2019 Membership

[Perth Red]

Have the NRL stopped funding the clubs membership staff? I remember reading it was for a time limited period but not sure when that time was up? Are there any other initiatives the NRL is doing to grow memberships or are they now leaving it up to the clubs? They had a target they set to achieve by '17 of 400k members which they still havent reached.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...-club-memberships-by-2017-20131107-2x4bc.html

 

[Timmah]

Have the NRL stopped funding the clubs membership staff? I remember reading it was for a time limited period but not sure when that time was up? Are there any other initiatives the NRL is doing to grow memberships or are they now leaving it up to the clubs? They had a target they set to achieve by '17 of 400k members which they still havent reached.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...-club-memberships-by-2017-20131107-2x4bc.html

You're obsessed with that target. It wasn't reached, it's no longer part of strategy, get over it.

And we already knew the NRL withdrew those membership staff, it was covered in last year's thread.

 

[Quicksilver]

They would have got there with a Perth team tho

 

[Quicksilver]

And less Sydney teams

 

[Quicksilver]

And world class stadia

 

[Knight Vision]

"should have twice as many members as they usually get".... based on what?

Just population? What factors are there that show they don't have as many members as they should?

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/australia-population/cities/

Population of course. Rounded off Sydney has 4.6 million and Brisbane 2.2 million people. They should be light years ahead of every team in the comp, particularly every Sydney team fighting for a slice of the pie.- they arent. They arguably have a large portion of a state to gain membership outside Brisbane, they have massive exposure when compared to other clubs. Where's their members ?

 

[Perth Red]

You're obsessed with that target. It wasn't reached, it's no longer part of strategy, get over it.

And we already knew the NRL withdrew those membership staff, it was covered in last year's thread.

Do they have a replacement strategy for the one that didn't quite work?

 

[Perth Red]

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/australia-population/cities/

Population of course. Rounded off Sydney has 4.6 million and Brisbane 2.2 million people. They should be light years ahead of every team in the comp, particularly every Sydney team fighting for a slice of the pie.- they arent. They arguably have a large portion of a state to gain membership outside Brisbane, they have massive exposure when compared to other clubs. Where's their members ?

Seems a popular perception that there are a massive amount of RL fans in Brisbane who dont want to follow the Broncos. They either follow a different team or are waiting for another option. Not sure how quantifiable this claim is? Brisbane certainly gets large TV audience viewing figures so that would suggest there are plenty of fans of the game waiting in the wings

 

[Timmah]

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/australia-population/cities/

Population of course. Rounded off Sydney has 4.6 million and Brisbane 2.2 million people. They should be light years ahead of every team in the comp, particularly every Sydney team fighting for a slice of the pie.- they arent. They arguably have a large portion of a state to gain membership outside Brisbane, they have massive exposure when compared to other clubs. Where's their members ?

Population numbers is a very simplistic way of measuring potential support.

Do they have a replacement strategy for the one that didn't quite work?

You already know the answer to that too. Grow up.

 

[Knight Vision]

Population numbers is a very simplistic way of measuring potential support.

Simplistic ? One could argue the crucial contributing factor. Population combined with the level of exposure they get there's an extremely strong argument that can be mounted that the Broncos are under performing. They just arent converting the population at their disposal and the level of exposure the brand receives into memberships. The big question is why?

Sydney Teams have a combined membership of around 132,000, with twice the population of Brisbane. It wouldnt be a long stretch to suggest the Broncos should have a membership of around 50,000. ? Certainly a hell of a lot more than their woeful numbers at present which are a measly 9,000 more than a triple wooden spoon team like the Knights with a population around 1/3 of Brisbane. Newcastle currently have 16,000 members, 3 x 16,000 = 48,000.

That's where the Broncos should be

 

[Timmah]

They just arent converting the population at their disposal and the level of exposure the brand receives into memberships. The big question is why?

Probably because they know if they don't go, they can easily see most games on Channel 9.

 

[DlEHARD]

I'd just like to say hello to Joe McDonough.

 

[Spot On]

Ah Timmah... population numbers are simplistic in measuring support hey?

Geezuz.

Spose you're right. Sydney has millions of people and ANZ and Alliance are usually empty when NRL matches are played there.

Don't worry, Greenburger, with all his experience as an operations and events manager, will fix it.

 

[Timmah]

Ah Timmah... population numbers are simplistic in measuring support hey?

Geezuz.

Spose you're right. Sydney has millions of people and ANZ and Alliance are usually empty when NRL matches are played there.

Don't worry, Greenburger, with all his experience as an operations and events manager, will fix it.

Wait, you actually think each of the 5 million people in Sydney are pre-disposed to attending or even having a passing interest in NRL?

Good stuff.

 

[super_coach]

Membership numbers basically prove nothing. As the Tigers have three home grounds and I have taken out different packages at the three grounds, I hold three memberships and I know plenty of others in the same boat. I have a mate who pays bugger all to be a non ticketed member. He gets a news letter and a few other benefits and is counted in the Rabbits members numbers. I am sure most clubs would do the same. It would be interesting to know how many people are forking out around 400.00 plus a season to be members at each club, actual game day members

 

[Quicksilver]

Membership numbers basically prove nothing. As the Tigers have three home grounds and I have taken out different packages at the three grounds, I hold three memberships and I know plenty of others in the same boat. I have a mate who pays bugger all to be a non ticketed member. He gets a news letter and a few other benefits and is counted in the Rabbits members numbers. I am sure most clubs would do the same. It would be interesting to know how many people are forking out around 400.00 plus a season to be members at each club, actual game day members

Exactly.

It's pretty pointless comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Timmah]

Membership numbers basically prove nothing. As the Tigers have three home grounds and I have taken out different packages at the three grounds, I hold three memberships and I know plenty of others in the same boat. I have a mate who pays bugger all to be a non ticketed member. He gets a news letter and a few other benefits and is counted in the Rabbits members numbers. I am sure most clubs would do the same. It would be interesting to know how many people are forking out around 400.00 plus a season to be members at each club, actual game day members

An age-old debate here I'm afraid.

For a long time I've been an advocate of that kind of counting, but the more you think about it, the fact clubs are increasingly clever at picking up members that are either minimum-game or non-ticketed is a good thing. It broadens their reach and improves their bottom line regardless. Once they're in the door then they're also an up-sell opportunity.

 

[yobbo84]

Membership numbers basically prove nothing. As the Tigers have three home grounds and I have taken out different packages at the three grounds, I hold three memberships and I know plenty of others in the same boat. I have a mate who pays bugger all to be a non ticketed member. He gets a news letter and a few other benefits and is counted in the Rabbits members numbers. I am sure most clubs would do the same. It would be interesting to know how many people are forking out around 400.00 plus a season to be members at each club, actual game day members

Rabbitohs non-ticketed memberships are $107 a year. I wouldn't call that bugger all.

 

[Timmah]

Rabbitohs non-ticketed memberships are $107 a year. I wouldn't call that bugger all.

Well why not... here we go. Finding the cheapest (adult) non-ticketed package per club:

Broncos 'Captain's Membership' = $40

Raiders 'Supporter' = $45

Bulldogs 'Born & Bred' = $50

Sharks 'Shark Starter' = $30

Titans 'Social' = $61

Sea Eagles 'Born and Bred' = $85

Storm 'Fan Pass' = $45 (incl 1 x home game)

Knights 'Club 88 Standard' = $45

Cowboys 'Super Star' = $49

Eels 'Blue & Gold Army Non Ticketed' = $90

Panthers 'Proud Panther' = $59 (incl 1 x home game)

Rabbitohs 'Supporter Member' = $107

Dragons 'Dragons Faithful' = $79

Roosters 'Supporter' = $64.99 (incl 1 x home game)

Warriors 'Supporter' = $30NZD

Wests Tigers 'Supporter' = $55

Some clubs have interstate or international options which can be cheaper so I've tried to find the best definition of supporter membership I can for each club.

Souths' pricing is odd, Manly's too. Dragons and Eels probably charging too much as well.

 

[Quicksilver]

How much for your cat?