Supply and Demand - A Gypsy article

[gypsy]

Is it just me, or are NRL management missing the easiest and oldest trick in the book?

The demand for our product, in all forms (Tickets, memberships, merchandise...) just isn't there.
There are a myriad of reasons why - too many Sydney clubs being one. However, pricing runs a close second.

We're in a conundrum at the moment - Nobody wants to go sit in an empty stadium, and nobody wants to watch a game on TV that has no atmosphere. The NRL clearly places more importance on TV ratings, than seeing people at the game, yet it's fairly awful viewing seeing in some cases 60k empty seats. And get this, the NRL just loves big grounds, which are no chance of being even a quarter full.

The solution, I hear you ask?

Tickets and Memberships should be 33.3% of current pricing. The result? More fans to the game, and more dollars in. Take into account the money spent whilst at the game.

Merchandise pricing should be as above.

Wait 5 years. The game grows. It becomes a thing people want to do on a Saturday night.
Atmosphere returns and comes through in the telecast.

Then, raise the prices - only this time, you have the demand.
Something has to give, the current state of the game is very grim, and it's fast losing people like me.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Too many games and overexposure to the game also detracts, considering many teams play the same style of football.

 

[Matchball]

Relocate the Sharks

 

[bottle]

gyp, I often read this argument that fans wont watch games that are held in 'empty' stadiums, or in stadiums without atmosphere.
I watch every game I can. I don't give a rats if there are people in attendance or not. Is there anyone on these forums that will switch a game off because there is no atmosphere coming through the tv screen?
I think it's a tenuous argument at best. I don't see any proof of it.

Doesn't discredit the rest of your post though. If they want the crowds, they have to price accordingly.

 

[Meapro Ham]

Tickets and Memberships should be 33.3% of current pricing. The result? More fans to the game, and more dollars in. Take into account the money spent whilst at the game.

If only it were that simple. If you're going to cut ticket pricing to a third of current levels you'd obviously need to get more than three times the current crowd levels to come out in front. There just isn't enough demand for those kind of crowd levels no matter what the pricing. Particularly when people can watch it at home for free. You might get a small increase in attendances but not enough to offset the revenue loss. And I doubt extra money spent at the game would be relevant because most of that goes to vendors not the NRL I would have thought.

 

[fourplay]

Great post and it's true, I just don't think clubs are willing to take that short term loss for long term gains. And since the clubs keep the gate and the NRL keep the TV money and then divide it up evenly between the clubs, the clubs arn't willing to sacrifice that short term gate money. I think the only way it could happen would be if the NRL take control of ticketing and subsidise clubs short term losses.

There's also a slight risk that if you slash prices by such a big margin, fans will become accustomed to the low ticket prices, so when you raise them back up again, many fans will object. And if a club slashed ticket prices, and it combined with poor form on the field, it may not lead to immediate crowd increases, and the clubs may assume there is a large core group of supporters who will buy tickets whether they are $10 or $30.

But I agree that in the long term, a larger crowd will have many benefits such as providing a better image to attract sponsors, more television viewers, and even more live spectators as crowds tend to grow exponentially.

 

[eozsmiles]

Nobody wants to go sit in an empty stadium, and nobody wants to watch a game on TV that has no atmosphere. The NRL clearly places more importance on TV ratings, than seeing people at the game, yet it's fairly awful viewing seeing in some cases 60k empty seats.

When I watch on TV I don't care who is in the crowd because I'm watching the game. When I go to a game it makes some difference, but again, I'm there to watch a game.

For mine, the catch is getting people to want to watch the game first and foremost, whether that is attending the game or via the media. Then hopefully convert everyone into an attendee eventually.

 

[gypsy]

gyp, I often read this argument that fans wont watch games that are held in 'empty' stadiums, or in stadiums without atmosphere.
I watch every game I can. I don't give a rats if there are people in attendance or not. Is there anyone on these forums that will switch a game off because there is no atmosphere coming through the tv screen?
I think it's a tenuous argument at best. I don't see any proof of it.

Doesn't discredit the rest of your post though. If they want the crowds, they have to price accordingly.

definitely see your point bottle.

I'm looking at it from a growing of the game point of view. At a time where our traditional heartland has been swamped with other codes, any opportunity for attracting fans is I believe lost.

What is a neutral more likely to watch - packed out AFL and Rugby games, or the tumbleweed at ANZ?

 

[WaznTheGreat]

26 rounds is a disgrace,im already bored and waiting for cricket season to start and the players bodies are crumbling like cheese with too many games(26 rounds + preseason games + SOO/International games= Wazn)

18-20 rounds a year and crowds will improve.

 

[fourplay]

gyp, I often read this argument that fans wont watch games that are held in 'empty' stadiums, or in stadiums without atmosphere.
I watch every game I can. I don't give a rats if there are people in attendance or not. Is there anyone on these forums that will switch a game off because there is no atmosphere coming through the tv screen?
I think it's a tenuous argument at best. I don't see any proof of it.

Doesn't discredit the rest of your post though. If they want the crowds, they have to price accordingly.

Well think about the annual ANZAC day clash between the roosters and the dragons. Do you find watching this game more exciting and captivating than the usual Saturday night game with maybe 9000 fans in attendance? Which do you think the average viewer would find more attractive, and which do you think would be more likely to attract new fans and sponsors to the game?

They both happen to just be regular NRL games, but one happens to have a back drop of a sellout 40k crowd.

 

[bottle]

Well think about the annual ANZAC day clash between the roosters and the dragons. Do you find watching this game more exciting and captivating than the usual Saturday night game with maybe 9000 fans in attendance? Which do you think the average viewer would find more attractive, and which do you think would be more likely to attract new fans and sponsers to the game?

They both happen to just be regular NRL games, but one happens to have a back drop of a sellout 40k crowd.

Well I usually attend the ANZAC day game so probably not a good example to pick. Don't misunderstand me. I can see that a game with 'atmosphere' might make for a better experience. My point is that I won't turn a game off because of a poor attendance.

However both gypsy and yourself have qualified that it is more in relation to attracting new, or casual, viewers to the game. So yes, I can see what you are getting at.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd say watching games with big crowds and loud atmospheres def adds to the TV viewing enjoyment. Players also seem to lift their game and play better in front of big loud crowds.

Pricing is an issue for the neutral and casual fan and no way it should cost $50 for a decent view of the game. GA $15, best seats $30 kids $5 anywhere should be the standard. You can go to cinema for under $20 and going to a game is only equivalent level of entertainment really.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

If every club played out of a stadium like parramatta

A modern all seat 20k stadium...NRL would look fantastic

Full crowds and good TV audiences.

A crowd of 15k looks fine in a packed smaller stadium

 

[Perth Red]

I think you meant aami? Modern roofed 30k stadium, steep pitched stands, close to city bars, $265mill, perfect for RL and growth of crowds. Get three of those in Sydney and the game will move forward in leaps and bounds!

 

[gypsy]

A crowd of 15k looks fine in a packed smaller stadium

It does indeed. Truly mind blowing why the ratings hungry NRL would want to cast this aside for the post - apocalyptic scenes of Homebush.

 

[maple_69]

Prices may be one problem but they're not the golden bullet.
As others have mentioned, every team plays the same boring footy. As well as this its pretty tough to keep track of what the hell is happening. I got back from the world cup on Thursday and went to the Dogs, Panthers game on Friday night. Having followed the game for 17 years, it was actually pretty tough to figure out what ridiculous ruling was being made. Its not just the referees fault but the rules are complex and so grey. Comparing that to the games I saw in Brazil, ridiculous atmosphere and dead simple rules, we have a long way to go as a sport to gaining huge support.

 

[TheVelourFog]

definitely see your point bottle.

I'm looking at it from a growing of the game point of view. At a time where our traditional heartland has been swamped with other codes, any opportunity for attracting fans is I believe lost.

What is a neutral more likely to watch - packed out AFL and Rugby games, or the tumbleweed at ANZ?

Why would a neutral watch either?

I am willing to wager that 99% of "new" fans to the game are introduced by a friend or relative. I highly doubt people are just flicking through the channels and then deciding to watch a game. If there are figures somewhere that show this does happen, then I would love to see them.

And I will agree with others that have said the same thing - I couldn't care less if there are 100,000 people there or 2 blokes and a dog, I will watch the game

 

[pHyR3]

Although you've brought up supply and demand. Consider elasticity.

Reducing prices by (let's say) a half, won't double crowds. It will increase them by lets say 10 or 15%. This means that reducing prices lowers total revenue since demand is inelastic at ~$25+. People are going to the footy whether tix are $15 or $25, it makes little difference to many people.

Keeping prices at around $20 is fine, that's not the reason crowds arent' going too amazingly. Marketing, and expanding the supporter base of the NRL will increase crowds in the long term. That's going to be done through touch footy, oz tag, cleaning up the image of the NRL to appeal to more than just the average bogan (no shoulder charge, no fighting etc.). And numerous other ways.

It's a long process. I'd expect 20k averages in 2020. 16.5k this year would be great.

 

[Surrogate]

Channel 9 should superimpose a fake crowd.
TV viewers won't know.

 

[maple_69]

Channel 9 should superimpose a fake crowd.
TV viewers won't know.

Haha. Its actually not a bad idea. They do pretty good work with the superimposed ads on the pitch. Then again, that equals money, so they probably couldn't care less about the crowd.