Ticket price

[WWBL Commissioner]

I hope that in OOTP 2007 we can set our own ticket prices or at least have the option to allow the setting of our own ticket prices. I would like to see it at least in online league mode

[DaMook]

Originally Posted by WWBL Commissioner

I hope that in OOTP 2007 we can set our own ticket prices or at least have the option to allow the setting of our own ticket prices. I would like to see it at least in online league mode

I agree. I think it's pretty lame that we can't. I have no idea why this option was removed.

[WWBL Commissioner]

Originally Posted by DaMook

I agree. I think it's pretty lame that we can't. I have no idea why this option was removed.

I think the reasoning is that we are only the GM's not the owners, but in an online league setting I like to think of the GM's as the owners of the teams

[Curtis]

Good point. If you're playing with the 'owners determine budget' option, then you shouldn't be able to set the ticket price, but if you're using the 'GMs get to use all the revenue' option, you probably should.

Of course, raising the ticket price should reduce attendence.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Curtis Cook

Of course, raising the ticket price should reduce attendence.

not exactly.

if the Red Sox increased tickets by a buck, would they lose attendance? no.

if the Red Sox increased tickets by three bucks, would they lose attendance? maybe.

if the Red Sox increased tickets by twenty bucks, would they lose attendance? yes.

[jm47048]

That's a very good point. Here is my analysis:

Would the Yankees loose attandance for 1 buck? No

Would the Yankees loose attendance for 3 bucks? No

Would the Yankees loose attandance for 20 bucks? Yes

Would the boss still sign high profile guys like A-Rod? Yes.

[Twelvefield]

I am in disagreement here. I never liked the ticket price feature, and I got burned by it pretty good when I was starting out with OOTPB. I am glad I don't have to deal with it anymore.

Still, I would see the best solution as the Canadian Solution: make ticket prices a clickable option so that if you want it, you got it, and if you don't want it, you won't ever see it, and everybody in the deal is fairly satisfied.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

not exactly.

What you're talking about here is what's known as 'price inflexibility'. Teams that have long waiting lists for season tickets, or who regularly sell out games, would have a much greater ability to raise prices with losing many customers than a team that regularly plays to empty seats. Even particular events might count as price inflexible, if the entire season didn't.

As examples, the Yankees might lose 200,000 fans if they raised prices 50% (probably not more than that because so much of the cost of attending games has nothing to do with the ticket price), but they'd still sell out every seat when the hosting the Red Sox or the Mets. If the Royals raised prices 50%, their grandstands would start looking like Montreal in 2004.

Any ability to determine prices would (should) have to take into account how price flexible attendence for that team would be. I'd think it would be mostly determined by fan loyalty, somewhat modified by fan interest.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Curtis Cook

What you're talking about here is what's known as 'price inflexibility'. Teams that have long waiting lists for season tickets, or who regularly sell out games, would have a much greater ability to raise prices with losing many customers than a team that regularly plays to empty seats. Even particular events might count as price inflexible, if the entire season didn't.

As examples, the Yankees might lose 200,000 fans if they raised prices 50% (probably not more than that because so much of the cost of attending games has nothing to do with the ticket price), but they'd still sell out every seat when the hosting the Red Sox or the Mets. If the Royals raised prices 50%, their grandstands would start looking like Montreal in 2004.

Any ability to determine prices would (should) have to take into account how price flexible attendence for that team would be. I'd think it would be mostly determined by fan loyalty, somewhat modified by fan interest.

right. so, raising prices SHOULDNT reduce attendance.

raising prices in a low loyalty market should reduce attendance

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

right. so, raising prices SHOULDNT reduce attendance.

raising prices in a low loyalty market should reduce attendance

I take it you didn't study economics. Raising ticket prices should always affect season attendence, unless you sell out every game (as Cleveland did for several years) and have to turn away people at the gate. Even then there will be an effect if you raise them enough.

What I'm saying is that some teams will be affected more than others, and that some specific events (maybe opening day, when your arch rival comes to town, playoff games) will be less affected, or possibly not at all.

Another thing to consider is stadium size. My preference would be to add 10,000 seats rather than raise the price a dollar. If you can't fill the extra seats, you're probably at a price inflexion point where any increase in ticket price will drop attendence so much that you'll end up losing money.

Again, this pseudo-analysis doesn't take into account additional revenue from yearbooks, programs, pennants, parking stubs, concessions and who knows what else that each additional fanny in the seats equates to. Each person removed from the season's attendence figure represents a lot more revenue lost than just the price of the ticket foregone.

[1998 Yankees]

Curtis, I think disposableheros was agreeing with you, and so do I. My take on his post was him trying to put it into game setting terms.

If a team has high fan interest and loyalty, they will be selling out most if not all home games. Therefore, there will be the price inflexibility that you mentioned; the team can raise ticket prices substantially without damaging attendance. If a team is suffering from low fan ratings, then raising prices would be disastrous. If we ever do get to tinker with ticket prices, linking them in this way to fan loyalty, interest, and attendance is sound thinking IMO.

And your linking all of that to concession revenue in some future OOTP version is also good thinking. I hear Twelvefield, but I do sort of miss this aspect of team management.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Curtis Cook

I take it you didn't study economics. Raising ticket prices should always affect season attendence, unless you sell out every game (as Cleveland did for several years) and have to turn away people at the gate. Even then there will be an effect if you raise them enough.

What I'm saying is that some teams will be affected more than others, and that some specific events (maybe opening day, when your arch rival comes to town, playoff games) will be less affected, or possibly not at all.

Another thing to consider is stadium size. My preference would be to add 10,000 seats rather than raise the price a dollar. If you can't fill the extra seats, you're probably at a price inflexion point where any increase in ticket price will drop attendence so much that you'll end up losing money.

Again, this pseudo-analysis doesn't take into account additional revenue from yearbooks, programs, pennants, parking stubs, concessions and who knows what else that each additional fanny in the seats equates to. Each person removed from the season's attendence figure represents a lot more revenue lost than just the price of the ticket foregone.

yes, i did study economics. i was a finance major and have worked in the finance industry for 10+ years. thanks for your concern

"Raising ticket prices should always affect season attendence, unless you sell out every game" means "sometimes raising ticket pirces should affect attendance"

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Curtis, I think disposableheros was agreeing with you, and so do I. My take on his post was him trying to put it into game setting terms.

If a team has high fan interest and loyalty, they will be selling out most if not all home games. Therefore, there will be the price inflexibility that you mentioned; the team can raise ticket prices substantially without damaging attendance. If a team is suffering from low fan ratings, then raising prices would be disastrous. If we ever do get to tinker with ticket prices, linking them in this way to fan loyalty, interest, and attendance is sound thinking IMO.

give this man a cigar!

[Curtis]

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.)

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Curtis Cook

Again, this pseudo-analysis doesn't take into account additional revenue from yearbooks, programs, pennants, parking stubs, concessions and who knows what else that each additional fanny in the seats equates to. Each person removed from the season's attendence figure represents a lot more revenue lost than just the price of the ticket foregone.

There was a long thread about merchandising revenue that two proposals came out of. I know battists was going to pitch them to Markus, and hopefully one of them will get in 2007. Both proposals tied merchandising revenue to attendance, fan loyalty, and fan interest.