015

[Dick Allen]

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.

I used to spend a lot of money, but not anymore. I have a weekend package for under $300, and I got on the 11 games for $29 deal. So that's 38 games for about $325. Plus I get free party at ChiSox Bar and Grill, another season ticketholder party, another free game with patio party, and I can basically sit wherever I want because of how few go to games. I spend very little on concessions, especially if I am with my wife. When I had club level seats, the server in our section said she was bad for business. But White Sox fans have used price as an excuse, they have used no lower deck access, although they usually don't check anymore, they used blue seats. All that has been changed, yet one thing remains consistant, people still won't go, and it will be something else. On WSI last year, and they whine about everything, from the parking lot guys and ushers not smiling at them to wondering why minimum wage employees who will be lucky to clear $20 a game after taxes, not being superstar servers, they complained that the $20 seats to watch Sale pitch weren't good enough seats. So basically what they were saying was the lower deck access thing so they could look at the statues and stuff was just a lie, they need a team that will win every year and a $15 seat within a couple rows of the dugout.

[Dick Allen]

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

And he is partners with the Bulls, Blackhawks and Cubs. If he was on his own, it would be a lot less.

[southsider2k5]

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%.

 

Without the extra $25 million that all teams started getting from the TV contract, the White Sox would have saw a decline in revenue last year. That is what quite literally paid for most of the team upgrades this year.

 

[Eminor3rd]

Without the extra $25 million that all teams started getting from the TV contract, the White Sox would have saw a decline in revenue last year. That is what quite literally paid for most of the team upgrades this year.

 

But that's what I'm talking about -- people are changing how they consume the game and teams are finding new revenue streams to take advantage of it.

[southsider2k5]

But attendance has nothing to do with TV contracts.

 

What? Fans with the biggest fan bases directly correlates to how many people are also watching at home, which directly results in bigger TV contracts.

[Eminor3rd]

I used to spend a lot of money, but not anymore. I have a weekend package for under $300, and I got on the 11 games for $29 deal. So that's 38 games for about $325. Plus I get free party at ChiSox Bar and Grill, another season ticketholder party, another free game with patio party, and I can basically sit wherever I want because of how few go to games. I spend very little on concessions, especially if I am with my wife. When I had club level seats, the server in our section said she was bad for business. But White Sox fans have used price as an excuse, they have used no lower deck access, although they usually don't check anymore, they used blue seats. All that has been changed, yet one thing remains consistant, people still won't go, and it will be something else. On WSI last year, and they whine about everything, from the parking lot guys and ushers not smiling at them to wondering why minimum wage employees who will be lucky to clear $20 a game after taxes, not being superstar servers, they complained that the $20 seats to watch Sale pitch weren't good enough seats. So basically what they were saying was the lower deck access thing so they could look at the statues and stuff was just a lie, they need a team that will win every year and a $15 seat within a couple rows of the dugout.

 

Believe me when I say I am TOTALLY sympathetic with being tired of the "excuses" people give for not showing up -- I deal with it every day. What I've found (in NYC anyway) is that price is really hardly ever truly an issue. Like ss2k5 said about "guilt," people seem to want to cry price and parking when asked why they don't care because it feels like a "justifiable excuse," when the reality is that has no correlation with their buying habits. Despite the fact that the number one complaint by far is "you're supposed to be family-friendly entertainment, I can't afford to bring my family," when we offer discount deals, still no one buys. But, when we offer special packages ABOVE face ticket value that include shrits and hats and statues and stuff, those SAME four-person families will show up and ALL buy the package. Similarly, no one cares at ALL about dollar-dog Tuesday, but if we run a bobblehead giveaway on a weekend, when tickets are MOST expensive, we'll sell out.

 

The conclusion I come to is that it's my responsibility to make people want to come. They react to special, limited time experiences and items and they react to day of the week. I've got to make those things more prominent if I want their dollars. It's frustrating to get false feedback directly from people's mouths, but the data doesn't lie, and every team has plenty of data.

 

What I DON'T agree with is the implication that if the stadium isn't full, the city has bad fans. If all the revenue streams dry up, then we can have that discussion. But the stadium is a specific product that is separate from "fan interest" and is merely one component of "fan support." The Sox need to do a better job of selling or improving that product if they want fans to consume in that particular way.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

But that's what I'm talking about -- people are changing how they consume the game and teams are finding new revenue streams to take advantage of it.

But the White Sox fans are coming out at an extremely low rate as these changes relate to fans of every team. The White Sox have finished in the top half of attendance overall twice this century. In 2006 and 2007. They haven't been in the top 20 since 2010.

[ptatc]

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

I would disagree with that comment. Even at the worst years of attendance they were at 70% capacity. And this was only for a few years. So the hawks draw at 70% capacity at the very worst. That is pretty incredible.

[Eminor3rd]

What? Fans with the biggest fan bases directly correlates to how many people are also watching at home, which directly results in bigger TV contracts.

 

Size of fanbase is much more affected by market size and market affluence than it is by stadium attendance, is my point.

 

I'm sure that attendance correlates with TV-market exposure to a certain degree, but an advertiser isn't necessarily getting less value if attendance goes down. At the very least, ratings and attendance are different numbers. Also, one set of eyeballs isn't equal all around the country. Demographic and purchasing habits regionally change that value a lot.

[shysocks]

I would disagree with that comment. Even at the worst years of attendance they were at 70% capacity. And this was only for a few years. So the hawks draw at 70% capacity at the very worst. That is pretty incredible.

First of all, the worst is more like 60% of capacity. Second, you're missing the point by focusing on capacity. The point is the trends, that you see a steady drop from about 1996 on until it went up to constant sellouts for good when they turned things around. There's a direct and irrefutable correlation in that chart between winning and attendance.

[southsider2k5]

First of all, the worst is more like 60% of capacity. Second, you're missing the point by focusing on capacity. The point is the trends, that you see a steady drop from about 1996 on until it went up to constant sellouts for good when they turned things around. There's a direct and irrefutable correlation in that chart between winning and attendance.

 

So the idea is that if the MLB sent over half of its teams to the playoffs annually like the NHL, Sox Park would have been filled most years during the 90's and 00's?

[ptatc]

First of all, the worst is more like 60% of capacity. Second, you're missing the point by focusing on capacity. The point is the trends, that you see a steady drop from about 1996 on until it went up to constant sellouts for good when they turned things around. There's a direct and irrefutable correlation in that chart between winning and attendance.

I think capacity is the key point. The 60% was only for a year or two most of the time it is around 70-75%. It does decrease but not by much. If the Sox attendance only decreased by this amount, people wouldn't have this conversation.

Also some of it is in perspective. It is pretty easy to make the playoffs in hockey compared to baseball. So the concept of "winning" is different. If the Sox made the playoffs nearly every year (if half the tams made the playoffs) it may be different.

[ptatc]

So the idea is that if the MLB sent over half of its teams to the playoffs annually like the NHL, Sox Park would have been filled most years during the 90's and 00's?

You beat me to it.

[shysocks]

So the idea is that if the MLB sent over half of its teams to the playoffs annually like the NHL, Sox Park would have been filled most years during the 90's and 00's?

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.

[Thad Bosley]

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.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

[shysocks]

I think capacity is the key point. The 60% was only for a year or two most of the time it is around 70-75%. It does decrease but not by much. If the Sox attendance only decreased by this amount, people wouldn't have this conversation.

Also some of it is in perspective. It is pretty easy to make the playoffs in hockey compared to baseball. So the concept of "winning" is different. If the Sox made the playoffs nearly every year (if half the tams made the playoffs) it may be different.

Once again, capacity is not the key point. I made the point, so I get to determine what the key is. Capacity is a red herring, a side track. I am saying the trends are the key.

[WBWSF]

The attendance has gone down every year since 2006. But still they drew over 2 million people every year thru the 2011 season. I firmly believe that when the White Sox draw 2 million that's a tremendous amount of people. I read earlier this year in the Sun Times that the Cubs organization expected the Cubs to draw about 3 million in 2015 and the White Sox organization thought they would draw 2 million people in 2015. I would think if the White Sox keep losing they won't draw that many but they will draw more than what they did in 2014. Considering everything, that's a plus.

[ptatc]

Once again, capacity is not the key point. I made the point, so I get to determine what the key is. Capacity is a red herring, a side track. I am saying the trends are the key.

I guess you can look at it that way. My point was that the Hawks always draw good attendance regardless of record. I just disagree that their attendance went down very much. It definitely did not go down to the extent the Sox do.

 

If capacity isn't the point then the sox actually draw almost as well as the Hawks do so there is no discussion of attendance. The Hawks drew 22,000, the Sox draw 20,000.

 

The amount that each team draws during non-winning seasons is the issue. The trends are that the Hawks do not have as much trouble drawing fans to the stadium during non-winning seasons. The fan base is much more likely to go to games when the team has losing seasons.

[Balta1701]

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. .

Wasn't there a minor thing called a "strike" in those years? Maybe one that knocked down the attendance average in the final year?

[ptatc]

Wasn't there a minor thing called a "strike" in those years? Maybe one that knocked down the attendance average in the final year?

I'm positive that was a factor in that year.

[Dick Allen]

Wasn't there a minor thing called a "strike" in those years? Maybe one that knocked down the attendance average in the final year?

Still was 17th in baseball with the 4th highest payroll and basically back to back divisions, and a "new stadium". The back to back titles is something that supposedly is required for people to attend now.

[Balta1701]

Still was 17th in baseball with the 4th highest payroll and basically back to back divisions, and a "new stadium". The back to back titles is something that supposedly is required for people to attend now.

"Essentially back to back divisions" is not how I would describe the average White Sox fan's response to 1994. Nor would it be mine.

[Dick Allen]

And the Twins were coming off 99,96, and 96 loss seasons with just the "new stadium".

[Dick Allen]

"Essentially back to back divisions" is not how I would describe the average White Sox fan's response to 1994. Nor would it be mine.

They "won" the dvision. Using the strike as an excuse is fine, but it's still and excuse. 17th in the league in attendance isn't very good for a team that had been very successful, and supposedly had the "new stadium" vibe to go along with it. The fans of other teams apparently were able to put the strike behind them.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

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. That's my point exactly. Sox fans will always have an excuse. If they old ones don't work, they move the bar to a new one. Now Sox fans need a dyntasy type period to show up, as measly playoff births aren't good enough.

 

Nah, I don't see why anyone would think Sox fans are fickle.