PDA

View Full Version : Premier pricing


LITTLE NELL
09-09-2009, 01:06 PM
I know we talked about this with the Dodger series but it obvious that Sox fans are rebelling against Premier pricing, there was not one sellout for the Red Sox series and that really surprised me. I for one say "good for you" Sox fans, A MLB game is a MLB game weather it's against the Yankees or the Royals. Besides when I'm in town I'm there to watch the Sox win and it does'nt matter who the opponent is.

doublem23
09-09-2009, 01:11 PM
This is a ridiculous argument, the Sox aren't saying a game against the Royals is less important than a game against the Yankees, they're saying there is traditionally more demand for tickets against the Yankees. The Sox would be doing us, the fans, a disservice by not raising prices for higher demand games (Boston, New York, Cubs, etc.) because more ticket money = more revenue = more money for players. I don't understand why this is such a sore spot.

I am 100% positive those games would have been sell outs (or close) if the Sox hadn't tanked the week before. There were only 24,000 people there last night. Price is important, but the bigger factor is how the team is performing. I'll see if I can find the post when all the whiners were moaning about the Premium priced tickets in the Dodgers series, but last season, of the 10 best attended games, 8 or 9 of them were premium priced.

Were was this "rebellion" when the Cubs and Yankees were in town? Oh, that's right, don't mentioned those games because they completely refute your argument.

FielderJones
09-09-2009, 01:15 PM
I think the Sox could sell more of the upper deck if there was a greater price difference from lower deck, especially the corner sections.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 01:16 PM
This is a ridiculous argument, the Sox aren't saying a game against the Royals is less important than a game against the Yankees, they're saying there is traditionally more demand for those tickets.

I am 100% positive those games would have been sell outs if the Sox hadn't tanked the week before. There were only 24,000 people there last night. Price is important, but the bigger factor is how the team is performing.

I really doubt there would be a 15k walk up if the Sox were better. A couple of things to keep in mind, the advanced sale for these tickets was very low, it probably was the economy. When the cheapest seat in the park is $30 and money is tight, people will opt for other games.The second thing is unless the Sox are really good, Labor Day weekend is a tough draw for them. My cousin had patio tickets for Monday. We showed up about 12:30. There was no one inside. No one. There was one staging area open and one guy working the drinks. The people were all outside and we still got our own table. I'm thinking there were less than 40 people total in the patio area. It actually made it pretty enjoyable. I overheard one of the Bertucci boys talking to someone and he said Labor Day was always like this. If the Sox were playing better, attendance would have been better, but there still would have been a lot of empty seats.

LITTLE NELL
09-09-2009, 01:16 PM
This is a ridiculous argument, the Sox aren't saying a game against the Royals is less important than a game against the Yankees, they're saying there is traditionally more demand for tickets against the Yankees. The Sox would be doing us, the fans, a disservice by not raising prices for higher demand games (Boston, New York, Cubs, etc.) because more ticket money = more revenue = more money for players. I don't understand why this is such a sore spot.

I am 100% positive those games would have been sell outs (or close) if the Sox hadn't tanked the week before. There were only 24,000 people there last night. Price is important, but the bigger factor is how the team is performing. I'll see if I can find the post when all the whiners were moaning about the Premium priced tickets in the Dodgers series, but last season, of the 10 best attended games, 8 or 9 of them were premium priced.

Were was this "rebellion" when the Cubs and Yankees were in town? Oh, that's right, don't mentioned those games because they completely refute your argument.
How do you explain the low crowds for the Dodger series in the middle of summer. Those 3 games were some of the lowest attended games this year.

doublem23
09-09-2009, 01:21 PM
How do you explain the low crowds for the Dodger series in the middle of summer. Those 3 games were some of the lowest attended games this year.

Those games would have been duds no matter what. Yes, I'm sure the premium pricing helped keep some people away, but do you really think there would have been 38,000 people there for day games in the middle of the week against a National League opponent whose marquee player was sitting out on suspension?

I think the Sox admitted making that whole series a premium priced series was a mistake (I know our history with the Dodgers, but come on, the 1959 team doesn't mean that much to anyone whose not in their 60s by now). I believe there are 1-2 more premium priced games this year than last, so maybe they overextended themselves a bit this year. But let's not make it out like every time a premium priced game comes along, everyone stays away in droves. Generally speaking, they draw much better than normal games because the Sox assign the higher prices to games that have historically high demand.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 01:24 PM
Those games would have been duds no matter what. Yes, I'm sure the premium pricing helped keep some people away, but do you really think there would have been 38,000 people there for day games in the middle of the week against a National League opponent whose marquee player was sitting out on suspension?

I think the Sox admitted making that whole series a premium priced series was a mistake (I know our history with the Dodgers, but come on, the 1959 team doesn't mean that much to anyone whose not in their 60s by now). I believe there are 1-2 more premium priced games this year than last, so maybe they overextended themselves a bit this year. But let's not make it out like every time a premium priced game comes along, everyone stays away in droves. Generally speaking, they draw much better than normal games because the Sox assign the higher prices to games that have historically high demand.

Also keep in mind, a good portion of the attendance the Red Sox series happened to be Sawks fans. The Yankees will always draw as will the Cubs. I think the Sox need to get rid of Premiere pricing for the rest.

LITTLE NELL
09-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Those games would have been duds no matter what. Yes, I'm sure the premium pricing helped keep some people away, but do you really think there would have been 38,000 people there for day games in the middle of the week against a National League opponent whose marquee player was sitting out on suspension?

I think the Sox admitted making that whole series a premium priced series was a mistake (I know our history with the Dodgers, but come on, the 1959 team doesn't mean that much to anyone whose not in their 60s by now). I believe there are 1-2 more premium priced games this year than last, so maybe they overextended themselves a bit this year. But let's not make it out like every time a premium priced game comes along, everyone stays away in droves. Generally speaking, they draw much better than normal games because the Sox assign the higher prices to games that have historically high demand.
The first two games against LA were night games, the series drew about 62,000.
Another point if these Red Sox games were suppose to be such a tough ticket(Premier) why were they not gobbled up back in April.

doublem23
09-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Also keep in mind, a good portion of the attendance the Red Sox series happened to be Sawks fans. The Yankees will always draw as will the Cubs. I think the Sox need to get rid of Premiere pricing for the rest.

I agree, I think what hurt tickets sales was that this was a 4-game series instead of the usual 3.

LITTLE NELL
09-09-2009, 01:29 PM
Also keep in mind, a good portion of the attendance the Red Sox series happened to be Sawks fans. The Yankees will always draw as will the Cubs. I think the Sox need to get rid of Premiere pricing for the rest.
The Sox need to get rid of Premier pricing, period.

voodoochile
09-09-2009, 01:34 PM
The Sox need to get rid of Premier pricing, period.

Not gonna happen and one year during a horrible recession with 4 of the games on Labor Day weekend and 3 that they admitted they goofed on isn't going to change that fact.

The games you are citing to defend your argument all have mitigating circumstances that you aren't accounting for.

Flubs, NY and Boston will be premium priced for a long time if not forever and that's the minimum.

kittle42
09-09-2009, 01:34 PM
The Sox need to get rid of Premier pricing, period.

Yes, you say this, but when arguments are made contrary to it, you don't really answer them.

Everyone has admitted the Sox screwed up big in assuming a mid-week series against the Dodgers would draw that big. But there is no reason to not make the Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox premier pricing all the time, particularly the Cubs, as those games will always sell out. Had the Sox been playing well at all, even with Labor Day, those Boston games would have been nearly sold out. As always with Sox fans, perform or they don't show up.

doublem23
09-09-2009, 01:37 PM
The first two games against LA were night games, the series drew about 62,000.
Another point if these Red Sox games were suppose to be such a tough ticket(Premier) why were they not gobbled up back in April.

When the hell do games in the middle of the week ever draw good? For comparison, a series against the Tigers in the same TWT format drew 73,000ish or 3,000 more people per game. That might have been made up if the tickets for the Dodgers series was cheaper, but it's not like ticket sales were torpedoed.

Again, I think making the Dodgers series a premium priced series was a mistake, nobody cares about the Dodgers, but overall, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Top 10 Attended games of 2009 (red are premium prices)


June 28 - vs. Cubs - 39,745
June 27 - vs. Cubs - 39,529
June 20 - vs. Rays - 39,024
June 26 - vs. Cubs - 39,015
Aug. 1 - vs. Yankees - 38,763
July 31 - vs. Yankees - 38,228
April 7 - vs. Royals - 37,449
Aug. 17 - vs. Royals - 36,703
Aug. 2 - vs. Yankees - 36,325
Aug. 8 - vs. Indians - 35,224

P.S., #11 on that list is the Aug. 22 game against the Orioles, a Friday night that was premium priced and that game outdrew the rest of the weekend (which was not). You're right, though, 7 of the top 10 attended games fans paid top dollar for their tickets... Why are the Sox driving their fans away? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

LITTLE NELL
09-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Yes, you say this, but when arguments are made contrary to it, you don't really answer them.

Everyone has admitted the Sox screwed up big in assuming a mid-week series against the Dodgers would draw that big. But there is no reason to not make the Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox premier pricing all the time, particularly the Cubs, as those games will always sell out. Had the Sox been playing well at all, even with Labor Day, those Boston games would have been nearly sold out. As always with Sox fans, perform or they don't show up.
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is. I'm a lot older than a lot of you and I remember when box seats were 2.50 and general admission( some of you probably never heard of that) was 1.25 so I guess I'm having a hard time with high salaries, higher ticket prices for some teams, high parking prices and high beer prices. I made my point and thats all I have to say on the subject.

kittle42
09-09-2009, 01:54 PM
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is. I'm a lot older than a lot of you and I remember when box seats were 2.50 and general admission( some of you probably never heard of that) was 1.25 so I guess I'm having a hard time with high salaries, higher ticket prices for some teams, high parking prices and high beer prices. I made my point and that all I have to say on the subjecct.

That's fine, but your point doesn't take into account economic realities. Also, "I made my point and that all I have to say on the subject" is the common refrain of people who are losing a debate.

illinifan1368
09-09-2009, 01:55 PM
Obviously the Dodger series was a mistake. The Thursday game against NY and the Monday game against BOS I disagree with making premier because they are weekdays, but I understand even though charging through the roof on Labor Day is ridiculous IMO.

Basically, make Opening Day and Fri-Sun vs NY, Bos, and the Cubs Premier. It isn't needed anywhere else.

voodoochile
09-09-2009, 01:56 PM
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is. I'm a lot older than a lot of you and I remember when box seats were 2.50 and general admission( some of you probably never heard of that) was 1.25 so I guess I'm having a hard time with high salaries, higher ticket prices for some teams, high parking prices and high beer prices. I made my point and that all I have to say on the subjecct.

It's about demand, Nell. More demand = higher prices. That's just the way it is in all aspects of life. It becomes even more that way when there is "inelastic demand" as there is for certain AL fan bases when their teams visit Chicago and for Sox fans too who don't consider the cross town product to be an acceptable substitute product.

It's just basic economic theory, and it applies to everything.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 01:56 PM
When the hell do games in the middle of the week ever draw good? For comparison, a series against the Tigers in the same TWT format drew 73,000ish or 3,000 more people per game. That might have been made up if the tickets for the Dodgers series was cheaper, but it's not like ticket sales were torpedoed.

Again, I think making the Dodgers series a premium priced series was a mistake, nobody cares about the Dodgers, but overall, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Top 10 Attended games of 2009 (red are premium prices)


June 28 - vs. Cubs - 39,745
June 27 - vs. Cubs - 39,529
June 20 - vs. Rays - 39,024
June 26 - vs. Cubs - 39,015
Aug. 1 - vs. Yankees - 38,763
July 31 - vs. Yankees - 38,228
April 7 - vs. Royals - 37,449
Aug. 17 - vs. Royals - 36,703
Aug. 2 - vs. Yankees - 36,325
Aug. 8 - vs. Indians - 35,224
P.S., #11 on that list is the Aug. 22 game against the Orioles, a Friday night that was premium priced and that game outdrew the rest of the weekend (which was not). You're right, though, 7 of the top 10 attended games fans paid top dollar for their tickets... Why are the Sox driving their fans away? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

So of the 7 priemer priced games that are on the top 10, 3 Cubs, 3 Yankees and Opening Day. Even one of the Yankee games didn't make the list. Seems to me it makes a pretty good case towards premium pricing needs tweeking. Make those the only premium priced games. Even Elvis night didn't draw all that much this year, that was always sold out, even when the Sox didn't draw. Its not that they are driving them away from these 7 games, but they are driving them away from the 4 with Boston, the 3 with the Dodgers, Elvis night....the list goes on and on. The guy in front of us at the ticket window Monday bought 3 premium upper deck tickets, one for himself and 2 for his little boys. $120. Its a pretty steep price to pay to sit in the upper deck.

voodoochile
09-09-2009, 02:00 PM
So of the 7 priemer priced games that are on the top 10, 3 Cubs, 3 Yankees and Opening Day. Even one of the Yankee games didn't make the list. Seems to me it makes a pretty good case towards premium pricing needs tweeking. Make those the only premium priced games. Even Elvis night didn't draw all that much this year, that was always sold out, even when the Sox didn't draw. Its not that they are driving them away from these 7 games, but they are driving them away from the 4 with Boston, the 3 with the Dodgers, Elvis night....the list goes on and on. The guy in front of us at the ticket window Monday bought 3 premium upper deck tickets, one for himself and 2 for his little boys. $120. Its a pretty steep price to pay to sit in the upper deck.

Was that August 22 game that came in 11th Elvis night? I can't picture a good reason for a random Friday night against the Orioles to be that big of a seller otherwise.

The Boston series got crushed by it's timing. Labor Day weekend a lot of people do a lot of different things other than go to ball games. It's also a light weekend for movies and restaurants which are also traditional entertainment options. Add in the fact that Jazzfest is free and it doesn't help...

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 02:11 PM
Was that August 22 game that came in 11th Elvis night? I can't picture a good reason for a random Friday night against the Orioles to be that big of a seller otherwise.

The Boston series got crushed by it's timing. Labor Day weekend a lot of people do a lot of different things other than go to ball games. It's also a light weekend for movies and restaurants which are also traditional entertainment options. Add in the fact that Jazzfest is free and it doesn't help...

The Sox knew the schedule when they charged for it, so perhaps they screwed up again, but I was shocked at about 20,000 empty seats per game.

salty99
09-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Was that August 22 game that came in 11th Elvis night? I can't picture a good reason for a random Friday night against the Orioles to be that big of a seller otherwise.

The Boston series got crushed by it's timing. Labor Day weekend a lot of people do a lot of different things other than go to ball games. It's also a light weekend for movies and restaurants which are also traditional entertainment options. Add in the fact that Jazzfest is free and it doesn't help...

Elvis night was August 21st.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:03 PM
I really doubt there would be a 15k walk up if the Sox were better. A couple of things to keep in mind, the advanced sale for these tickets was very low, it probably was the economy. When the cheapest seat in the park is $30 and money is tight, people will opt for other games.The second thing is unless the Sox are really good, Labor Day weekend is a tough draw for them. My cousin had patio tickets for Monday. We showed up about 12:30. There was no one inside. No one. There was one staging area open and one guy working the drinks. The people were all outside and we still got our own table. I'm thinking there were less than 40 people total in the patio area. It actually made it pretty enjoyable. I overheard one of the Bertucci boys talking to someone and he said Labor Day was always like this. If the Sox were playing better, attendance would have been better, but there still would have been a lot of empty seats.they had 1/2 price ticket specials for labor day. against a premium priced team. economy's teh biggest reason the red sox series failed to sell out. red sox fans travel to see thier team, and with money tight, opted not to this year.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Those games would have been duds no matter what. Yes, I'm sure the premium pricing helped keep some people away, but do you really think there would have been 38,000 people there for day games in the middle of the week against a National League opponent whose marquee player was sitting out on suspension?

I think the Sox admitted making that whole series a premium priced series was a mistake (I know our history with the Dodgers, but come on, the 1959 team doesn't mean that much to anyone whose not in their 60s by now). I believe there are 1-2 more premium priced games this year than last, so maybe they overextended themselves a bit this year. But let's not make it out like every time a premium priced game comes along, everyone stays away in droves. Generally speaking, they draw much better than normal games because the Sox assign the higher prices to games that have historically high demand.primes game are all that's left. pretty much all weekend series are prime.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:05 PM
I agree, I think what hurt tickets sales was that this was a 4-game series instead of the usual 3.2005-2009 sox/sox series have all been 4 game affairs @ the cell.
2005-2007 were thurs-sun affairs, while 08/09 were fri-mon series

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Not gonna happen and one year during a horrible recession with 4 of the games on Labor Day weekend and 3 that they admitted they goofed on isn't going to change that fact.

The games you are citing to defend your argument all have mitigating circumstances that you aren't accounting for.

Flubs, NY and Boston will be premium priced for a long time if not forever and that's the minimum.i concur.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:10 PM
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is. I'm a lot older than a lot of you and I remember when box seats were 2.50 and general admission( some of you probably never heard of that) was 1.25 so I guess I'm having a hard time with high salaries, higher ticket prices for some teams, high parking prices and high beer prices. I made my point and thats all I have to say on the subject.the alternative is to raise prices for ALL games to the same level as they can get for the "premium" games. and we know that will be a disaster.

the current system is flawed, but it's better than the alternative.

sides, when you have prime or regular games, the sox tend to offer group specials. they do NOT on premium games. the difference can be made up if you shop smart.

voodoochile
09-09-2009, 03:10 PM
Elvis night was August 21st.

I was using Doub's quote for a reference. That Friday was indeed the 21st.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:11 PM
So of the 7 priemer priced games that are on the top 10, 3 Cubs, 3 Yankees and Opening Day. Even one of the Yankee games didn't make the list. Seems to me it makes a pretty good case towards premium pricing needs tweeking. Make those the only premium priced games. Even Elvis night didn't draw all that much this year, that was always sold out, even when the Sox didn't draw. Its not that they are driving them away from these 7 games, but they are driving them away from the 4 with Boston, the 3 with the Dodgers, Elvis night....the list goes on and on. The guy in front of us at the ticket window Monday bought 3 premium upper deck tickets, one for himself and 2 for his little boys. $120. Its a pretty steep price to pay to sit in the upper deck.he could have gone to stubhub and bought 3 tix for $35.

not the sox fault he dosent know how to comparison shop.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:13 PM
oh, and the sox offered discount concession all four games. they knew the boston series ended up being a tough sell, and worked to fix it.

i had a 1/2 off ticket offer for the monday game.

illinifan1368
09-09-2009, 03:14 PM
he could have gone to stubhub and bought 3 tix for $35.

not the sox fault he dosent know how to comparison shop.
Yeah, its the dad's fault :rolleyes:

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:18 PM
Yeah, its the dad's fault :rolleyes:there were cheaper options for that day. including the scalpers on the street. it was a buyer's market that day.

stubhub had tickets that morning for $10 each.

voodoochile
09-09-2009, 03:18 PM
oh, and the sox offered discount concession all four games. they knew the boston series ended up being a tough sell, and worked to fix it.

i had a 1/2 off ticket offer for the monday game.

With school starting people tend to stay closer to home on Labor Day. Maybe a trip to a local attraction but they don't fly cross country as much as they do other times during baseball season. In addition, local fan bases tend to do something else. Out of town Red Sox fans weren't as likely to fly to Chicago and local Sox and Sawx fans were likely to be in Wisconsin or at the beach or downstate picking corn or maybe doing the circle tour or etc. etc. etc.

Also, the Sawx are not coming off a championship and are well behind the Yankees for the division and don't seem as strong as they have in years past so maybe there's less bandwagon interest in general this year.

Bad timing, less interest and poor economy. Those factors add up to lower ticket sales.

illinifan1368
09-09-2009, 03:19 PM
oh, and the sox offered discount concession all four games. they knew the boston series ended up being a tough sell, and worked to fix it.

i had a 1/2 off ticket offer for the monday game.
Sorry, but I'm not going to pay $48 plus 4.75 "convenience fees" per ticket to get the opportunity at a $1 tube of ground chicken, pork, and turkey on a bun.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:20 PM
With school starting people tend to stay closer to home on Labor Day. Maybe a trip to a local attraction but they don't fly cross country as much as they do other times during baseball season. In addition, local fan bases tend to do something else. Out of town Red Sox fans weren't as likely to fly to Chicago and local Sox and Sawx fans were likely to be in Wisconsin or at the beach or downstate picking corn or maybe doing the circle tour or etc. etc. etc.

Also, the Sawx are not coming off a championship and are well behind the Yankees for the division and don't seem as strong as they have in years past so maybe there's less bandwagon interest in general this year.

Bad timing, less interest and poor economy. Those factors add up to lower ticket sales.the white sox ended up promoting the boston series as a "staycation" when they saw how few tickets were moving. hence the discount concessions to offset the ticket costs.

soxfanreggie
09-09-2009, 03:20 PM
The Sox would be doing us, the fans, a disservice by not raising prices for higher demand games (Boston, New York, Cubs, etc.) because more ticket money = more revenue = more money for players. I don't understand why this is such a sore spot.


I actually just gave a speech on variable ticket pricing, and it generates more money for the most part. However, the biggest downsides are perception of an inferior product (when you play teams like the Royals, Pirates, etc.) or you're out of it. You probably won't sell many $60 per game tickets to Sox fans, but you might sell some to Yankees or Red Sox fans.

As far as the Cubs, we all know those games will be a sell-out no matter what because Cubs fans will snatch up any and all tickets we don't buy.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Sorry, but I'm not going to pay $48 plus 4.75 "convenience fees" per ticket to get the opportunity at a $1 tube of ground chicken, pork, and turkey on a bun.i paid $16.50 each before fees for my tickets on monday.

ewokpelts
09-09-2009, 03:22 PM
I actually just gave a speech on variable ticket pricing, and it generates more money for the most part. However, the biggest downsides are perception of an inferior product (when you play teams like the Royals, Pirates, etc.) or you're out of it. You probably won't sell many $60 per game tickets to Sox fans, but you might sell some to Yankees or Red Sox fans.

As far as the Cubs, we all know those games will be a sell-out no matter what because Cubs fans will snatch up any and all tickets we don't buy.sox charge more for the cubs games cuz they KNOW we'll be selling for more than what they are charging.
i doubled my money on my cub tix this year. despite the sox raising ticket prices.

kittle42
09-09-2009, 03:22 PM
he could have gone to stubhub and bought 3 tix for $35.

not the sox fault he dosent know how to comparison shop.

Yeah, its the dad's fault :rolleyes:

Why isn't it? It's the internet age - people should learn of alternatives to purchasing at the window if they want to save money.

kittle42
09-09-2009, 03:23 PM
Just another thread of people who won't be happy til it costs $5 to get into the park again.

soxfanreggie
09-09-2009, 03:26 PM
The guy in front of us at the ticket window Monday bought 3 premium upper deck tickets, one for himself and 2 for his little boys. $120. Its a pretty steep price to pay to sit in the upper deck.

Weren't you clamoring that people are cheap for buying upper deck tickets or was that just if Dad wants to take the boys to see the stadium?

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 03:35 PM
Weren't you clamoring that people are cheap for buying upper deck tickets or was that just if Dad wants to take the boys to see the stadium?

No. I was saying if you want to sit in the lower deck and buy upper deck tickets, and money isn't the issue as one poster was telling me, and don't like the policy of not being able to do that, you are cheap. If someone needs to see the statues, they could buy a ticket today for less than $10 on stubhub. Or sit in the upper deck and look in the first base coach's box when the Sox hit. It looks like they move one of the statues there every game.

illinifan1368
09-09-2009, 03:41 PM
No. I was saying if you want to sit in the lower deck and buy upper deck tickets, and money isn't the issue as one poster was telling me, and don't like the policy of not being able to do that, you are cheap. If someone needs to see the statues, they could buy a ticket today for less than $10 on stubhub. Or sit in the upper deck and look in the first base coach's box when the Sox hit. It looks like they move one of the statues there every game.
This is such a sad sight

soxfanreggie
09-09-2009, 03:56 PM
This is such a sad sight

For the Sox, yes. Not for a fan who wants to see a cheap ballgame.

dickallen15
09-09-2009, 04:14 PM
For the Sox, yes. Not for a fan who wants to see a cheap ballgame.

So its a perfect time to go check out the lower deck amenities that apparently are a must, and people can do it primarily on a season ticketholder's dime.

HomeFish
09-09-2009, 07:52 PM
As the "Premier Pricing" expands beyond just Cubs/Red Sox/Yankees, into things like the Dodgers or even Orioles, Sox staff seem to be misoverestimating demand for tickets.

doublem23
09-09-2009, 08:42 PM
As the "Premier Pricing" expands beyond just Cubs/Red Sox/Yankees, into things like the Dodgers or even Orioles, Sox staff seem to be misoverestimating demand for tickets.

I have a very strong suspicion the Premier price games will be scaled back a bit next year.

I never said it was perfect this year, they've clearly overextended themselves in 2009... But anyone arguing it needs to go by the wayside because "every team is a Major League team" is just not living on Planet Earth.

Warriorjan
09-10-2009, 01:45 AM
I hadn't been to Elvis Night for several years, so was shocked that it wasn't a sell-out, and at the price of the tickets. It wasn't that long ago that it sold out pretty much when tickets went on sale. But at the price of the ticket this year, I probably won't go again next year.

voodoochile
09-10-2009, 09:52 AM
I hadn't been to Elvis Night for several years, so was shocked that it wasn't a sell-out, and at the price of the tickets. It wasn't that long ago that it sold out pretty much when tickets went on sale. But at the price of the ticket this year, I probably won't go again next year.

They sold 34K+ tickets, so they did alright. The premium pricing more than makes up for the "loss" of 4K seats. The two previous Friday home games against Cleveland and Baltimore they drew 32K and 27K.

If/when the economy rebounds, the game will sell out again.

ewokpelts
09-10-2009, 10:00 AM
Here's your preliminary 2010 Premier dates:
Opening Day
Cubs/Sox
Yankees
Red Sox
Elvis Night

I will put hard money on this.

illinifan1368
09-10-2009, 10:04 AM
Here's your preliminary 2010 Premier dates:
Opening Day
Cubs/Sox
Yankees
Red Sox
Elvis Night

I will put hard money on this.
Way to go out on a limb

UofCSoxFan
09-10-2009, 10:21 AM
This is such a played out complaint. Every team does this. And if they don't, they should. The practice of charging higher prices for higher demand games is a simple business concept. In the world or econ, it's known as price discrimination. Its not different than a stadium charging $6 bucks for a hamburger when you can get one outside the stadium for $1.

The White Sox have a team of front office people that set ticket prices to maximize revenues. Mind you, their goal isn't to maximize sell outs, but to maximize revenues. There are two pieces to the revenue equation: tickets sold and price of those tickets. In many cases, an sellout indicates that revenue was left on the table.

An extreme example is this: Let's say there is one fan that is willing to pay $1 million for a ticket. No other fan would pay this amount, but if the White Sox charged $1 million per ticket, they would have attendance of 1 and revenue of $1 million. Now lets say on the other hand there are only 40,000 people (or whatever capacity is) that want to attend a Sox game. There's the one fan that would pay $1 mil, but most fans would pay $20 a ticket. There are 5,000 or so fans that would only pay $1. Well the Sox could have a sellout if they charged $1 for a ticket, but would only have revenues of $40,000.

The ideal goal is to charge just the amount that everyone is willing to pay. You charge the 1 guy that would pay $1million that amount, the people willing to pay $20 that amount, and the 5000 cheapskates $1. This is why you have pricing tiers withing games. Now doing this on an individual basis is impossible unless you use what is known as a "dutch auction" but then next best thing is having pricing tiers within a game. Its all in an attempt to capture that consumer surplus.

dickallen15
09-10-2009, 10:52 AM
This is such a played out complaint. Every team does this. And if they don't, they should. The practice of charging higher prices for higher demand games is a simple business concept. In the world or econ, it's known as price discrimination. Its not different than a stadium charging $6 bucks for a hamburger when you can get one outside the stadium for $1.

The White Sox have a team of front office people that set ticket prices to maximize revenues. Mind you, their goal isn't to maximize sell outs, but to maximize revenues. There are two pieces to the revenue equation: tickets sold and price of those tickets. In many cases, an sellout indicates that revenue was left on the table.

An extreme example is this: Let's say there is one fan that is willing to pay $1 million for a ticket. No other fan would pay this amount, but if the White Sox charged $1 million per ticket, they would have attendance of 1 and revenue of $1 million. Now lets say on the other hand there are only 40,000 people (or whatever capacity is) that want to attend a Sox game. There's the one fan that would pay $1 mil, but most fans would pay $20 a ticket. There are 5,000 or so fans that would only pay $1. Well the Sox could have a sellout if they charged $1 for a ticket, but would only have revenues of $40,000.

The ideal goal is to charge just the amount that everyone is willing to pay. You charge the 1 guy that would pay $1million that amount, the people willing to pay $20 that amount, and the 5000 cheapskates $1. This is why you have pricing tiers withing games. Now doing this on an individual basis is impossible unless you use what is known as a "dutch auction" but then next best thing is having pricing tiers within a game. Its all in an attempt to capture that consumer surplus.
The attendance figures at some of the premiere games indicates they would have been better off lopping $5 or so off tickets and filling the stadium. Of course, things may have been a lot different if the Sox came across as anything but an average team this year. Those tickets not sold equal far more than ticket revenue lost. Parking and concessions are lost as well, and if you believe the studies, the average fan spends more on those in total than they do on buying a seat.

KenBerryGrab
09-10-2009, 11:05 AM
Two of those Top 10 attendance games were half-price Mondays. That's when I bring the family, and we unload a bit of cash. (Hello, funnel cake cart....)

illinifan1368
09-10-2009, 11:13 AM
Two of those Top 10 attendance games were half-price Mondays. That's when I bring the family, and we unload a bit of cash. (Hello, funnel cake cart....)
The White Sox are undefeated on half-price Mondays and they seem have an awesome record when the stadium is full. It could be a coincidence, but I honestly don't think it is. Let me check the records...

EDIT: If I counted right, the Sox are 20-8 at home with 30,000+. They are 20-24 with less than 30,000.

friarhky22
09-10-2009, 11:14 AM
This is such a played out complaint. Every team does this. And if they don't, they should. The practice of charging higher prices for higher demand games is a simple business concept. In the world or econ, it's known as price discrimination. Its not different than a stadium charging $6 bucks for a hamburger when you can get one outside the stadium for $1.

The White Sox have a team of front office people that set ticket prices to maximize revenues. Mind you, their goal isn't to maximize sell outs, but to maximize revenues. There are two pieces to the revenue equation: tickets sold and price of those tickets. In many cases, an sellout indicates that revenue was left on the table.

An extreme example is this: Let's say there is one fan that is willing to pay $1 million for a ticket. No other fan would pay this amount, but if the White Sox charged $1 million per ticket, they would have attendance of 1 and revenue of $1 million. Now lets say on the other hand there are only 40,000 people (or whatever capacity is) that want to attend a Sox game. There's the one fan that would pay $1 mil, but most fans would pay $20 a ticket. There are 5,000 or so fans that would only pay $1. Well the Sox could have a sellout if they charged $1 for a ticket, but would only have revenues of $40,000.

The ideal goal is to charge just the amount that everyone is willing to pay. You charge the 1 guy that would pay $1million that amount, the people willing to pay $20 that amount, and the 5000 cheapskates $1. This is why you have pricing tiers withing games. Now doing this on an individual basis is impossible unless you use what is known as a "dutch auction" but then next best thing is having pricing tiers within a game. Its all in an attempt to capture that consumer surplus.


That's not necessarily true. You're leaving out considerations for additional revenue brought in by merchandise sales, concessions, and parking. The more people at the park, the more of all that you sell. Its not just a question of ticket revenue.

jabrch
09-10-2009, 11:55 AM
More pissing and moaning about premeir game pricing? What a shock.

DSpivack
09-10-2009, 01:18 PM
The ideal goal is to charge just the amount that everyone is willing to pay. You charge the 1 guy that would pay $1million that amount, the people willing to pay $20 that amount, and the 5000 cheapskates $1. This is why you have pricing tiers withing games. Now doing this on an individual basis is impossible unless you use what is known as a "dutch auction" but then next best thing is having pricing tiers within a game. Its all in an attempt to capture that consumer surplus.

The Giants have been experimenting with this idea this season, for I believe one section in their park.

kaufsox
09-10-2009, 01:35 PM
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is. I'm a lot older than a lot of you and I remember when box seats were 2.50 and general admission( some of you probably never heard of that) was 1.25 so I guess I'm having a hard time with high salaries, higher ticket prices for some teams, high parking prices and high beer prices. I made my point and thats all I have to say on the subject.

should I get off your lawn too? :D:

gobears1987
09-10-2009, 01:38 PM
Premier pricing for opening day, Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox are all fine. Premier pricing for the Dodgers or any team not listed above is stupid, and I hope the Sox learned their lesson from the Dodgers series. That was just beyond stupid. That is particularly true when one of the games was a Thursday day game.

jabrch
09-10-2009, 01:52 PM
My argument is that the White Sox play 81 home games and I'm pretty sure that they are all against Major League teams, every game should be the same price regardless who the opponent is.

If they did that, then the following would happen. First, prices would be raised on all of the non premium games. So currently, people who want to pay more to see some games are subsidizing it so that others who just want to go to any game can do so cheaper. For a ST holder, it would net out the same, but for individual game purchasers, most games would cost more than they do today, so that the few premium games could cost less. Second, the secondary market would still exist. People would still scalp their tickets to Cubs, Red Sox, Yanks, etc. And Joe Average still would likely not be able to get good seats to those games at a lower price. The only difference is that instead of the club getting that money, the scalpers and ST holders would be splitting it.

Premium pricing is done for nearly every MLB team.

jabrch
09-10-2009, 01:54 PM
Premier pricing for opening day, Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox are all fine. Premier pricing for the Dodgers or any team not listed above is stupid, and I hope the Sox learned their lesson from the Dodgers series. That was just beyond stupid. That is particularly true when one of the games was a Thursday day game.

Were the Dodgers premium when they were in town two years ago? Because I know all of those games were sellouts. Was it the premium that was a problem, or the premium coupled with the economy?

gobears1987
09-10-2009, 01:57 PM
Were the Dodgers premium when they were in town two years ago? Because I know all of those games were sellouts. Was it the premium that was a problem, or the premium coupled with the economy?The last time the Dodgers came to town was June 2005. Those games sold out as they were weekend games during the 2005 season. Two of the nights were fireworks nights IIRC. It was also the first time the Dodgers came since 1959. The series was priced the same as every other non-Cubs summer weekend series. It was priced just as much as that game would've cost if it were against the Royals on those nights. The team was also in a championship run so the Sox would be stupid to look at 2005 to justify that decision.

illinifan1368
09-10-2009, 01:58 PM
Were the Dodgers premium when they were in town two years ago? Because I know all of those games were sellouts. Was it the premium that was a problem, or the premium coupled with the economy?
In 2005? They were definitely not all sellouts in '05. Have we played them in Chicago since then?

soxfanreggie
09-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Was it the premium that was a problem, or the premium coupled with the economy?

I asked a friend who is an academic and has done a lot of research on this topic. This year, it was most likely a combination of all the factors: the premium prices, the team's performance, and the economy. The Sox should consider what the Rockies do: variable ticket pricing the day of the event. Thus, if the demand is low, they sometimes offer better deals.

jabrch
09-10-2009, 02:07 PM
In 2005? They were definitely not all sellouts in '05. Have we played them in Chicago since then?


One sold out - the other two did not...my bad. 28,800 on Friday, 36,000 on Sat and 27,300 on Sunday.

illinifan1368
09-10-2009, 02:08 PM
One sold out - the other two did not...my bad. 28,800 on Friday, 36,000 on Sat and 27,300 on Sunday.
36K still isn't a sellout. The Sox might BS and say it is, but it isn't.

dickallen15
09-10-2009, 02:11 PM
36K still isn't a sellout. The Sox might BS and say it is, but it isn't.
Depending on comps, 36k could be a sellout.

voodoochile
09-10-2009, 02:21 PM
36K still isn't a sellout. The Sox might BS and say it is, but it isn't.

That's kind of nitpicky. I mean obviously it's better to sell 36K premium priced seats than 39K regularly priced ones.

The bottom line is even at close to sellouts premium pricing is better for the club's financial health.

dickallen15
09-10-2009, 02:32 PM
That's kind of nitpicky. I mean obviously it's better to sell 36K premium priced seats than 39K regularly priced ones.

The bottom line is even at close to sellouts premium pricing is better for the club's financial health.
It might be, it might not be. How much is the increase for the premier vs. premium? If its $5, 36k x5=180k. If the average price was 30 30x4k=120k. 60k difference but 4k more in the house would net on average more than $15 each. So the difference between 36k and 40k at $5 less probably nets better for the cheaper ticket. Lets face it, they are trying to price these games to where they will still sellout. Another factor is the team wasn't all that exciting to watch this year. That plus the economy pluse the bloated ticket price, will keep people away.

voodoochile
09-10-2009, 02:54 PM
It might be, it might not be. How much is the increase for the premier vs. premium? If its $5, 36k x5=180k. If the average price was 30 30x4k=120k. 60k difference but 4k more in the house would net on average more than $15 each. So the difference between 36k and 40k at $5 less probably nets better for the cheaper ticket. Lets face it, they are trying to price these games to where they will still sellout. Another factor is the team wasn't all that exciting to watch this year. That plus the economy pluse the bloated ticket price, will keep people away.

You have to factor in cost of goods sold too. Selling a seat costs the team nothing. Selling a hot dog is probably 15-20% cost or something. They have a huge markup on food and drink, but they also just lease the food space to a company I think who handles all the details of staffing and food cost. The Sox may not make much extra from selling more food. The company that handles it might though. I don't know their particular deal though so I'm just speculating.

Still, one thing we can say for sure is every dollar they make extra from selling a higher priced seat goes right to the bottom line.

Also, there is no guarantee that a lower ticket cost would automatically boost 36K to 39K.

Also, I thought the premium price seats had a larger upcharge than $5.

dickallen15
09-10-2009, 03:13 PM
You have to factor in cost of goods sold too. Selling a seat costs the team nothing. Selling a hot dog is probably 15-20% cost or something. They have a huge markup on food and drink, but they also just lease the food space to a company I think who handles all the details of staffing and food cost. The Sox may not make much extra from selling more food. The company that handles it might though. I don't know their particular deal though so I'm just speculating.

Still, one thing we can say for sure is every dollar they make extra from selling a higher priced seat goes right to the bottom line.

Also, there is no guarantee that a lower ticket cost would automatically boost 36K to 39K.

Also, I thought the premium price seats had a larger upcharge than $5.

Looks like the difference between regular and prime is $4 and prime and premium is $10. They also lose parking revenue. If I were running things, the only premiere would be opening day, the Cubs and Yankees. Other than that, prime is still an increase over the regular price.

ewokpelts
09-10-2009, 05:06 PM
the 2005 dodger games were "premium". hence the lack of sellouts.

the 2005 pricing structure was mondays, regular, premium, and "cubs"

UofCSoxFan
09-11-2009, 01:26 AM
That's not necessarily true. You're leaving out considerations for additional revenue brought in by merchandise sales, concessions, and parking. The more people at the park, the more of all that you sell. Its not just a question of ticket revenue.

Yes there are other sources of revenue...which surely are also incorporated into the pro forma analysis marketing/tickeing does before setting ticket prices. I was trying to keep my argument simple, as I stated, and your point, while valid, does not change my point, that in many cases a sell out doesn't maximize revenues. I mean to use your example, parking doesn't sell out (there are plenty of people that I'm sure take the el that would drive if parking was 5 bucks), merchandise doesn't sell out, etc...which it would if everything was $1.

All I'm saying is the point when setting ticket prices is to maximize revenue. The creation of a tiered pricing structure gets a lot closer to maximizing revenue than charging the same amount for every game or for every seat even if doing so means you will sell less seats. This is basic economics. I can almost guarantee the current price structure isn't optiomal and may have some tweaking, but it wasn't the unmitigated disaster some people here make it out to be. It also isn't inherently "unfair" (as an economics major I hate that word) either. That's all I'm saying.

Fenway
09-11-2009, 01:53 AM
Try Boston where all 81 games are Premier Pricing :tongue:

The Dodgers pricing was simply idiotic on the White Sox part.

Boston fans were there in good numbers for the weekend.

I think you will see more teams do what the Giants did this year, every game price depends on demand for a bunch of seats.

ewokpelts
09-11-2009, 10:42 AM
i think this argument would lessen if the upper reserved tix were a lil cheaper. $19 on a regular day? $33 for premium?

my weekend bleacher tix for cubs/yanks/redsox are $42(st price)

ewokpelts
09-11-2009, 10:43 AM
meanwhile, the sox have hit at least 2 million fans for the fifth straight season(2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). they must know something about ticket prices

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 10:45 AM
meanwhile, the sox have hit at least 2 million fans for the fifth straight season(2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). they must know something about ticket prices
I'm sorry, but 2 million isn't much of an accomplishment.

JohnnyInnsbrook
09-11-2009, 10:59 AM
The Sox should consider what the Rockies do: variable ticket pricing the day of the event. Thus, if the demand is low, they sometimes offer better deals.

I agree, when the sox had the Mark Buehrle appreciation series they sold upper deck tickets down the lines for $9. These $9 seats were full while the regular priced upper deck seats behind home plate were relatively empty. I know $9 a ticket is really cheap but im sure the sox would rather loose some money on the seats and have people at the park buying concessions and paying for parking then not selling the tickets at all. A variable ticket price would also help a lot with the walk up.

UofCSoxFan
09-11-2009, 12:21 PM
Try Boston where all 81 games are Premier Pricing :tongue:

The Dodgers pricing was simply idiotic on the White Sox part.

Boston fans were there in good numbers for the weekend.

I think you will see more teams do what the Giants did this year, every game price depends on demand for a bunch of seats.

Doesn't Fenway basically only have 3 price points...for the White Sox I went to they were $90, $50, and standing room only for like $30. It seemed like most of the seats were the $50 (which again is more than most of White Sox games). Judging by secondary market prices and their sellout streak, I think its safe to say they could be charging more, at least for the $50 seats not by Pesky's Pole.

UofCSoxFan
09-11-2009, 12:29 PM
I agree, when the sox had the Mark Buehrle appreciation series they sold upper deck tickets down the lines for $9. These $9 seats were full while the regular priced upper deck seats behind home plate were relatively empty. I know $9 a ticket is really cheap but im sure the sox would rather loose some money on the seats and have people at the park buying concessions and paying for parking then not selling the tickets at all. A variable ticket price would also help a lot with the walk up.

They probably wouldn't mind forgoing some ticket prices to have more people at the park for concessions/parking, and I'm sure they account for this in setting the prices. That being said, the person that will got to a game for $29 bucks but won't go for $34 bucks, probalby isn't throwing down $50 bucks at the beer stand either.

Your variable ticket price idea is a great idea (although it could work both ways with tickets going up as the team looks better and better and I'm sure people would freak out here), but there are drawbacks that would have to be considered as it encourages many people to wait to buy tickets to see if the price will drop which causes all sorts of issues with security, concessions needed, not to mention it makes the revenue stream much more volatile than if you have advanced sales.

I mean it is an interesting topic to me. I spent four years in college working through math problems that tried to maximize a result with multiple variables: just off the top of my head you have ticket prices, tickets sold, parking, concessions, merchandise, ad revenue (whcih likely is tied somewhat to attendance at least indirectly..you can charge more if peopole historically show up at the park), costs of security costs of concession workers, costs of goods sold...etc..Its a very complicated situation.

I think the issue with the Sox is tweaking the games assigned to each tier, and possibly adjusting the prices, but the tier structure itself as an idea is sound.

southside rocks
09-11-2009, 12:31 PM
I'm sorry, but 2 million isn't much of an accomplishment.

In a city with two MLB teams and a population less than that of NY or LA? I think it is. It pays the bills, anyway. The Sox are 14th, today, out of MLB teams, and for a team that has historically been the red-headed stepchild -- 'the second team in the second city' -- that's not damn bad.

wassagstdu
09-11-2009, 12:58 PM
$2.50 (price of a box seat in 1956) is worth $19.47 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation.

doublem23
09-11-2009, 01:00 PM
Premier pricing for opening day, Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox are all fine. Premier pricing for the Dodgers or any team not listed above is stupid, and I hope the Sox learned their lesson from the Dodgers series. That was just beyond stupid. That is particularly true when one of the games was a Thursday day game.

The Sox also premier price Friday night games during the summer, and they still draw a nice crowd.

doublem23
09-11-2009, 01:05 PM
I'm sorry, but 2 million isn't much of an accomplishment.

Yes it is, if you look at the history of this team's struggles to draw at the gate. How can nobody remember what it was like just 10 years ago at the new park? The Sox hardly ever sold out, even in 2000, when they had a young, good team making a run for the post-season sales were still kind of lackluster.

I don't know why you can't grasp the concept that somethings take more than a night to happen, but if you look at the long-term growth of the Sox's attendance, payroll, and unfortunately, ticket prices, then you'll easily... easily see that the Sox are as strong as they've ever been from a business perspective.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 01:10 PM
Yes it is, if you look at the history of this team's struggles to draw at the gate. How can nobody remember what it was like just 10 years ago at the new park? The Sox hardly ever sold out, even in 2000, when they had a young, good team making a run for the post-season sales were still kind of lackluster.

I don't know why you can't grasp the concept that somethings take more than a night to happen, but if you look at the long-term growth of the Sox's attendance, payroll, and unfortunately, ticket prices, then you'll easily... easily see that the Sox are as strong as they've ever been from a business perspective.

I never said that the fan base wasn't as strong as ever, but they could SELLOUT every game if their pricing wasn't so ridiculous. Not to mention this team plays better when people show up...would it be to much of a stretch to say they would be in 1st place or within a game or 2 if pricing allowed a higher attendance per game?

kittle42
09-11-2009, 01:14 PM
I never said that the fan base wasn't as strong as ever, but they could SELLOUT every game if their pricing wasn't so ridiculous. Not to mention this team plays better when people show up...would it be to much of a stretch to say they would be in 1st place or within a game or 2 if pricing allowed a higher attendance per game?

Hey, let's let people in for whatever they can donate at the door, like a street festival. They'd be 81-0 at home!

doublem23
09-11-2009, 01:15 PM
I never said that the fan base wasn't as strong as ever, but they could SELLOUT every game if their pricing wasn't so ridiculous. Not to mention this team plays better when people show up...would it be to much of a stretch to say they would be in 1st place or within a game or 2 if pricing allowed a higher attendance per game?

Yeah... There's absolutely nothing that correlates attendance and play on field.

dickallen15
09-11-2009, 01:15 PM
Yes there are other sources of revenue...which surely are also incorporated into the pro forma analysis marketing/tickeing does before setting ticket prices. I was trying to keep my argument simple, as I stated, and your point, while valid, does not change my point, that in many cases a sell out doesn't maximize revenues. I mean to use your example, parking doesn't sell out (there are plenty of people that I'm sure take the el that would drive if parking was 5 bucks), merchandise doesn't sell out, etc...which it would if everything was $1.

All I'm saying is the point when setting ticket prices is to maximize revenue. The creation of a tiered pricing structure gets a lot closer to maximizing revenue than charging the same amount for every game or for every seat even if doing so means you will sell less seats. This is basic economics. I can almost guarantee the current price structure isn't optiomal and may have some tweaking, but it wasn't the unmitigated disaster some people here make it out to be. It also isn't inherently "unfair" (as an economics major I hate that word) either. That's all I'm saying.

I understand why they do it, it just seems to me if you have a pricing policy in place and can only draw 22k for the Red Sox and half of them are Red Sox fans, perhaps it behooves you to re-think it. If it costs you 5-10 k at $25 a head, plus some parking plus concessions, the extra revenue you make from the sold tickets doesn't really offset that, or if it does, its so slight. The Cubs are really the only guaranteed sellout. They should keep the premiere pricing for them. The Yankees I can see leaving that premiere, and Opening Day. Other than that, if you're not going to sellout, jacking up prices doesn't necessarily maximize profits. In fact, it probably cost them money overall, unless it held them under the rent threshold in their lease.

I'm reasonably sure teams went to tiered pricing depending on opponents after watching ticket brokers rake in cash. Its a different world now. Even NFL teams are having trouble selling all their seats.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Yeah... There's absolutely nothing that correlates attendance and play on field.
You say that, yet the Sox are 20-8 when 30,000+ people are in the park and 20-24 when there are less than 30,000.

kittle42
09-11-2009, 01:39 PM
You say that, yet the Sox are 20-8 when 30,000+ people are in the park and 20-24 when there are less than 30,000.

2008: 29-13 30,000+; 25-15 less.

2007: 31-37; 7-6

It's meaningless. And any team that cannot "get up" for a game without a crowd, since that's your theory, should have its manager fired, not its ticket prices lowered.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 01:44 PM
2008: 29-13 30,000+; 25-15 less.

2007: 31-37; 7-6

It's meaningless. And any team that cannot "get up" for a game without a crowd, since that's your theory, should have its manager fired, not its ticket prices lowered.
I'm not talking about last year. I asked about this year. I guess you are just going with the "extremely large coincidence" excuse.

eriqjaffe
09-11-2009, 01:48 PM
I'm not talking about last year. I asked about this year. I guess you are just going with the "extremely large coincidence" excuse.No, I think it's just a regular old coincidence.

kittle42
09-11-2009, 01:50 PM
I'm not talking about last year. I asked about this year. I guess you are just going with the "extremely large coincidence" excuse.

No, I think it's just a regular old coincidence.

It's most definitely just a regular old coincidence.

UofCSoxFan
09-11-2009, 01:54 PM
It's most definitely just a regular old coincidence.

I agree. Correlation is not the same as causation. You could just as easily make the argument that more fans show up to games they think the White Sox have a better chance of winning and that is why they have a better record.

Football is probably the only sport where homefiled makes a huge difference because of the noise factor and ability for QBs to audible. The biggest thing about playing at home in baseball is last at-bats. The crowd itself has little impact on the game.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 02:01 PM
Here is my belief. More people go to see the Yankee, Cubs etc. The Sox show up for these bigger name teams. Less people go to see the Royals, and the Sox don't show up to those games. I don't know whose fault that is, but it is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.

eriqjaffe
09-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Here is my belief. More people go to see the Yankee, Cubs etc. The Sox show up for these bigger name teams. Less people go to see the Royals, and the Sox don't show up to those games. I don't know whose fault that is, but it is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.Thus, the causal relationship between attendance and performance. The Sox' issue isn't playing harder when there are more people in the seats, their issue is not being able to beat the teams the should be able to beat.

This comes as a surprise to nobody who has been paying attention this year, of course.

ewokpelts
09-11-2009, 02:14 PM
I'm sorry, but 2 million isn't much of an accomplishment.it's only the 11th time in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WHITE SOX that they have done this......

ewokpelts
09-11-2009, 02:17 PM
I never said that the fan base wasn't as strong as ever, but they could SELLOUT every game if their pricing wasn't so ridiculous. Not to mention this team plays better when people show up...would it be to much of a stretch to say they would be in 1st place or within a game or 2 if pricing allowed a higher attendance per game?when lower box tickets were $26 for all games, they had a hard time selling out.

kittle42
09-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Here is my belief. More people go to see the Yankee, Cubs etc. The Sox show up for these bigger name teams. Less people go to see the Royals, and the Sox don't show up to those games. I don't know whose fault that is, but it is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.

I do - and it's anyone but the fans' or the people setting the ticket prices.

You could also make this argument:

April 7: W
June 23: L
June 24: W
June 25: W
June 26: L
June 27: W
June 28: W
July 30: W
July 31: W
August 1: W
August 2: L
August 21: L
September 4: W
September 5: W
September 6: L
September 7: W

11-5 on premier pricing days. 29-27 when not premier...all games should be premier pricing days!

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 02:21 PM
I do - and it's anyone but the fans' or the people setting the ticket prices.

You could also make this argument:

April 7: W
June 23: L
June 24: W
June 25: W
June 26: L
June 27: W
June 28: W
July 30: W
July 31: W
August 1: W
August 2: L
August 21: L
September 4: W
September 5: W
September 6: L
September 7: W

11-5 on premier pricing days. 29-27 when not premier...all games should be premier pricing days!
The Sox show up for big name teams, that was established months ago.

kittle42
09-11-2009, 02:32 PM
The Sox show up for big name teams, that was established months ago.

Then I blame the lesser-performing teams for not performing better against non-Sox teams!

The point I and several others are making is that it is ridiculous to correlate performance and crowd size in baseball. My further point is that even if such a correlation truly existed, the answer is not to lower ticket prices, it is to fire the manager and whatever players don't "come to play" against lesser opponents.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 02:36 PM
Then I blame the lesser-performing teams for not performing better against non-Sox teams!

The point I and several others are making is that it is ridiculous to correlate performance and crowd size in baseball. My further point is that even if such a correlation truly existed, the answer is not to lower ticket prices, it is to fire the manager and whatever players don't "come to play" against lesser opponents.
Can you come up with a better argument about why the Sox are good when they play good teams with a large crowd but bad when they play bad teams with small crowds?

kittle42
09-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Can you come up with a better argument about why the Sox are good when they play good teams with a large crowd but bad when they play bad teams with small crowds?

Yes. They are extremely inconsistent and just not very good. I am fairly certain it has zero to do with the size of the crowd.

salty99
09-11-2009, 03:17 PM
Yes. They are extremely inconsistent and just not very good. I am fairly certain it has zero to do with the size of the crowd.


Guess what? We are also 15-3 when there are 5 Mickey Mouse shaped clouds in the sky. Coincidence?

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 03:36 PM
Guess what? We are also 15-3 when there are 5 Mickey Mouse shaped clouds in the sky. Coincidence?
Crowd size can influence a game. Clouds, for all intensive purposes, can't.

dickallen15
09-11-2009, 03:44 PM
If crowd size influences a game, doesn't that go against premiere or premium pricing? If a big crowd means the Sox will win, shouldn't they cut prices enough to pretty much guarantee a huge crowd? Playoff revenue alone would pay for the lost ticket revenue.

I still think the Sox record has the biggest effect. It was only 2 seasons ago the Blackhawks were giving away tickets and their place was still empty. That wouldn't happen anymore.

eriqjaffe
09-11-2009, 03:45 PM
Crowd size can influence a game.Well, that explains the Cubs' dominance over the past quarter century, then!

kittle42
09-11-2009, 03:54 PM
Crowd size can influence a game. Clouds, for all intensive purposes, can't.

It's "intents and purposes."

Hey, if crowd size affects game results, maybe these ****ers should beat the A's, Orioles, Indians, and Royals a little more.

illinifan1368
09-11-2009, 06:31 PM
It's "intents and purposes."

Hey, if crowd size affects game results, maybe these ****ers should beat the A's, Orioles, Indians, and Royals a little more.

Oops lol. You learn something new everyday.

SOXfnNlansing
09-11-2009, 08:11 PM
$2.50 (price of a box seat in 1956) is worth $19.47 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation.

I submitted a few stubs from an earlier time that I had purchased. I remember in the mid '80's you could get a general admission seat for $4.50 (all games) and the 'Golden Box' seats were $8.50. I'm not sure what the other ticket prices were at that time, but there should be a way to get a cheap seat NOW that is about 1/2 the price for a good seat.

Lower Box ST price is $38/$42/$48 now. I don't think they offer UD 'General Admission' now for $20/$21/$25 like they used to in the old days.

SOXfnNlansing
09-11-2009, 08:29 PM
I am an adult and can afford to go to whatever games I choose to go to. I was born and raised a Sox fan. When I was in high school, I would go to many games by myself. I would purchase a general admission seat for $4.50 and sit wherever I wanted to (high priced ticket in the lower box was $8.50 back then).

The problem I see now is the younger teenaged fans cannot afford to go to the game. I'm not trying to point blame at the Sox or anyone else, but it is a fact that in 1986 I was making $5.50/hr, which was big money back then for an 18 year old. Minimum wage was $3.35. If an 18 year old is making $10/hr now, the price of a ticket is $40 (lower box) at the box office for a regular game. They way I think, it would be like me paying over $30 for a seat back when I didn't have much money to follow the Sox in person.