|
Okay, I give. I also kinda/sorta apologize. My problem here was semantic, since what you term 'sometimes' I call 'nearly always'.
The real driving engine behind my confusion is the difference between attendence and 'demand to attend'. Even in a situation of extreme price inflexibility, any increase in price will result in some level of reduction in demand for tickets. In baseball you have the limiting factor of stadium capacity. This limit means that no more than 'X' of the demand to attend can be satisfied regardless of how high or low the price is set.
As an example, in the early years at the Jake the Indians may have generated a demand for 54,000 tickets per game, but since the stadium will only has 43,400 seats, the result was years of sold-out games. Raising the price 10% might've reduced the demand to 52,000 tickets, but that's still enough to sell out.
This is the reason for my earlier comment on preferring to add seats to the stadium. In addition to potentially increasing attendence this season, bringing more people into the park (and at a reasonable price) will hopefully increase my fan base for future seasons. Since the additional seats wouldn't exactly be 'cherce', I'd be willing to charge half price for them (marginal pricing strategy), hoping to make up the difference either today on those alternate streams of revenue or in my grandson's day.
For the same reason, I'd be VERY interested in bringing back the old Knot Hole Club. I'd let anyone into the park for $1 (if there are still unsold seats) after the top of the third inning, and I'd let children twelve and under in for $1 anytime, again hoping that my grandchildren would benefit. (Loss-leader pricing.)
|