White Sox Tv ratings up 63% YoY

[bmags]

I kind of want to go to next thursdays game just for the melkman tshirts.

[Bananarchy]

Attendance is definitely a trailing metric for the White Sox.

Definitely. Especially if your team is in your local market. Much less of a commitment than going to a game.

[TheChrisSamsa]

I kind of want to go to next thursdays game just for the melkman tshirts.

 

Those shirts are awesome. Giveaways work. If the Sox were really desperate to get people in the seats, they'd do more bobbleheads, t-shirts, or other desirable giveaways on weekdays. Both of their bobbleheads this year are weekend games, making it easier for people to get the giveaway, but probably not driving an excessive amount of extra ticket sales.

[TheChrisSamsa]

Let's remember that the Blackhawks were in the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Finals at this point last year as well. The transition to baseball season happened much earlier this year. The Hawks going deep into the playoffs and winning the Stanley Cup is a great thing for the city of Chicago, but it eats into the White Sox TV time and, almost certainly, attendance.

[Thad Bosley]

Attendance is up 613 per game so far, which means almost all of those tickets were purchased for future dates. And yes, if the winning keeps up, the bandwagon will continue to refill.

First off, what do you mean "if" the winning keeps up! Ye of little faith! Surely you meant "as" the winning keeps up. There! No charge for that subtle yet significant edit.

 

Meanwhile, as it relates to the "bandwagon" that you keep mentioning, BRING-IT-ON! There's not a winning team in the world that doesn't have a bandwagon portion of it's fan base. I have zero problem with 40,000+ people, of which 20,000 are so-called bandwagon, filling up the Cell and cheering on our Sox. No problem whatsoever. And remember, those paying customers will go a long way's towards assuaging your constant concerns about perceived revenue constraints for the organization. Bandwagon good!!

[southsider2k5]

First off, what do you mean "if" the winning keeps up! Ye of little faith! Surely you meant "as" the winning keeps up. There! No charge for that subtle yet significant edit.

 

Meanwhile, as it relates to the "bandwagon" that you keep mentioning, BRING-IT-ON! There's not a winning team in the world that doesn't have a bandwagon portion of it's fan base. I have zero problem with 40,000+ people, of which 20,000 are so-called bandwagon, filling up the Cell and cheering on our Sox. No problem whatsoever. And remember, those paying customers will go a long way's towards assuaging your constant concerns about perceived revenue constraints for the organization. Bandwagon good!!

 

This is the least surprising post ever.

[Thad Bosley]

This is the least surprising post ever.

Getting used to the genius, are ya? Progress!!

 

[LittleHurt05]

Let's remember that the Blackhawks were in the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Finals at this point last year as well. The transition to baseball season happened much earlier this year. The Hawks going deep into the playoffs and winning the Stanley Cup is a great thing for the city of Chicago, but it eats into the White Sox TV time and, almost certainly, attendance.

 

And by the time the hockey ended, the White Sox were out of the playoff race so there wasn't much of a reason to start tuning in.

[southsider2k5]

Getting used to the "genius", are ya? Progress!!

 

 

More like the repetition, but OK. No I am not surprised that you are perfectly OK with having a largely bandwagon fan base. You have stated as such in the past. I would prefer to have a more loyal base that would supply the team with more assets for downtime, but personal preference I suppose.

[Thad Bosley]

More like the repetition, but OK. No I am not surprised that you are perfectly OK with having a largely bandwagon fan base. You have stated as such in the past. I would prefer to have a more loyal base that would supply the team with more assets for downtime, but personal preference I suppose.

Well, I am of the strong opinion that over the course of some sustained winning we would convert many of those who today would be considered bandwagon into the loyal category. Look at the Blackhawks. They surely drew in a large component of bandwagon fans when they first started winning a few years ago. And I'd say many of them who have enjoyed the experience ever since will remain loyal fans, even as the winning starts to die down a bit. The Bulls went through a similar evolution during and after the dynasty years. But you have to start somewhere, and right now the Sox are starting at the bottom as there hasn't been any winning in recent memory. But the team will get there with continued winning.

[caulfield12]

And let's NOT worry about...well, the fans are still going to be apathetic (Atlanta for 14 years) if we win TOO much because they always find something to complain about. As Thad Bosley always says (not the 35 years quote), it would be nice if we could finally get to the playoffs just TWO years in a row.

 

Fwiw, this is really looking like a pretty solid opportunity to win the division two consecutive years. Detroit looks like toast, the Royals are really scuffling and have a HUGE decision on their hands whether to try to hold onto their core for the next two seasons OR jumpstart the rebuild by dealing most of their assets...and then, the Indians have that rotation but Kluber's stuff isn't what it used to be, they have had some injuries (Brantley, Carrasco), combined with non-performance (Gomes) and the fact that they can't go out and spend, spend, spend to fix problems. While they do have a much better farm system, they're still limited to mostly "value" signings like Rajai Davis, Uribe and Napoli (who has been pretty darned good for them).

 

The team I was most concerned about (at the end of last year) rising up and becoming a major player is in complete disarray, the Minnesota Twins. Buxton, despite the scouts being in love with him, might struggle to be the next Cameron Maybin at this point, their pitching situation is a complete mess (the dangers of overspending on veteran FA's), they're stuck with Mauer (good this year again, but not elite) and putting Sano in the outfield to keep Plouffe has turned out to be a fiasco.

Edited May 12, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Well, I am of the strong opinion that over the course of some sustained winning we would convert many of those who today would be considered bandwagon into the loyal category. Look at the Blackhawks. They surely drew in a large component of bandwagon fans when they first started winning a few years ago. And I'd say many of them who have enjoyed the experience ever since will remain loyal fans, even as the winning starts to die down a bit. The Bulls went through a similar evolution during and after the dynasty years. But you have to start somewhere, and right now the Sox are starting at the bottom as there hasn't been any winning in recent memory. But the team will get there with continued winning.

 

Historically it doesn't matter. Even in a year like 2008 where they made the playoffs in one of the most exciting playoff races in team history, their attendance fell over 2007. It also fell into 2009, so there was no positive during or after. The same thing happened in 2012 when they were in first place until the last two weeks. Despite that, they still fell off versus 2011, and again in 2013.

 

No matter what the latest "standard" is, eventually Sox fans find the new reason not to go. Pre-2005 it was making the playoffs. Today it has become being a playoff team annually, instead of just once. Those are just the respectable ones. The ones like seat colors are my personal favorites.

 

Plus watching the ebb and flow of the Chicago teams for decades now, there is zero doubt in my mind that White Sox fans are the most fickle of them all. They are the quickest to jump off of the bandwagon in Chicago. The Cubs, Bears, and Bulls have gone through ridiculous eras of losing that puts the White Sox to shame, and their attendance suffered no where near what the White Sox did, so I would hardly call those comparisons apt. The Hawks are a maybe, because at least they have the fact that there is a significant portion of Chicago that just doesn't care about them no matter what (non-hockey fans) like the White Sox do (Cub fans). But it took an insanely long period of time for their fan base to fall off, whereas the Sox fan base descent survived intact through playoff years and near playoff teams.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Yes, but you're not taking into account the collapse of the 2006 team and then an abysmal 2007 team.

 

That's why 2008 was down. They make the playoffs two years in a row, and at least win one series to get to the ALCS, then you don't see the combined effect of that huge dropoff. Unfortunately, the Tigers and Twins just blew right past us and we were gassed. Typically, teams see a five year window of benefit from a World Series title, and that's EXACTLY what happened with the White Sox.

 

They had very strong but decreasing ticket sales because of the disappointment just mentioned and the up and down nature of the 2007 and 2009 seasons (remember the Rios flop that year, and replacing the popular Dye? Peavy was more hype/talk than reality, etc.)

 

Sure, the 2008 season had a terrific/exciting finish, but it was marked by a declining team (injuries to key parts like Linebrink and especially Quentin and even then you had guys like Swisher and Cabrera scuffling/fighting with Ozzie) in the second half of that season just barely hanging on and literally surviving by the thinnest of margins...as compared to, let's say, the 2003, which clearly was more talented, or even 2004. It's not like the White Sox were playing "great" baseball for much of the latter half of those summer months. They were hanging in there, and Quentin was carrying the team offensively until he got hurt.

 

And obviously they fell off from 2011 because the 2010 had a very strong 26-5 stretch in May/June before once again succumbing to the Twins in the end AND you had the excitement of Adam Dunn's signing, which obviously didn't last very long into 2011.

 

 

What happens if the White Sox make the playoffs in 2006 or don't completely wet the bed in 2007? Then you sustain your season ticket base for a longer period of time and can much more easily ride out 2007 because your fans have experienced consecutive playoff seasons and it's easier to overlook.

 

If they made the playoffs in 2010 instead of getting Twinned? (I know your argument will be that they supposedly got past that one with the Blackout Game, but...not really 100%)

 

If they hadn't made the worst free agent signing in history and instead opted for Victor Martinez?

 

If Carlos Quentin hadn't self-sabotaged the 2008 season, taking quite a bit of the excitement out of the playoffs, where it just felt inevitable we'd get rolled on the turf in Tampa?

 

 

It's back to the same argument...there aren't very many teams out there that can successfully survive 7+ years of non-playoff baseball (with the last three being borderline terrible/unwatchable except for the presence of Sale/Eaton/Abreu) and still sustain their previous level of fan support. The ones that do are the exception to the rule.

Edited May 12, 2016 by caulfield12