PDA

View Full Version : I just don't understand the lack of interest...


soxlady8
08-26-2010, 03:40 PM
today is Mr. Soxlady8's birthday.

For his birthday I got him two pairs of baseball game tickets.

Yesterday we went to the Sox game (which is his second favorite team ).
I got really great seats on Stub Hub a few rows back behind the Sox duggout for about face. The stadium had about 23,000 people in it and the energy was low. I was like ... wow ... we are in a playoff push , and yet it seems like we are totally out of it by the interest.

Today I purchased tickets for him for his favorite team (The St. Louis Cardinals ) and tickets out near the Cards bullpen were EVEN more than the tickets I bought for the Sox. Tickets similar to what I purchased at the Cell were going for $150.00 a ticket or more ! The Cards are 3.5 out just like we are , but I guess their fans have not given up and the demand for tickets is still high.

I know the Sox have been playing like crap lately , but by all means we are not out of it... why does it seem like it ?

just a rambling-

kufram
08-26-2010, 03:43 PM
today is Mr. Soxlady8's birthday.

For his birthday I got him two pairs of baseball game tickets.

Yesterday we went to the Sox game (which is his second favorite team ).
I got really great seats on Stub Hub a few rows back behind the Sox duggout for about face. The stadium had about 23,000 people in it and the energy was low. I was like ... wow ... we are in a playoff push , and yet it seems like we are totally out of it by the interest.

Today I purchased tickets for him for his favorite team (The St. Louis Cardinals ) and tickets out near the Cards bullpen were EVEN more than the tickets I bought for the Sox. Tickets similar to what I purchased at the Cell were going for $150.00 a ticket or more ! The Cards are 3.5 out just like we are , but I guess their fans have not given up and the demand for tickets is still high.

I know the Sox have been playing like crap lately , but by all means we are not out of it... why does it seem like it ?

just a rambling-


I wish I knew the answer to that question.

It's Dankerific
08-26-2010, 03:45 PM
I think its because we've seen this before, we've seen too many Augusts like this before.

I dont think the Cardinals have a history of ****ty Augusts/Septembers.

TommyGavinFloyd
08-26-2010, 03:45 PM
For myself, if I am going to spend the money to go to the game, it's going to be to see them against a quality opponent. I've seen losses to Cleveland, KC, and the Marlins of all teams, so I am done for the year with the crap. If I'm going to watch the Sox play Baltimore I'd rather it be on my couch. I enjoy going to games but I have a great tv and it just isn't worth the risk. I'd rather go and see them play a good team and if we lose, so be it.

voodoochile
08-26-2010, 03:49 PM
We generally don't allow attendance threads here at WSI because they invariably turn nasty. I'm gonna let this remain open for the moment, but I'm moving it out of the Clubhouse.

Edit: And no that's not an invitation to turn this thread nasty. Trolls will be dealt with harshly...

dickallen15
08-26-2010, 03:55 PM
Consider the bright side, at least you saved a few bucks and had nice seats.

It's Dankerific
08-26-2010, 03:56 PM
True, even in the best of years, Orioles games are a hard sell for me.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2010, 04:54 PM
I'm assuming it's because of a losing season last year and an incredibly up and down season this year.

Oh school is back in session I believe and the Sox really got screwed by the schedule makers again this year.

A lot of home games in April-May with lousy weather and the kids still in school and a ton of home games in September when cooler weather will be coming in and the kids are back in school.

Got to love MLB! :rolleyes:

Lip

DSpivack
08-26-2010, 04:56 PM
I'm assuming it's because of a losing season last year and an incredibly up and down season this year.

Oh school is back in session I believe and the Sox really got screwed by the schedule makers again this year.

A lot of home games in April-May with lousy weather and the kids still in school and a ton of home games in September when cooler weather will be coming in and the kids are back in school.

Got to love MLB! :rolleyes:

Lip

I assume each game this weekend will be pretty packed.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2010, 04:57 PM
They should be.

Lip

TommyGavinFloyd
08-26-2010, 04:59 PM
I assume each game this weekend will be pretty packed.

I'm sure they would have been no matter what, since it's the Yankees and a nice weekend series. To me it seems like they are wasting Frank Thomas Day. Why not do it against an opponent that most likely wouldn't have drawn a sellout? Perhaps this day worked best for Frank, I don't know, but I would have done it against the A's earlier this month or next month against the Royals.

Domeshot17
08-26-2010, 05:00 PM
I had this convo with a few friends, it is flat out, 100%, a lot of people are having a hard time believing in this team. There hasn't been that 1 clutch player stepping up every game to break a winning streak. No pitcher is dominating. It has been a tough sell. Kenny went out and got Edwin, but Freddy has been terrible since, the offense inconsistent, the bullpen up and down. I think Sox fans are guarded. I think we have seen this story before and the ending is not fun.

Not saying I agree or disagree with all of that, just the input that was thrown around.

pythons007
08-26-2010, 05:06 PM
I'd also have to chalk it up to the economy as well. There are still quite a few people out of work and it ain't cheap these days!!

Noneck
08-26-2010, 05:08 PM
You did not mention to which cardinal game you bought seats to. I have a sneaky suspicion it was to the upcoming reds series in September.

There is a huge difference in seeing your team play the team above you and your team playing the team with the worse record in your league.

DumpJerry
08-26-2010, 05:08 PM
Too many of us still have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when the Orioles come to Chicago. I know it's been over a quarter century, but the wound is still fresh......

soxlady8
08-26-2010, 05:12 PM
According to Mr. Soxlady8's cousin the economy is really really terrible down there (he lives not far from St.Louis) yet the Cardinals still pretty much sell out even during the weeknights to crappy teams !!

I was talking to him about this via fb and he thinks Cardinal fans stick with their team way more than Sox fans as they do have the second amount of World Series wins besides the Yanks!

I just checked StubHub a few minutes ago and GREAT GREAT Sox ticket seats were available for 10 bucks (well plus the stub hub fees which would put them around 17 ) !!

khan
08-26-2010, 05:17 PM
I had this convo with a few friends, it is flat out, 100%, a lot of people are having a hard time believing in this team.

There hasn't been that 1 clutch player stepping up every game to break a winning streak. No pitcher is dominating. It has been a tough sell. Kenny went out and got Edwin, but Freddy has been terrible since, the offense inconsistent, the bullpen up and down. I think Sox fans are guarded. I think we have seen this story before and the ending is not fun.

Not saying I agree or disagree with all of that, just the input that was thrown around.
1. And this is the biggest reason, IMO. The SOX are BELOW .500 vs. the Big-Boy AL, and BELOW .500 vs. the middling ALC. Every time they have a chance to do something in the standings, they **** their pants. Losing to ****ty teams like the orioles and royals does NOTHING to encourage people to spend money. This team draws like a 2nd place team because they BEHAVE like a 2nd place team, and nothing more.

The ILLUSION of the SOX being a winning team in 2010 is due to the free wins v. the little-boy nl back in June and July.


2. Yeah, KW went out and got Edwin Jackson. I suppose that picking up a >5.00 ERA in the little-boy nl should sell THOUSANDS of tickets, right? Wrong.

Since KW has gone on a systematic campaign of trading away each and every youngster of any value in the system, he now lacks the ability to pick up a player that has ANY sort of drawing power at the trade deadline.


I'd also have to chalk it up to the economy as well. There are still quite a few people out of work and it ain't cheap these days!!
Agreed.

kittle42
08-26-2010, 05:19 PM
Going to Cardinals games is, I think, a legal requirement for living in St. Louis. Those folks down there would probably take personally every empty seat in their stadium.

Sox fans are not the same.

KenBerryGrab
08-26-2010, 05:30 PM
Too many of us still have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when the Orioles come to Chicago. I know it's been over a quarter century, but the wound is still fresh......

http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Original/222/068/07F.jpg

Johnny Mostil
08-26-2010, 05:38 PM
My opinion only, but MLB requires a lot of money in a bad economy. As for the "excitement" of the division race, even if this team were to make the playoffs, I don't, to be honest, see it going anywhere.

I saw somewhere (Lip? SoxMachine?) that the Sox have the third-most expensive "worst" tickets (tickets in the cheapest category) in the AL (or was it the majors?). For the last game I attended, I parked more than a mile from the park so as to save money, didn't see anybody else where I parked, but still got a ticket for parking in a residential zone (and, to my chagrin, did subsequently see one sign in the middle of the deserted block). Not blaming anybody but myself for the ticket, but that pushed the cost of the evening over a hundred bucks. (I had purchased an upper-deck box on walk-up and had a lemonade and Italian beef sandwich, and, later, a churro, of course.) Even if I'd parked legally in a Sox lot I'd still have paid nearly 80 for the ticket, meal, and parking. (And, oh, yeah, the game was a lethargic loss to the Twinkies.)

Anyway, I'll keep watching at home, but I think I've called it a season at the park, having attended three games this season. Of course, your mileage may vary. Regardless, go Sox!

DumpJerry
08-26-2010, 05:42 PM
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Original/222/068/07F.jpg
That is not the source. Tito Landrum......

ewokpelts
08-26-2010, 05:44 PM
cards are a one team town. sox play 8 miles from the cubs. different worlds for different fanbases.

meanwhile, the cardinals are discounting tix left and right to keep thier park full. especially in the premium seating areas.

i just got an email for $25 cubs/cards tix in thier field level a couple of years ago, that woud not have happened.

cards press box
08-26-2010, 05:48 PM
Too many of us still have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when the Orioles come to Chicago. I know it's been over a quarter century, but the wound is still fresh......

Gosh, yes. I was at Game 4 of 1983 ALCS and I can still remember watching Vance Law stop at third base when I heard my cousin sitting next to me say, "Dybzinski's running with his head down." Well, everybody knows what happened after that.

I can also remember the look on Tom Paciorek's face when Landrum's flyball went into the left field upper deck. Man, that is still a fresh wound!

Can anyone explain why many years later, the Sox gave Cal Ripken, Jr. a seat from the old park? If they wanted to give the seat to anybody, they should have sent it to Britt Burns for the great, gutty game he pitched!

Johnny Mostil
08-26-2010, 05:48 PM
cards are a one team town. sox play 8 miles from the cubs. different worlds for different fanbases.

meanwhile, the cardinals are discounting tix left and right to keep thier park full. especially in the premium seating areas.

i just got an email for $25 cubs/cards tix in thier field level a couple of years ago, that woud not have happened.

Another thought: beyond the team 8 miles north, does Chicago have more options (competition) for entertainment dollars than St. Louis? I'm guessing so . . .

kittle42
08-26-2010, 05:52 PM
Another thought: beyond the team 8 miles north, does Chicago have more options (competition) for entertainment dollars than St. Louis? I'm guessing so . . .

Ever been to St. Louis?

In any event, without getting into the same, old, tired arguments about school being in/out and the economy, this team just does not engender a lot of excitement - even during the big winning period a few months back, there was something that made many hesitant about believing in this squad.

Johnny Mostil
08-26-2010, 05:56 PM
Ever been to St. Louis?

In any event, without getting into the same, old, tired arguments about school being in/out and the economy, this team just does not engender a lot of excitement - even during the big winning period a few months back, there was something that made many hesitant about believing in this squad.

Eh, my secret is out. Yes, I've been there. I was just trying to be kind.:wink:

I think you nail the rest of it--nice run in June, but just tough to get excited. And not much exciting outside that run?

Coops4Aces
08-26-2010, 06:08 PM
No one believes in this team. How many times have they finished 2nd to the Twins in the past decade? And half the time, the players LOOK like they don't care, just very lethargic and with no emotion.

soxlady8
08-26-2010, 06:26 PM
Good Point --

St. Louis does not have the entertainment options as does Chicago.

I found their downtown area to be very very weak compared to ours.
There were a few restaurants , a couple of bars, one small theater, and only a Macy's to shop at !!

People in Chicago still have some good entertainment with the weather being nice (such as hanging out by the lake , hanging out at Navy Pier,
some museums have evening hours , shopping etc. etc. ).

russ99
08-26-2010, 06:41 PM
I thought the crowds sounded pretty good the last 2 games.

And as usual, people forget that we only have 39,000 seats.

The numbers are as expected if you subtract the 8-10K for the corners of the upper deck we rarely fill unless there's a ticket price reduction or a team like the Yankees, Red Sox or Twins in town.

Coops4Aces
08-26-2010, 06:50 PM
I thought the crowds sounded pretty good the last 2 games.

And as usual, people forget that we only have 39,000 seats.

The numbers are as expected if you subtract the 8-10K for the corners of the upper deck we rarely fill unless there's a ticket price reduction or a team like the Yankees, Red Sox or Twins in town.

The lower deck wasn't sold out for any of the O's games.

Next.

Dick Allen
08-26-2010, 06:51 PM
Yeah, St. Louis is a one-team town and has always been baseball-crazy. Also, their park is still pretty new, so there's always that effect.

Brian26
08-26-2010, 07:23 PM
I had this convo with a few friends, it is flat out, 100%, a lot of people are having a hard time believing in this team.

I have had my own theory on this since Opening Day.

I think if you compare this team to other memorable Sox teams of the past, as it is assembled, it is a very unlikable team.

Hear me out on this.

The team has very little home-grown talent besides Beckham, so there's not really an established connection with most of the players. Of the younger guys that are here, many of them are very quiet and not very personable (Floyd, Danks, Quentin, Rios). With some of the older guys that were acquired, I think it's harder to make a connection with them since they've played on so many other teams and almost feel like hired guns at the end of their career (Pierre, Jones, Vizquel).

Of course, winning cures all, and if this team were to do something miraculous in September and October, I'm sure the bandwagon would fill up pretty quickly.

Brian26
08-26-2010, 07:26 PM
That is not the source. Tito Landrum......

Landrum never comes to bat if Dybber picks up Leyland's stop sign, Dump.

Brian26
08-26-2010, 07:27 PM
Can anyone explain why many years later, the Sox gave Cal Ripken, Jr. a seat from the old park? If they wanted to give the seat to anybody, they should have sent it to Britt Burns for the great, gutty game he pitched!

All 150 pitches he made of it.

hi im skot
08-26-2010, 07:48 PM
I just spent over $275 on a trip to Kansas City to see this team "play". I've got some Ozzie Plan tickets left, and I'll surely catch a couple of games with my friends, but my skinny wallet, along with a roller coaster of a baseball team don't exactly make me want to dip into my savings account.

rookie
08-26-2010, 08:37 PM
I was by the UIC/Hospital district area for breakfast early Saturday (1st date) and Sox employees were selling 8 Sox coupons for $20. 6 buy one get one frees, and two coupons for 2-upper deck seats for $1 a piece. If the Sox make September interesting I will definitely be taking advantage of such a good deal. (And they made it worth going on a date with a guy that will not be getting a second date).

If I hadn't gotten those coupons though, I'd only be paying for one more game this season instead of 3. I love my White Sox, but there are bills that need to paid. Plus, a Sox employee gave me grief for being in the 300-level even after he had seen my ticket last time I went to a game (and the Twins won that game), so I'm still trying to wash that bad taste out of my mouth.

Rdy2PlayBall
08-26-2010, 08:43 PM
I was by the UIC/Hospital district area for breakfast early Saturday (1st date) and Sox employees were selling 8 Sox coupons for $20. 6 buy one get one frees, and two coupons for 2-upper deck seats for $1 a piece. If the Sox make September interesting I will definitely be taking advantage of such a good deal. (And they made it worth going on a date with a guy that will not be getting a second date).I got that 2 years ago for like $50+, that's a steal! I'll definitely get that... I'm going to check out and see if Sam's Club has those too, since that's where I originally got them.

WhiteSox5187
08-26-2010, 08:47 PM
I think that the Sox record the last three weeks has a lot to do with the poor attendance. If the Sox were just playing .500 the past three weeks you'd see better attendance. It's quite simple, if the Sox win attendance will go up. If they lose, attendance will go down.

Foulke You
08-27-2010, 12:43 AM
As has been discussed many times, season tickets fuel the attendance. Sox season ticket base took a dip after a 79-83 season in 2009 and the flagging economy. Many people and companies didn't renew, thus making it tough for the Sox to sellout non-marquee games. Case in point, you just aren't going to get a walk up of 15,000 for the Orioles on a Thursday when it is a school night for a lot of people. Now, Sox vs. Yankees on an August WEEKEND in the thick of a Pennant race? Lots of advance ticket sales sold and a little bit of walk-up and you will see that these games will be sellouts or pretty close to it. It isn't rocket science, the Sox need to play well and make the playoffs to fuel next year's season ticket purchases. This is true for many teams around MLB, not just the White Sox.

For the record, the Sox are 18th in MLB in attendance (27 000 per game avg) and rank AHEAD of other first place teams like the Reds, Padres, and Rays who are all in ONE team towns. They also rank pretty close to the first place Texas Rangers who are in the Dallas area which is the #4 market in the country in a ONE team town. I also guarantee that the Sox have the highest ticket and parking prices of the teams that I just mentioned.

tacosalbarojas
08-27-2010, 12:47 AM
All 150 pitches he made of it.
Watched the game on MASN a couple of years ago...btw, great looking on an HD channel, although it obviously wasn't filmed in HD. Anyway, I had totally forgotten that Britt threw 150 until I re-watched the game that day. 150 is real as steel.

hawkjt
08-27-2010, 01:23 AM
We were at Wednesdays game,and it was lifeless...the crowd,the team...mainly because they only had 3 hits til the 9th. Hitting generates excitement. We picked the only game in their last 12 in which they did not get 10+ hits....bad luck.

I agree that I do not get why they had Frank Thomas and Blackhawks on yankee weekend...dumb. If they schedule those two events for the KC series on Sept10-12...big crowds for a weekend series that kicks off a huge homestand and the stretch run with Minny and Det. following them in.
If they hang in the race, the Yanks, that homestand with the Twins/Det/KC and then the final week with Boston for 4 and Cleveland should all draw well. If they fall out...it will just be us die-hards.

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 07:23 AM
I think that the Sox record the last three weeks has a lot to do with the poor attendance. If the Sox were just playing .500 the past three weeks you'd see better attendance. It's quite simple, if the Sox win attendance will go up. If they lose, attendance will go down.

I was thinking of a broader point here: if the Sox were .500 outside the 25-5 run, then they'd be in first by 1.5 games. But your point may be better. If Sox go 9-10 in past 3 weeks rather than 7-12, then they're only 1.5 back. If they go 3-3 rather than 2-4 against Twins, then they're 2.5 rather than 3.5 back. Might not make much difference for fan excitement at the park, but it couldn't hurt . . .

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 07:35 AM
We were at Wednesdays game,and it was lifeless...the crowd,the team...mainly because they only had 3 hits til the 9th. Hitting generates excitement. We picked the only game in their last 12 in which they did not get 10+ hits....bad luck.

I agree that I do not get why they had Frank Thomas and Blackhawks on yankee weekend...dumb. If they schedule those two events for the KC series on Sept10-12...big crowds for a weekend series that kicks off a huge homestand and the stretch run with Minny and Det. following them in.
If they hang in the race, the Yanks, that homestand with the Twins/Det/KC and then the final week with Boston for 4 and Cleveland should all draw well. If they fall out...it will just be us die-hards.

I realized last night I'd been to five, not three, games this year. Two were very forgettable. One was a 12-3 drubbing at NYY which wasn't as close as the score . . .

I don't know the availability of the Blackhawks or even Frank Thomas outside this weekend. Nor do I know how the Yankee tickets were selling before these events were announced. Still, you raise a valid point.

My youngest, a hockey and baseball nut, had been begging me to go to the Blackhawks Night. But with the cheapest ticket being $34 face value? Yeah, a Blackhawks Night against the Royals (cheapest face-value being $24 and "family pack" tickets apparently available) would have been an easier sell for me. As it is, I told him I'd take him to a Blackhawks exhibition instead--for which, on Stubhub, I paid less than $15 per seat.

roylestillman
08-27-2010, 08:06 AM
The short answer is "Baltimore Orioles," but I have to debate the whole premise of the thread. I didn't think the crowd was lifeless last night and the total number of people in the house was higher by maybe 5,000-6,000 than the announced attendance. First last night was one of the four nights that season ticket holders can choose to exchange unused tickets for free upper deck seats. These seats are not included in the paid attendance totals. It was also a "Student Acheiver" night. I'm not sure if these are included in the attendance totals. At any rate the upper deck had a fairly good sized although oddly distributed crowd. There were a lot of empty seats in the corners downstairs, but you can't use the exchange or student acheiver vouchers for these seats.

The Yankee series, with the Hawks night tonight and Frank's day Sunday, probably pulled some of the crowd away from the Baltimore series (yes there aren't many folks like us that go to multiple games during a week.)

Quentin08
08-27-2010, 09:15 AM
If we hadn't gone on those 2 long winning streaks and had dropped out of the race in early July, the attendance would be 14K or 15K every week night. Personally, the only reason I spend money on tix is to feel that energy and the roar from the crowd. Otherwise, I'd just save my money and watch it from the couch. I think if we were 6 games up and playing incredible baseball, the attendance would still be 23K on mid-week school nights. We've always had small crowds, unless season tickets are way up, simply because we don't draw huge amounts of casual fans or tourists like most teams. Most of them prefer the Flubbies.

MARTINMVP
08-27-2010, 09:38 AM
We all would like to see increased attendance and know that our team is feeling the love that it rightfully deserves.

That said, in the spirit of staying positive, out at last night's game, and much like other Sox games I regularly attend (it seems I typically go once every home stand, if not every other), the crowd is usually fantastic and I always have a blast. The atmosphere at that place is awesome.

Sox prices on Stubhub have been higher, it seemed to me, through the last month since it seemed tickets were in more of a demand, especially for divisional games.

MARTINMVP
08-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Going to Cardinals games is, I think, a legal requirement for living in St. Louis. Those folks down there would probably take personally every empty seat in their stadium.

Sox fans are not the same.

I was in downtown St. Louis on a Saturday about a month ago. The city was dead all day. My buddy and I were joking about how downtown St. Louis is just as active as downtown Joliet. When it came to game time, it was a night and day difference - the downtown came alive. Even from the hotel which was several blocks away, the streets were packed and it was just a mass exodus towards the ballpark.

To answer the second point, I don't know of it's Sox fans. I tend to think there just aren't as many of us as opposed to Cub fans. Add in the casual fan who probably feels more compelled to go to the Urinal, it adds up. I think the idea that most Sox fans attend as much as we can when finances and circumstances best allow it is pretty accurate.

fram40
08-27-2010, 01:20 PM
my two cents - this is a baffling topic and has been for a long time. How did the Sox fail to sell out the Twins series earlier this month? HOW?? Just five years ago they won the ****ING WORLD SERIES. Without a doubt the greatest sporting event of my life's fandom - even greater than the '85 Bears. The parade was sublime.

Where have the fans gone in five years? In 2006, they drew 36,511 fans per game. This year, they are averaging 10,000 fewer. In 2005, they averaged just under 29,000. Hmm - maybe the fans haven't gone anywhere. There really is not that big a difference between this year and 2005. I guess the band wagon fans have jumped off. (Probably back at Wrigley watching a 95 loss team run by a family that reminds me of the McCaskeys)

Seems like the overriding theme in this thread is cost/economy and not believeing in the team. Bot other towns have struggling economies and ****ty teams - yet they are drawing better than the Sox. Maybe the Sox are drawing better - relative to other teams - than I think. It still doesn't explain how they don't sell out the Twins series. I get the angst with the Twins - I have it myself - but what's the point of being a fan if you can't get excited this month? Whether you believe or not - and we can all agree this is a flawed team - they were tied for first yet could not draw 100,000 fans for a three game series against their rivals. Tied for first, beautiful weather - fewer than 100k in attendance. Very disappointing - especially so for ownership, I would think.

I would like to offer three additional reasons that I think contribute to the Sox attendance woes.

1) Ownership and the lingering resentment from ownership's miscues over the years. Love him or hate him, Jerry Reinsdorf makes it very difficult to root for the White Sox. Very difficult. I am 50 years old - and I remember a lot of his PR mistakes. I have disliked him from the start - and I attended few games for a long time because of him. I decided to let bygones be bygones after 2005. I am now an Ozzie plan holder and plan to be for a long time. I enjoy the games with a good friend who is the same age and has the same memories.

2) Ozzie. I love Ozzie and I think he is a good manager. BUT - how many times over the years has he stated, "If you don't like it, then don't watch!" I wonder how many fans are listening to Ozzie and staying away. Lord knows Reisndorf basicaly told me the same thing when he bought the team. And I pretty much stayed away for 22 years. Ozzie could state his comments a lot more nicely and respectfully.

3) Traffic and accessibility. I live in Downers Grove and work in Elk Grove Village. For a week night game, I leave the job around 5:00 PM. It takes at least 75 minutes - usually longer - to get to the game. The drive is such a ****ing hassle. I bought my tickets in December, got this job in March - and now I am "stuck" fighting traffic once per homestand. Very annoying and not always worth the hassle. I wonder how many people did it once and decided not to do it again.

To sum it up: I wonder how many people have given up and just don't want to fiight traffic after a ****ty day at the office (at a job they can't stand but feel lucky to have in such an economy), spending a boatload of money they don't really have because the ****ty job hasn't given them a raise in three years. To support an owner and manager that have told them - repeatedly over the years - to stay away. To watch a flawed team that we all just know is going to let us down in the end and lose - once again - to the dreaded Minnesota Twins.

It is so much easier to watch the game at home. and vent on WSI. (although I lurk more often than I post)

DumpJerry
08-27-2010, 01:26 PM
Landrum never comes to bat if Dybber picks up Leyland's stop sign, Dump.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It was Landrum who thrust the steak in our hearts.

khan
08-27-2010, 01:48 PM
my two cents - this is a baffling topic and has been for a long time. How did the Sox fail to sell out the Twins series earlier this month? HOW?? Just five years ago they won the ****ING WORLD SERIES. Without a doubt the greatest sporting event of my life's fandom - even greater than the '85 Bears. The parade was sublime.

Where have the fans gone in five years?

Five years is an eternity in the sense of fandom. Most of the members THAT team are either gone, retired, or old. There really isn't all that much connection with THIS team and that of 2005, really.

In another era, when players more or less stayed with the team that brought them up through the minor leagues, there would be all the more connectivity. But those days are dead, and thus, there is little-to-no connection.



Seems like the overriding theme in this thread is cost/economy and not believeing in the team. Bot other towns have struggling economies and ****ty teams - yet they are drawing better than the Sox. Maybe the Sox are drawing better - relative to other teams - than I think. It still doesn't explain how they don't sell out the Twins series. I get the angst with the Twins - I have it myself - but what's the point of being a fan if you can't get excited this month?
Because they keep ****ting their pants EVERY ****ING TIME they have a chance to make a move in the standings. They're BELOW .500 v. the Big Boy AL, BELOW .500 v. the middling ALC.

The overall record is a FRAUD, because ONLY the free wins v. the little-boy nl are responsible for the myth of the 2010 SOX being a "winning" team. SOX fans are too smart to be fooled by a sub-par product.

Whether you believe or not - and we can all agree this is a flawed team - they were tied for first yet could not draw 100,000 fans for a three game series against their rivals. Tied for first, beautiful weather - fewer than 100k in attendance. Very disappointing - especially so for ownership, I would think.
Too bad. Put a BETTER team together. Put a BETTER product on the field. The SOX play in the BIG BOY AL, not the little boy nl. STOP putting together a little boy team. STOP making stupid decisions with the team.


I would like to offer three additional reasons that I think contribute to the Sox attendance woes.

1) Ownership and the lingering resentment from ownership's miscues over the years.

Immaterial, IMO. The WS and JR's willingness to reverse some of his previous policies wiped this out YEARS ago. They changed the park around, put in the green seats, and got in better marketing people, all after SOX fans bitched about it. There are more affordable days to go to the park than ever before. There are promotions that are attractive to fans. I don't think that JR has much to do with this, IMO.



2) Ozzie. I love Ozzie and I think he is a good manager. BUT - how many times over the years has he stated, "If you don't like it, then don't watch!"
This MIGHT BE a factor. I might be open to agreeing with you.



3) Traffic and accessibility.
No offense, but this is 100% unadulterated bull****. IF the commute magically got terrible this year and this year alone, then it could be considered a factor. If not, then it is NOT a factor in getting people to the park. It was just as hard or just as easy to get to the park in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, as it is in this year, road construction aside.

The Cell is more accessible via car, bus, or El than any other stadium in Chicagoland. It did NOT magically get harder to get to the park this year.

Simply put, the team isn't as good as the record, they **** their pants [again] in the 2nd half v. ****ty opposition, and the economy sucks. Period.

hi im skot
08-27-2010, 01:54 PM
The record is a FRAUD, because ONLY the free wins v. the little-boy nl are responsible for the myth of the 2010 SOX being a "winning" team. SOX fans are too smart to be fooled by a sub-par product.


A fraud? Seriously?

:rolling:

There's no such thing as a free win.

khan
08-27-2010, 01:57 PM
A fraud? Seriously?

:rolling:

There's no such thing as a free win.

Take out the series vs the craptacular scrubs/****tsburg/washington/fla/atl [in short, all the interleague games] and the SOX are below .500 on the year. Do you disagree?

[As an aside, sure: There are no "free wins," but the little boy nl teams that the SOX beat should be as close to automatic wins as there can be in MLB.]

Coops4Aces
08-27-2010, 01:58 PM
A fraud? Seriously?

:rolling:

There's no such thing as a free win.

He's right though in a sense. This team is a sub-par product that had some luck.

Coops4Aces
08-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Take out the series vs the craptacular scrubs/****tsburg/washington/fla/atl [in short, all the interleague games] and the SOX are below .500 on the year. Do you disagree?

[As an aside, sure: There are no "free wins," but the little boy nl teams that the SOX beat should be as close to automatic wins as there can be in MLB.]

You have to take out the Braves too.

khan
08-27-2010, 02:03 PM
You have to take out the Braves too.

I did:

Take out the series vs the craptacular scrubs/****tsburg/washington/fla/atl [in short, all the interleague games] and the SOX are below .500 on the year. Do you disagree?

[As an aside, sure: There are no "free wins," but the little boy nl teams that the SOX beat should be as close to automatic wins as there can be in MLB.]
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/misc/progress.gif

Coops4Aces
08-27-2010, 02:04 PM
I did:

Take out the series vs the craptacular scrubs/****tsburg/washington/fla/atl [in short, all the interleague games] and the SOX are below .500 on the year. Do you disagree?

[As an aside, sure: There are no "free wins," but the little boy nl teams that the SOX beat should be as close to automatic wins as there can be in MLB.]
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/misc/progress.gif


I think you edited that :tongue:

hi im skot
08-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Take out the series vs the craptacular scrubs/****tsburg/washington/fla/atl [in short, all the interleague games] and the SOX are below .500 on the year. Do you disagree?

[As an aside, sure: There are no "free wins," but the little boy nl teams that the SOX beat should be as close to automatic wins as there can be in MLB.]

You're right - the Sox played some ****ty teams, and they beat those ****ty teams. They also beat some good teams (both AL and NL teams). Sure, you can take out those games and they have a poor record. You can play the scenario game with a lot of teams and alter their records if you want to, too.

Baseball is a great game, where on any given day, any team can win. Look at the Orioles' recent surge.

Listen, I don't disagree with your sentiment - this year's squad offers very little to get excited about. I don't expect them to make the playoffs, but will be rooting them on until the end of the year. However, it's flat-out silly to penalize the Sox for playing great all-around baseball against some subpar competition.

khan
08-27-2010, 02:22 PM
You're right - the Sox played some ****ty teams, and they beat those ****ty teams. They also beat some good teams (both AL and NL teams). Sure, you can take out those games and they have a poor record. You can play the scenario game with a lot of teams and alter their records if you want to, too.
I'm actually not doing any of that, to tell you the truth. I'm merely noting that the SOX have to win the AL to get to the WS. Before that, the SOX have to win the ALC to get into the playoffs.

In both of these categories, the SOX fail to measure up, by virtue of their sub-.500 records v. the ALC and v. the AL as a whole. Moreover, their recent history of ****ting their pants in the 2nd halves of seasons reinforces the fandom's lack of faith in the SOX.


Listen, I don't disagree with your sentiment - this year's squad offers very little to get excited about. I don't expect them to make the playoffs, but will be rooting them on until the end of the year. However, it's flat-out silly to penalize the Sox for playing great all-around baseball against some subpar competition.

There's no "penalty" on my part. I'm objectively looking at the OP's query, while looking at the prospect of this team winning the world series.

The SOX play in the Big Boy AL, and not the little boy nl, and they're sub-.500 v. the Big Boy AL. I believe that smart SOX fans recognize a FRAUD when they see one. I also believe that smart SOX fans recognize an organization that is not maximizing their assets/opportunities, with respect to the product on the field.

Since the SOX have to compete in the Big Boy AL to get to the WS, I believe that smart SOX fans are dubious with respect to this team's chances.


We'll all continue to cheer our team, but many are reluctant to put down decent money for the privilege of doing so with THIS team.

stacksedwards
08-27-2010, 02:29 PM
I think the location of the two teams has a lot to do with it. St. Louis does not offer what Chicago does in terms of entertainment.

Nellie_Fox
08-27-2010, 02:39 PM
...they **** their pants. Losing to ****ty teams...

Because they keep ****ting their pants...

...this is 100% unadulterated bull****.

...they **** their pants [again] in the 2nd half v. ****ty opposition

Take out the series vs the craptacular ****tsburg

...their recent history of ****ting their pantsThis is just from this thread, and representative of a lot of your posts. Are you unable to communicate without vulgar cliches, or are you fecally obsessed?

TomBradley72
08-27-2010, 03:26 PM
My $0.02:


Very up and down team with lots of question marks heading into the season...so they did not drive season ticket or advanced ticket sales...too reliant on walk up.
Mediocre marketing....a few "black and white" commercials, etc...it's been mediocre for a long time...the last good effort was "Grinder Rules".
Mediocre/stale promotions...why have Stanley Cup replicas, Frank Thomas Day,etc. when the Yankess are in town? Use those promotional opportunities for the mid week games. They used to lead the league in innovation...now it's Mullett Night, Elvis Night, etc...same thing every year. Bobblehead giveaways are for the first 10,000 fans or something, Miller Parks gives one to every fan.
4-5 years (post 2005) with only 2008 Division title to show for it.

Lip Man 1
08-27-2010, 03:29 PM
Fram:

The Sox historically have had great difficulty since the 'golden age' of the franchise (51-67) to put together a consistent run. That includes winning seasons, pennant races, nationally known players, All-Star representatives etc. There have been some stretches where they have played well but they've never been able to get to the postseason on a fairly consistent basis which I think would go a long way towards turning public opinion once and for all their way.

The Sox are the only one of the 16 pre existing ML franchises before expansion to have never made the post season in consecutive years. Khan does make a good point in the sense that when they have been expected to play well (68, 73, 84, 95, 01, 06 for examples) they usually haven't. Fans just aren't convinced this organization can dominate the division the way Cleveland did in the 90's and Minnesota in the 00's.

The other issue was the Sox philosophy that took root when new ownership came in that this was "Chicago's American League team..." That showed a complete lack of understanding of the mentally of Cub and Sox fans. When the Cubs took over the town again in the 1980's, the Sox wouldn't even fight for their own turf.

It's a very complicated subject, one that I go into detail in my upcoming historical piece for the front page called "Sox and the Media."

Lip

khan
08-27-2010, 03:30 PM
This is just from this thread, and representative of a lot of your posts. Are you unable to communicate without vulgar cliches, or are you fecally obsessed?

Hey, I call it the way I see it. If you're happy and satisfied with this team, that's your prerogative.


However, I appreciate the time you put into reviewing my posts. Carry on, then.

DSpivack
08-27-2010, 03:38 PM
Fram:
It's a very complicated subject, one that I go into detail in my upcoming historical piece for the front page called "Sox and the Media."

Lip

I look forward to it.

fram40
08-27-2010, 03:49 PM
Lip - I think it is pretty clear that the Sox cannot put together a string of good years ala the '90s Indians. But I don't know what that has to do with the Sox not selling out the Twins series this year. When they were tied for first with the Twins. In August.

Same with your other points. All true - but not necessarily relevant to this year specifically. Except perhaps that all of those things -and all the other things mentioned in this thread - seem to have chipped away at the fan base. Maybe it's not that complicated - a series of PR mistakes by the Sox combined with PR brilliance by the Cubs leads to a small, bitter fan base.

As I said, this is an imperfect team to say the least. But they were tied for first place, playing the team they were tied with, in a huge series at home. And they fell well short of sellouts. Despite the thousands of Twins fans who attended.

I am not satisfied with this team. But I will support it. It is baffling why there aren't more fans coming out to support this team this year. I would love to see the marketing research done by the team.

Quentin08
08-27-2010, 04:08 PM
I think a lot of people that filled the Cell in '05 and continue to fill the Cell are "Chicago" fans. There are a ton of these fans that like both teams.. but ultimately root for the Cubs over the Sox. With the way things have gone on the North Side, I think a lot of these "Chicago" fans have just gotten sick and tired of baseball and have just become disgruntled to the point they're not even watching baseball anymore. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. :cool:

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 06:42 PM
Glass half-full perspective . . . curious about Lip's historical comments, I checked historical (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml) attendance for the Sox. The team is on pace to have its sixth-straight season of 2M+ (12 all-time). Last season was its fifth-straight season of finishing in the top half of the American League in attendance--the longest-such streak since 1959-65.

Yeah, I wish things were better, but they may be better (or closer to the norm?) than I'd thought . . .

ChicagoG19
08-27-2010, 07:31 PM
My two cents: I honestly believe the upper deck ticket price are just too expensive. $20 for nosebleed tickets on a week night? give me a break. Even the NBA requires that teams have some $10 tickets to every game.

Upper Deck Reserved tickets should be $10 max.

LoveYourSuit
08-27-2010, 08:15 PM
My two cents: I honestly believe the upper deck ticket price are just too expensive. $20 for nosebleed tickets on a week night? give me a break. Even the NBA requires that teams have some $10 tickets to every game.

Upper Deck Reserved tickets should be $10 max.


Add the corner IF seats to that. Anything beyond the sercuirty ball guys should not be priced as box seats. Those seats suck.

nccwsfan
08-27-2010, 08:21 PM
Too many of us still have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when the Orioles come to Chicago. I know it's been over a quarter century, but the wound is still fresh......

To this date the most heartbreaking White Sox game I've ever watched, hands down. And I slightly disagree with you- Landrum tore our hearts out, but Dybzinski's blunder and inability to get the clutch hit made that loss harder to take. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that a Game 4 win could have given us the 83' World Series with Hoyt pitching Game 5 at home and a superior team to Philly.

Blech!

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 09:31 PM
My two cents: I honestly believe the upper deck ticket price are just too expensive. $20 for nosebleed tickets on a week night? give me a break. Even the NBA requires that teams have some $10 tickets to every game.

Upper Deck Reserved tickets should be $10 max.

Tend to agree with this, and would add any night that isn't a sellout has tickets that were too expensive. But what's the right balance to strike between "best practice" on ticket prices and sellouts, or even between "fun" excitement and half-price "fight nights"? I don't know. Still, my discontent upthread aside, I do tend to give Reinsdorf et al. more of a break on such things than I once did.

TDog
08-27-2010, 10:06 PM
I think its because we've seen this before, we've seen too many Augusts like this before.

I dont think the Cardinals have a history of ****ty Augusts/Septembers.

They had a pretty bad September the only time this century they won the World Series. Funny how that worked out. The Twins had a pretty bad September a couple of seasons ago when after celebrating the division title after beating the White Sox, who ended up winning the division title.

Thirteen seasons ago, the White Sox were 3.5 games out at the trading deadline and made a big trade for prospects and fans complained that the franchise was throwing up the white flag. It angered fans to the point where they boycotted the team. (I don't see how you could be a White Sox fan and boycott the White Sox.) Now 3.5 games out in August, maybe management should be upset that fans are waving the white flag.

fram40
08-27-2010, 10:37 PM
Now 3.5 games out in August, maybe management should be upset that fans are waving the white flag.

Interesting point, TDog. I'll bet management is as baffled as I am over this attendance. Altho 2 million+ is pretty damn good.

Lip Man 1
08-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Johnny:

It wasn't always a "Cub-town" far from it. From 51-67 for example the Sox outdrew the Cubs every season but one. They also outdrew them in the early 1990's when they had a chance to take back somewhat control of things.

The labor impasse of 94 and the White Flag Trade in 97 killed that possibility.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 10:45 PM
Johnny:

It wasn't always a "Cub-town" far from it. From 51-67 for example the Sox outdrew the Cubs every season but one. They also outdrew them in the early 1990's when they had a chance to take back somewhat control of things.

The labor impasse of 94 and the White Flag Trade in 97 killed that possibility.

Lip

I'm not sure those historical stats quite justify viewing the issue as Cubs v. Sox. That would imply the Cubs took market the Sox had. Attendance for both teams has grown over time. It's just grown on the North Side more.

Subtle distinction, I know, but one I'm starting to wonder about.

Medford Bobby
08-27-2010, 10:59 PM
Johnny:

It wasn't always a "Cub-town" far from it. From 51-67 for example the Sox outdrew the Cubs every season but one. They also outdrew them in the early 1990's when they had a chance to take back somewhat control of things.

The labor impasse of 94 and the White Flag Trade in 97 killed that possibility.

Lip

And I still cringe over the "Boom Boom" Bevington error....sorry..era!:angry:

Lip Man 1
08-27-2010, 11:09 PM
Well Johnny I guess you could say the Cubs did in fact take things from the Sox. Like I said in the 50's and 60's the Cubs couldn't even get arrested in this town.

I spoke with a number of former Sox players from different eras as part of my story and the impression that I got was that things turned when the Cubs started to win in the late 60's and the Sox left WGN.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
08-27-2010, 11:17 PM
Well Johnny I guess you could say the Cubs did in fact take things from the Sox. Like I said in the 50's and 60's the Cubs couldn't even get arrested in this town.

I spoke with a number of former Sox players from different eras as part of my story and the impression that I got was that things turned when the Cubs started to win in the late 60's and the Sox left WGN.

Lip

No, the point of my post was that the market for both teams has grown, but has grown more on the North Side. It's possible to say that without denying the effect of the Trib marketing gorilla.

SI1020
08-28-2010, 05:04 PM
Well Johnny I guess you could say the Cubs did in fact take things from the Sox. Like I said in the 50's and 60's the Cubs couldn't even get arrested in this town.

I spoke with a number of former Sox players from different eras as part of my story and the impression that I got was that things turned when the Cubs started to win in the late 60's and the Sox left WGN.

LipI completely agree. It started in 67 when the Sox were in the middle of a torrid pennant race and a Sports Illustrated article suggested that the team might move. By the 69 season the Sox were in the middle of a dreadful three season stretch and everyone was talking about the "Miracle On Addison Street". It was difficult enough to watch the Sox on TV, and near impossible to hear them on the radio depending on where in the Chicagoland area you lived. The press was deserting them too. In the go go era sports writers like Jerome Holtzman, Edgar Munzel, Bill Gleason, John Carmichael and Warren Brown helped make sure that the Sox were front and center on the sports page during the baseball season. A new breed of reporters coming on the scene then did not share the same sentiments. For example, Rick Talley of the old Chicago Today hitched himself firmly on the Cubs bandwagon and his hostility toward the White Sox was so strong that he didn't criticize them as much as he ignored them. Yes it hasn't been the same for the Sox in the local media since the end of the go go era.

soxlady8
08-28-2010, 10:06 PM
Wow ... this has sure been an interesting thread to read.

I DID NOT know that the Sox had one of the highest priced tickets out there
along w parking being really expensive too.
Thanks for that insight and information.
I heard that the Cubs had really high priced tickets and knew nothing of the Sox being so high.

I too agree that they could have some more creative marketing etc.
I do enjoy Elvis night and Mullet night , but perhaps some different type of nights would be more captivating.

I also believe that general marketing could be much better too. I did attend Ladies night the other night and honestly did not know they were giving massages and manicures until I saw the stuff on the jumbotron.

I do know that Monday nights are half priced nights but perhaps during the "slow" months they could add more weeknights as half priced too.

enjoyable reads here , thanks for enlightening me-

chisoxfanatic
08-28-2010, 10:43 PM
I also believe that general marketing could be much better too. I did attend Ladies night the other night and honestly did not know they were giving massages and manicures until I saw the stuff on the jumbotron.
Did they give women discounted tickets? They used to always have Ladies' Night about a decade ago. I think I remember them being Thursday nights and tickets were only $1. They need to go back to doing that, agree? :smile:

soxlady8
08-28-2010, 11:15 PM
ChiSoxFanatic -
I bought my tickets on Stub Hub so I do not know if the tickets were discounted or not.
The only discounts I know of are the one's that are posted here , Teacher's games ,
and Monday nights for half price.

doublem23
08-29-2010, 12:06 AM
Did they give women discounted tickets? They used to always have Ladies' Night about a decade ago. I think I remember them being Thursday nights and tickets were only $1. They need to go back to doing that, agree? :smile:

I don't think they can offer discounted tickets to women only, for fear of being sued.

DumpJerry
08-29-2010, 12:07 AM
Did they give women discounted tickets? They used to always have Ladies' Night about a decade ago. I think I remember them being Thursday nights and tickets were only $1. They need to go back to doing that, agree? :smile:
That would lead to a violent uprising among season ticket holders.

LongLiveFisk
08-29-2010, 01:32 AM
I'm still in favor of $5 "nosebleed" tickets for select games, particularly those that won't draw as much interest. (Get fannies in those seats, as Hawk would say!)

This way, fans on a tight budget can go to some games, the park will look more full, and the team will still make some money, not only on the tickets but I'm sure a percentage of those fans will buy food, drinks, etc. They don't make anything when those seats are empty. It's a win-win situation.

LITTLE NELL
08-29-2010, 06:35 AM
I'm still in favor of $5 "nosebleed" tickets for select games, particularly those that won't draw as much interest. (Get fannies in those seats, as Hawk would say!)

This way, fans on a tight budget can go to some games, the park will look more full, and the team will still make some money, not only on the tickets but I'm sure a percentage of those fans will buy food, drinks, etc. They don't make anything when those seats are empty. It's a win-win situation.

Just like cruise ships, we get all kinds of last minute offers in Florida to fill up these huge ships. Get you on board for $399 for a week and you will spend at least that and maybe double that with tours, pictures, drinks and spa treatments.
IIRC the Reds at Riverfront stadium had low price tickets called the Top 6 which were the last 6 rows of the UD.
The Sox should do the same with any seat say behind where the posts start in the UD.

roylestillman
08-29-2010, 09:11 AM
I'm still in favor of $5 "nosebleed" tickets for select games, particularly those that won't draw as much interest. (Get fannies in those seats, as Hawk would say!)

This way, fans on a tight budget can go to some games, the park will look more full, and the team will still make some money, not only on the tickets but I'm sure a percentage of those fans will buy food, drinks, etc. They don't make anything when those seats are empty. It's a win-win situation.

I have always agreed that there should be some "cheap seats" section in the park for families and others who, in making financial decisions between say going to a movie and the ballpark, maychoose the ballpark. The curious thing is look at the crowd at the park. It is always the most expensive seats that fill up first and the "cheap seats" are empty.

fox23
08-29-2010, 09:42 AM
I have always agreed that there should be some "cheap seats" section in the park for families and others who, in making financial decisions between say going to a movie and the ballpark, maychoose the ballpark. The curious thing is look at the crowd at the park. It is always the most expensive seats that fill up first and the "cheap seats" are empty.

I think that's because those cheap seats aren't exactly all that cheap. For more than half of their games, the cheapest seats range from $24-$35. They just don't have any super cheap options like so many other teams provide. Even the *gasp* Cubs with the highest ticket prices have lower bottom end cheap seats and they have far less of an incentive to offer something like that.

LongLiveFisk
08-29-2010, 11:15 AM
I think that's because those cheap seats aren't exactly all that cheap. For more than half of their games, the cheapest seats range from $24-$35. They just don't have any super cheap options like so many other teams provide. Even the *gasp* Cubs with the highest ticket prices have lower bottom end cheap seats and they have far less of an incentive to offer something like that.

Exactly. Our "cheap seats" are not cheap.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-29-2010, 11:47 AM
I think that's because those cheap seats aren't exactly all that cheap. For more than half of their games, the cheapest seats range from $24-$35. They just don't have any super cheap options like so many other teams provide. Even the *gasp* Cubs with the highest ticket prices have lower bottom end cheap seats and they have far less of an incentive to offer something like that.

This is a great point. It's stupid to not let people willing to sit in the worst seats into the park for a reasonable price. At least you get the parking and concession money. Even Yankee Stadium has a $12 ticket. Instead of maximizing revenue they would rather sit around and complain about the weather, fans, traffic etc.

Mohoney
08-29-2010, 03:01 PM
I think that's because those cheap seats aren't exactly all that cheap. For more than half of their games, the cheapest seats range from $24-$35. They just don't have any super cheap options like so many other teams provide. Even the *gasp* Cubs with the highest ticket prices have lower bottom end cheap seats and they have far less of an incentive to offer something like that.

Great point. Speaking for myself, I would rather spend the same $50 on one game and get a Club seat than spend it on 2 games and sit in the upper deck.

If the upper deck was priced to the point where I could get 3 games for that $50, I would probably go to the 3 games instead, but since the price gap between a great seat and a bad seat isn't really all that wide, I'll just take the club seat and be very happy with it.

soxlady8
08-29-2010, 11:19 PM
I take it there will be more interest in this team once Manny starts playing !!

WhiteSox5187
08-29-2010, 11:21 PM
I take it there will be more interest in this team once Manny starts playing !!

If we start to win, yea. If we have a good road trip there will be a lot of people in the seats when we come back.

ewokpelts
08-30-2010, 02:07 PM
My two cents: I honestly believe the upper deck ticket price are just too expensive. $20 for nosebleed tickets on a week night? give me a break. Even the NBA requires that teams have some $10 tickets to every game.

Upper Deck Reserved tickets should be $10 max.
there's a reason why the discount codes do well..


also look at when the sox have giveaways. attendance spikes. too bad the sox dont hav emany giveaways anymore

ewokpelts
08-30-2010, 02:09 PM
Did they give women discounted tickets? They used to always have Ladies' Night about a decade ago. I think I remember them being Thursday nights and tickets were only $1. They need to go back to doing that, agree? :smile:my wife wentto a ton of these games with her mom when this promo was out there...

ewokpelts
08-30-2010, 02:16 PM
That would lead to a violent uprising among season ticket holders.i dont see season ticket holders upset over the ticketmaster codes.

roylestillman
08-30-2010, 02:35 PM
there's a reason why the discount codes do well..


also look at when the sox have giveaways. attendance spikes. too bad the sox dont hav emany giveaways anymore

What the front office should take note of is how this weekend's giveaways (the Stanley Cup and Frank Thomas bobblehead) drew people inside the park as much as hour and a half before they normally would enter. Friday at about 5:10 the lines to Gate 2 and Gate 3 actually crossed. Once in the park it's off to the concession stand.

I wonder if they look at per capita dollars spent on giveaway nights vs. normal nights to figure out whether it's worth it even if there is no sponsor.

mrfourni
08-31-2010, 08:49 AM
i dont see season ticket holders upset over the ticketmaster codes.

I'm a season ticket holder. I will be giving up my tickets next year because in the long run, with so many discounts, I will be paying less next year to go to as many games as I do now.

ewokpelts
08-31-2010, 08:53 AM
I'm a season ticket holder. I will be giving up my tickets next year because in the long run, with so many discounts, I will be paying less next year to go to as many games as I do now.I'm almost inthe same boat. The only major perk is the playoff rights, but the "postseason reservations" scheme lessens that perk. Same seat location is nice, and so is the parkign discount, but if you knwo what you're doing, it almost evens out.

ewokpelts
08-31-2010, 09:00 AM
What the front office should take note of is how this weekend's giveaways (the Stanley Cup and Frank Thomas bobblehead) drew people inside the park as much as hour and a half before they normally would enter. Friday at about 5:10 the lines to Gate 2 and Gate 3 actually crossed. Once in the park it's off to the concession stand.

I wonder if they look at per capita dollars spent on giveaway nights vs. normal nights to figure out whether it's worth it even if there is no sponsor.Completely agree.
The freebie crowd ends up spending more becuase they are there longer. I was at the aprk at 10:45am sunday and didnt leave till past 5pm. If you're thirsty or hungry in that 6 hour span, there's only one way to satisfy that demand. At the Sox concession stands.

Yes, these were big events on a normally big weekend series(yankees), but I'm sure the secondary revenue(merch sales, conccessions, parking) were boosted by the freebie early birders.

kittle42
08-31-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm a season ticket holder. I will be giving up my tickets next year because in the long run, with so many discounts, I will be paying less next year to go to as many games as I do now.

Same here, except that, luckily, my seats are good enough this season that the other folks who split my plan want to keep them, so really I'll just lower my portion from 27 games to about 10.

I took a bath on my season tickets this year and last year. Just *so* many ways to get cheaper, good tickets these days.