Baseball and Caviar
June 18, 2015 9:34 AM Subscribe
The Los Angeles Angels baseball team found themselves embroiled in controversy recently when Robert Alvarado, the team's Vice-President of Marketing and Ticket Sales, brushed aside concerns about decreased attendance at the ballpark this season by stating, "We may not be reaching as many of the people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, but those people, they may enjoy the game, but they pay less, and we’re not seeing the conversion on the per-caps,”. This statement by Alvarado prompted this OC Weekly blog headline: Anaheim Angels: We Don't Need Poor Fans, and We Don't Want Them. Alvarado resigned yesterday from the Angels organization.
Huh. I'm not sure I draw the same conclusions from Alvarado's statements that Moura did, but I guess it's his blog and his column. I don't think it's fair to characterize Alvarado's citing of what they're seeing from the numbers as "we don't need the poor fans." It's more like, "this is what we've seen, and since we're a business, we're adjusting."
posted by Thistledown at 9:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Thistledown at 9:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's fair to characterize Alvarado's citing of what they're seeing from the numbers as "we don't need the poor fans."
Any time you find the words "those people" at the tip of your tongue, you should probably think really hard about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
posted by rocketman at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
Any time you find the words "those people" at the tip of your tongue, you should probably think really hard about what you're saying and how you're saying it.
posted by rocketman at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
A gaffe is when a politician businessman tells the truth.
posted by Johnny Assay at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Johnny Assay at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Ten-dollar tickets (plus a few bucks in fees) for Wednesday night’s game against the Rays were still available an hour before first pitch, so it’s not as though the cheap seats have been eliminated."
So... there are still cheap seats available.
That the guy in charge of revenue said he liked people who paid more money better than he likes people who pay less money is not super-shocking.
The real question is why that guy is giving quotes to the press.
posted by GuyZero at 9:47 AM on June 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
So... there are still cheap seats available.
That the guy in charge of revenue said he liked people who paid more money better than he likes people who pay less money is not super-shocking.
The real question is why that guy is giving quotes to the press.
posted by GuyZero at 9:47 AM on June 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
"Vice-President of Marketing and Ticket Sales" - OK, so he had the Ticket Sales part down, obviously needs to go back to school on the Marketing.
posted by King Sky Prawn at 9:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by King Sky Prawn at 9:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is a strange story, particularly because the Angels have done far, far more to attract Spanish-speaking fans than the two other clubs in Southern California. Indeed, that was Moreno's strategy from the get-go.
And I too don't interpret Alvarado's statement as being overly classist so much as ruthlessly business-minded. If someone is paying $30 for a ticket and goes to the concession stand, that person will likely want to buy upscale items. But if all they see is cheap, low-quality items aimed a lower-income segment (e.g. cheap beer and hot dogs), they're just going to go, "meh." That's what I think he meant by "downselling."
But what really killed Alvarado here in the court of public opinion was a single word -- "segregate."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015
And I too don't interpret Alvarado's statement as being overly classist so much as ruthlessly business-minded. If someone is paying $30 for a ticket and goes to the concession stand, that person will likely want to buy upscale items. But if all they see is cheap, low-quality items aimed a lower-income segment (e.g. cheap beer and hot dogs), they're just going to go, "meh." That's what I think he meant by "downselling."
But what really killed Alvarado here in the court of public opinion was a single word -- "segregate."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015
Stated simply: giving tickets to people who can't afford to buy high-profit items at the stadium and then expecting them to buy those high-profit items is a bad business strategy.
There's no issue here.
posted by saeculorum at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's no issue here.
posted by saeculorum at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's what I think he meant by "downselling."
Downselling is a marketing term. It means to sell someone a cheaper option when they can't/won't pay for a more expensive option.
But what really killed Alvarado here in the court of public opinion was a single word -- "segregate."
He's making a correct statement - if you offer cheap tickets, you offer them to everyone. That means that the people that would pay more money for the tickets now pay less (resulting in less profit) and the people that can now afford tickets tend not to be able to afford anything else (like high-profit concessions - this doesn't result in less profit, but it doesn't produce profit). There's no practical way to offer cheap tickets only to the latter segment without also including the former segment.
posted by saeculorum at 9:53 AM on June 18, 2015
Downselling is a marketing term. It means to sell someone a cheaper option when they can't/won't pay for a more expensive option.
But what really killed Alvarado here in the court of public opinion was a single word -- "segregate."
He's making a correct statement - if you offer cheap tickets, you offer them to everyone. That means that the people that would pay more money for the tickets now pay less (resulting in less profit) and the people that can now afford tickets tend not to be able to afford anything else (like high-profit concessions - this doesn't result in less profit, but it doesn't produce profit). There's no practical way to offer cheap tickets only to the latter segment without also including the former segment.
posted by saeculorum at 9:53 AM on June 18, 2015
So... there are still cheap seats available.
Yes, and baseball has historically been the cheapest of the four major sports, by far. One could argue it's a better ticket than going to the movies.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, and baseball has historically been the cheapest of the four major sports, by far. One could argue it's a better ticket than going to the movies.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
We all know bean-counters and MBAs run the show now. Numbers, numbers, numbers are all that count. There are many ways to skin a cat, but the whole point is missed when purpose of the whole mission is disregarded. Where does baseball fit into anything this moron has to say? Per-caps are up, as is the bottom line. Great. But, if fewer people are attending, then the mission is a flop.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:56 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:56 AM on June 18, 2015
He's just saying what the entire pro sports industry is thinking. Sure, it was stupid to say it out loud, but don't pillory the guy for doing what his bosses want.
posted by clvrmnky at 10:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clvrmnky at 10:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Downselling is a marketing term. It means to sell someone a cheaper option when they can't/won't pay for a more expensive option.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that.
The full quote is: "In doing so, the ticket price that we're offering those people, it's not like I can segregate them, because I'm offering it up to the public, and I'm basically downselling everybody else in order to accommodate them."
Read: "While they're in different seats, we can't effectively differentiate the entire stadium experience between low-cost tickets and expensive tickets -- they're in the same stadium watching the same game. In order to get more money from a person that bought a low-cost ticket, I need to offer them other things at a lower price point. But because space and opportunity is limited, that limits our ability to offer things at higher price points for persons buying expensive tickets."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:04 AM on June 18, 2015
I think it's a little more nuanced than that.
The full quote is: "In doing so, the ticket price that we're offering those people, it's not like I can segregate them, because I'm offering it up to the public, and I'm basically downselling everybody else in order to accommodate them."
Read: "While they're in different seats, we can't effectively differentiate the entire stadium experience between low-cost tickets and expensive tickets -- they're in the same stadium watching the same game. In order to get more money from a person that bought a low-cost ticket, I need to offer them other things at a lower price point. But because space and opportunity is limited, that limits our ability to offer things at higher price points for persons buying expensive tickets."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:04 AM on June 18, 2015
They should charge dirt cheap rates for ground-level seating and triple the price of all upper deck seats, thus allowing the wealthier patrons to spit at will on the poor people below.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:08 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:08 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sports concessions are ridiculous, making me long for the reasonable prices of the movie theater.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2015
This is a strange story, particularly because the Angels have done far, far more to attract Spanish-speaking fans than the two other clubs in Southern California. Indeed, that was Moreno's strategy from the get-go.
lol what. Los Doyers have a dearth of Spanish-speaking fans?
posted by basicchannel at 10:12 AM on June 18, 2015
lol what. Los Doyers have a dearth of Spanish-speaking fans?
posted by basicchannel at 10:12 AM on June 18, 2015
Note the chart on the article, and how it starts with the season in which the Angels won their first-ever pennant and World Series. Add where they finished to the chart and it gets a little more apparent what the issue is:
If they got used to 38K per game being the target and just say "Well, sure, we'd love to fill the stadium every year, but 3 million a year is pretty damn good," they'd be fine. But no, every empty seat is a few dollars lost, so squeeeeeze a little harder.
posted by Etrigan at 10:17 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
YEAR ATT. CHANGE FINISH 2002 28,463 -- Won World Series 2003 37,791 9,328 3rd in AL West 2004 41,675 3,884 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-0 2005 42,033 358 1st in AL West, won ALDS 3-2, lost ALCS 4-1 2006 42,059 26 2nd in AL West 2007 41,551 -508 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-0 2008 41,194 -357 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-1 2009 40,004 -1,190 1st in AL West, won ALDS 3-0, lost ALCS 4-2 2010 40,133 129 3rd in AL West 2011 39,090 -1,043 2nd in AL West 2012 37,799 -1,291 3rd in AL West 2013 37,277 -522 3rd in AL West 2014 38,221 944 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-0 2015 34,061 -4,160 3rd in AL West (currently)They're still 20 percent over where they were in the season where they broke a 15-year playoff drought. Of the six seasons they've lost attendance from the previous season, four of them were immediately after seasons they didn't make the playoffs. The other two were after seasons where it became apparent that the team was settling in at a slightly higher level than it's historically rested at: consistent contenders to make the playoffs (then get smoked), if not likely to win another World Series any time soon.
If they got used to 38K per game being the target and just say "Well, sure, we'd love to fill the stadium every year, but 3 million a year is pretty damn good," they'd be fine. But no, every empty seat is a few dollars lost, so squeeeeeze a little harder.
posted by Etrigan at 10:17 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
we can't effectively differentiate the entire stadium experience between low-cost tickets and expensive tickets
Uh, isn't that what the outfield bleacher section is for? Those are the cheap seats. The vendors out there are for the cheap beer, cheap hot dogs, and other cheap stuff for families who want to go to a game. Not the best view, certainly not the most comfortable seating, but it is ACTUALLY a physically different area of the stadium.
At Target Field, the most expensive box seats behind home plate are literally leather recliners. The Club Level - which is restricted access - is where the fanciest foods and beers are. There is a definite difference in vendor offerings on the lower level than the upper level and again on the home plate side versus the outfield.
I know Target Field is a really new stadium. Doesn't the Angels' home stadium have a similar set-up?
posted by jillithd at 10:20 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Uh, isn't that what the outfield bleacher section is for? Those are the cheap seats. The vendors out there are for the cheap beer, cheap hot dogs, and other cheap stuff for families who want to go to a game. Not the best view, certainly not the most comfortable seating, but it is ACTUALLY a physically different area of the stadium.
At Target Field, the most expensive box seats behind home plate are literally leather recliners. The Club Level - which is restricted access - is where the fanciest foods and beers are. There is a definite difference in vendor offerings on the lower level than the upper level and again on the home plate side versus the outfield.
I know Target Field is a really new stadium. Doesn't the Angels' home stadium have a similar set-up?
posted by jillithd at 10:20 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
If your team plays well and has star power, you can charge more. This marketing stuff is easy!
posted by Brocktoon at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Brocktoon at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2015
And I too don't interpret Alvarado's statement as being overly classist so much as ruthlessly business-minded. If someone is paying $30 for a ticket and goes to the concession stand, that person will likely want to buy upscale items. But if all they see is cheap, low-quality items aimed a lower-income segment (e.g. cheap beer and hot dogs), they're just going to go, "meh." That's what I think he meant by "downselling."
I get the gist of what you're saying, but the idea that $30 is the upscale ticket price, and that things like cheap beer and hot dogs might actually be available to purchase, don't line up with my experience attending any major league sporting events recently.
It's more like $50-100 ticket to sit in the lower level, and you're lucky to find beer that costs less that $10.
posted by thecjm at 10:40 AM on June 18, 2015
I get the gist of what you're saying, but the idea that $30 is the upscale ticket price, and that things like cheap beer and hot dogs might actually be available to purchase, don't line up with my experience attending any major league sporting events recently.
It's more like $50-100 ticket to sit in the lower level, and you're lucky to find beer that costs less that $10.
posted by thecjm at 10:40 AM on June 18, 2015
Yeah, do the Angels really have different-priced foods in different places in their stadium? The only games I've been to are Toronto and SF where food is the same price everywhere and double in the boxes where I don't go. But once you're in the stadium you have pretty free run of the place with the exception of the club/box levels.
If someone buys a $10 ticket they're unlikely to buy many (heck, any) $10 beers. And I think Alvarado's point is that they can't just offer $7 beers to the $10 ticket buyers because everyone would buy those and no one would buy the $10 beers. This is the basic dilemma of pricing everywhere.
posted by GuyZero at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2015
If someone buys a $10 ticket they're unlikely to buy many (heck, any) $10 beers. And I think Alvarado's point is that they can't just offer $7 beers to the $10 ticket buyers because everyone would buy those and no one would buy the $10 beers. This is the basic dilemma of pricing everywhere.
posted by GuyZero at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2015
There's no practical way to offer cheap tickets only to the latter segment without also including the former segment.
Actually, teams (like my Red Sox) are now offering "tiered pricing," e.g. a Yankees game in June is way more expensive for everyone than a Cleveland game in April. So, the poor folks will never experience the excitement that is a Yankees game. (Not that even middle class folks can get Yankees tickets, the prices are ridiculous.)
How about we start looking at why players each need $20+ million per year? It's like health care; we won't be able to solve the problem until we figure out what's causing it.
posted by Melismata at 10:48 AM on June 18, 2015
Actually, teams (like my Red Sox) are now offering "tiered pricing," e.g. a Yankees game in June is way more expensive for everyone than a Cleveland game in April. So, the poor folks will never experience the excitement that is a Yankees game. (Not that even middle class folks can get Yankees tickets, the prices are ridiculous.)
How about we start looking at why players each need $20+ million per year? It's like health care; we won't be able to solve the problem until we figure out what's causing it.
posted by Melismata at 10:48 AM on June 18, 2015
GuyZero, I'm willing to bet that they don't have different prices in different areas of the stadium. There may be different offerings, but a dog and a beer will cost the same (for the same brands) all through the park.
Attending an MLB game is expensive - here in DC at Nationals Park, a domestic draft is going to run you $9.00, a hot dog is going to run you $6.75 (a bit more if you go with the all-beef option, which is also bigger.) Those prices are consistent all through the stadium. Dollar hot dog night is a big draw around here.
There are $10 tickets, although the numbers of those vary - it depends on the game itself because prices are higher for the more popular visiting teams like SF, Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals.
There is a saving grace to all of this expense, though. The Park allows you to bring in one bottled water and your own food. As long as it's clear that the food is of an amount for individual consumption and you're not trying to sell it to other people, they're pretty good with it. Which also makes it easier if you're trying to stick to a healthier diet.
posted by Thistledown at 10:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Attending an MLB game is expensive - here in DC at Nationals Park, a domestic draft is going to run you $9.00, a hot dog is going to run you $6.75 (a bit more if you go with the all-beef option, which is also bigger.) Those prices are consistent all through the stadium. Dollar hot dog night is a big draw around here.
There are $10 tickets, although the numbers of those vary - it depends on the game itself because prices are higher for the more popular visiting teams like SF, Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals.
There is a saving grace to all of this expense, though. The Park allows you to bring in one bottled water and your own food. As long as it's clear that the food is of an amount for individual consumption and you're not trying to sell it to other people, they're pretty good with it. Which also makes it easier if you're trying to stick to a healthier diet.
posted by Thistledown at 10:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, do the Angels really have different-priced foods in different places in their stadium? The only games I've been to are Toronto and SF where food is the same price everywhere and double in the boxes where I don't go. But once you're in the stadium you have pretty free run of the place with the exception of the club/box levels.
At Target Field, the price of the food isn't different (not $5 hot dog in the bleachers and $15 behind home plate), it is the offerings of food (only the cheap hot dogs/beers in the bleachers and the fancier craft beers and steak sandwiches behind home plate). Yes, everyone has free run of the place, but are you willing to walk halfway around the stadium to buy a steak sandwich and the fancy craft beer or are you going to stay by your bleacher seat and pick up a cheap hot dog and beer combo that's right by your section? (I'm willing to do the walk if I want the good stuff, but I'll also take a cheap beer or hotdog if I'm in the mood or don't want to miss the inning.)
The $10 beers are the craft beers and the $7 beers are the Miller Lites. It isn't that hard.
posted by jillithd at 10:56 AM on June 18, 2015
At Target Field, the price of the food isn't different (not $5 hot dog in the bleachers and $15 behind home plate), it is the offerings of food (only the cheap hot dogs/beers in the bleachers and the fancier craft beers and steak sandwiches behind home plate). Yes, everyone has free run of the place, but are you willing to walk halfway around the stadium to buy a steak sandwich and the fancy craft beer or are you going to stay by your bleacher seat and pick up a cheap hot dog and beer combo that's right by your section? (I'm willing to do the walk if I want the good stuff, but I'll also take a cheap beer or hotdog if I'm in the mood or don't want to miss the inning.)
The $10 beers are the craft beers and the $7 beers are the Miller Lites. It isn't that hard.
posted by jillithd at 10:56 AM on June 18, 2015
At Target Field, the price of the food isn't different (not $5 hot dog in the bleachers and $15 behind home plate), it is the offerings of food (only the cheap hot dogs/beers in the bleachers and the fancier craft beers and steak sandwiches behind home plate).
In Toronto, the upper deck will also have less staff. I've been to games where the cheap seats look like they have more people than the other sections combined, but more than half of the available food and souvenir stalls up there are closed.
posted by thecjm at 10:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
In Toronto, the upper deck will also have less staff. I've been to games where the cheap seats look like they have more people than the other sections combined, but more than half of the available food and souvenir stalls up there are closed.
posted by thecjm at 10:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
How about we start looking at why players each need $20+ million per year?
I'd rather see the players get the money; they attract the fans. If every player were knocked down to league minimum salary tomorrow, the owners would still charge as much or as little as they can get.
posted by Superfrankenstein at 11:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'd rather see the players get the money; they attract the fans. If every player were knocked down to league minimum salary tomorrow, the owners would still charge as much or as little as they can get.
posted by Superfrankenstein at 11:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
"Let them eat franks."
No spoilers for Vikings season 4!
posted by biffa at 11:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
No spoilers for Vikings season 4!
posted by biffa at 11:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Attending an MLB game is expensive - here in DC at Nationals Park, a domestic draft is going to run you $9.00, a hot dog is going to run you $6.75 (a bit more if you go with the all-beef option, which is also bigger.) Those prices are consistent all through the stadium. Dollar hot dog night is a big draw around here.
Yeah the only real difference here is that there's more selection in the 100s than in the 300s, but the prices are the same for the same products. I also feel like I see people getting food for the beginning of the game from the nicer places then taking it upstairs to the cheaper seats pretty regularly. I know I do.
The Nationals hot dogs are a real pricing travesty, though.* Last night I had a ham biscuit and chips from the new biscuit place before the game (pretty decent) for $8, then paid almost $7 for a hot dog in the fifth. That said, I was able to get a ticket in the 100s, pretty close to the field, for $30, so I'm not going to complain too much.
*Not the biggest travesty in the house last night, unfortunately.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:11 AM on June 18, 2015
Yeah the only real difference here is that there's more selection in the 100s than in the 300s, but the prices are the same for the same products. I also feel like I see people getting food for the beginning of the game from the nicer places then taking it upstairs to the cheaper seats pretty regularly. I know I do.
The Nationals hot dogs are a real pricing travesty, though.* Last night I had a ham biscuit and chips from the new biscuit place before the game (pretty decent) for $8, then paid almost $7 for a hot dog in the fifth. That said, I was able to get a ticket in the 100s, pretty close to the field, for $30, so I'm not going to complain too much.
*Not the biggest travesty in the house last night, unfortunately.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:11 AM on June 18, 2015
Drawing in a discount buyer, they aren’t necessarily flipping and buying stuff here.”
“We may not be reaching as many of the people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, but those people, they may enjoy the game, but they pay less, and we’re not seeing the conversion on the per-caps,” Alvarado said.
Uh, he's making some big assumptions about who's buying what and why, based on (undisclosed) aggregate numbers. He doesn't know the socioeconomic status of who is attending on discount tickets and who is buying "stuff." (And he apparently doesn't know any skinflint wealthy people, or loyal working-class fans who indulge in all the concessions.)
posted by desuetude at 11:13 AM on June 18, 2015
“We may not be reaching as many of the people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, but those people, they may enjoy the game, but they pay less, and we’re not seeing the conversion on the per-caps,” Alvarado said.
Uh, he's making some big assumptions about who's buying what and why, based on (undisclosed) aggregate numbers. He doesn't know the socioeconomic status of who is attending on discount tickets and who is buying "stuff." (And he apparently doesn't know any skinflint wealthy people, or loyal working-class fans who indulge in all the concessions.)
posted by desuetude at 11:13 AM on June 18, 2015
Well he may well have done some market research given his job. Just because he didn't pop out a projector and run a powerpoint doesn't mean he hasn't done some work on the underlying economics of who is paying for what at games. It would never be infallible but it wouldn't be hard to produce some data.
posted by biffa at 11:26 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by biffa at 11:26 AM on June 18, 2015
How about we start looking at why players each need $20+ million per year?
Only one Angel makes $20M this year. You're overstating the median (Hector Santiago, $2.3M) by almost an order of magnitude. The Angels had revenues of $304M last year (counting ticket sales, TV contracts, merchandise, concessions, etc.) -- that's double their team salary.
Player salaries follow revenue, not the other way around.
posted by Etrigan at 11:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Only one Angel makes $20M this year. You're overstating the median (Hector Santiago, $2.3M) by almost an order of magnitude. The Angels had revenues of $304M last year (counting ticket sales, TV contracts, merchandise, concessions, etc.) -- that's double their team salary.
Player salaries follow revenue, not the other way around.
posted by Etrigan at 11:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
We had free tickets for a Pirates game a few weeks ago and ended up spending something like $70 for the two of us on food and drinks.
posted by octothorpe at 11:58 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by octothorpe at 11:58 AM on June 18, 2015
If you think baseball is played for the benefit of the fans, then you and I are living in very different universes.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:04 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 12:04 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, everyone has free run of the place, but are you willing to walk halfway around the stadium to buy a steak sandwich and the fancy craft beer or are you going to stay by your bleacher seat and pick up a cheap hot dog and beer combo that's right by your section?
Anyone who has ever had the Tony Olivia Cuban sandwich will always be willing to walk halfway around Target Field to get one.
posted by Ber at 12:36 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyone who has ever had the Tony Olivia Cuban sandwich will always be willing to walk halfway around Target Field to get one.
posted by Ber at 12:36 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you think baseball is played for the benefit of the fans, then you and I are living in very different universes.
Without the fans, all you'd have is a pickup game in a vacant lot somewhere.
posted by Flexagon at 12:37 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Without the fans, all you'd have is a pickup game in a vacant lot somewhere.
posted by Flexagon at 12:37 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Yes, everyone has free run of the place, but are you willing to walk halfway around the stadium to buy a steak sandwich and the fancy craft beer or are you going to stay by your bleacher seat and pick up a cheap hot dog and beer combo that's right by your section?
Sure. The experience of "being at the park" is a big part of the draw. A lot of the people who attend games are casual fans (if that!), not necessarily diehards who are glued to every moment of every game of the season.
posted by desuetude at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure. The experience of "being at the park" is a big part of the draw. A lot of the people who attend games are casual fans (if that!), not necessarily diehards who are glued to every moment of every game of the season.
posted by desuetude at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
> It would never be infallible but it wouldn't be hard to produce some data.
Data matching the socioeconomic status of the ticket-holder with the ticket price they paid AND how much money they spend at the park? How would you compile that? Especially as most park concessions are paid in cash.
posted by desuetude at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2015
Data matching the socioeconomic status of the ticket-holder with the ticket price they paid AND how much money they spend at the park? How would you compile that? Especially as most park concessions are paid in cash.
posted by desuetude at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2015
If you think baseball is played for the benefit of the fans, then you and I are living in very different universes.
It depends on how closely you define "fans". The game is played for the benefit of the paying customers, certainly, and the definition of "paying customers" includes not just "people who sit in the seats at Angel Stadium", but also "corporations who buy luxury suites at Angel Stadium", "TV networks who think they will make more money on advertising than they spend on rights", "stores who think they will sell enough Mike Trout jerseys to justify buying them from MLB", etc.
And at the base of all of those things is still, for lack of a better term, "fans".
posted by Etrigan at 12:53 PM on June 18, 2015
It depends on how closely you define "fans". The game is played for the benefit of the paying customers, certainly, and the definition of "paying customers" includes not just "people who sit in the seats at Angel Stadium", but also "corporations who buy luxury suites at Angel Stadium", "TV networks who think they will make more money on advertising than they spend on rights", "stores who think they will sell enough Mike Trout jerseys to justify buying them from MLB", etc.
And at the base of all of those things is still, for lack of a better term, "fans".
posted by Etrigan at 12:53 PM on June 18, 2015
By taking a sample and asking them about where they sat, what they ate, how often they visit the ballpark, job title, earnings, addresses, seat number, etc. Either at the park or via a website, incentivised by free tickets or similar. I'm not a marketer but I would guess this is the basics of it.
The article talks about 3 million visitors a year, and if each is dropping at least $50 it would pay for some fancy marketing data gathering to inform how to milk some more.
posted by biffa at 12:54 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The article talks about 3 million visitors a year, and if each is dropping at least $50 it would pay for some fancy marketing data gathering to inform how to milk some more.
posted by biffa at 12:54 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
One wonders whether the Angels folks have been looking west down Katella to get their marketing and pricing ideas this past year. In fact, I would bet on that.
Disney Parks (particularly the Disneyland Resort) are fairly openly having the same sorts of discussions about pricing, attendance, and how to drive even more profits.
The parks continue to grow more popular every year. In fact, Disneyland is approaching its capacity; this means that if attendance trends continue, there will literally be no more room in the park available for more guests. The park is actually "selling out" a few days each year now- days when they are literally turning people away at the gates because it is at capacity. This was unthinkable in the past.
The supply is scarce- there is a cutoff. And if there are only so many people we can let in, then you know what? Rich people only! Can't afford $100 per ticket? Or $110 next year, or $120 the year after that? Too bad.
After all, it's true... the higher paying guest is the one that comes in with the kids and buys a princess breakfast and everyone gets hats and t-shirts and all the churros they want. The guest that comes in on a discount, or who comes in without much to spend, finds ways to bring in their own food- or if they were like I was when I was a kid at Disneyland, everyone just holds out on food and souvenirs entirely, and they all go eat at an In n Out after they leave the park.
The local is undesirable, too- the local who visits often finds ways to game the system, or finds food they like better outside of the park. The vacationer, on the other hand, will make it a big event and spend whatever they feel like, because it's more of a "special occasion." They'll pay $500 a night to stay at the Disneyland Hotel, spend $15 per cocktail at the bar, fork over $30 a plate for middling food, you name it.
So this is the model the Angels seem to be following. Screw it- enough trying to cater to the larger community. The Dodgers kind of have "those people" locked down (which feels like the case in California, southern or central). And who cares, they don't spend as much money. So let's start focusing more on bringing in the Newport Beach and Anaheim Hills types.
But the obvious difference here is that the Angels are not at capacity, right? Look at all the empty seats.
I'd bet you their honest answer if you asked them about this, though, would be to say that the stadium is too big! All those empty seats are not because of the attendance drop, the issue is that there are too many seats.
They feel Angel Stadium is oversized at 45,000 seats, just as the Arizona Diamondbacks are constantly bemoaning having built a 49,000 seat stadium 20 years ago (and wishing it was more like 35,000).
That's why the Marlins built such a small stadium recently, it's why the Rockies and Indians just finished projects removing cheap seats and replacing them with restaurants, and it's why I would bet any new MLB stadiums will be sized along the lines of 35,000. If/when the Angels get their new stadium, or if they renovate Angel Stadium, they'll cut capacity too. More fans just means more people to manage, which isn't worth it unless they're wealthy and will buy beers and souvenirs.
Baseball teams are learning from the Disney model. You could price things in an accessible way to drive up attendance. Or you could just start pricing people out all while creating a "premium experience," and raise profits that way instead. Reduce stadium capacities. Jack up prices. Fancy it up.
posted by Old Man McKay at 1:25 PM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
Disney Parks (particularly the Disneyland Resort) are fairly openly having the same sorts of discussions about pricing, attendance, and how to drive even more profits.
The parks continue to grow more popular every year. In fact, Disneyland is approaching its capacity; this means that if attendance trends continue, there will literally be no more room in the park available for more guests. The park is actually "selling out" a few days each year now- days when they are literally turning people away at the gates because it is at capacity. This was unthinkable in the past.
The supply is scarce- there is a cutoff. And if there are only so many people we can let in, then you know what? Rich people only! Can't afford $100 per ticket? Or $110 next year, or $120 the year after that? Too bad.
After all, it's true... the higher paying guest is the one that comes in with the kids and buys a princess breakfast and everyone gets hats and t-shirts and all the churros they want. The guest that comes in on a discount, or who comes in without much to spend, finds ways to bring in their own food- or if they were like I was when I was a kid at Disneyland, everyone just holds out on food and souvenirs entirely, and they all go eat at an In n Out after they leave the park.
The local is undesirable, too- the local who visits often finds ways to game the system, or finds food they like better outside of the park. The vacationer, on the other hand, will make it a big event and spend whatever they feel like, because it's more of a "special occasion." They'll pay $500 a night to stay at the Disneyland Hotel, spend $15 per cocktail at the bar, fork over $30 a plate for middling food, you name it.
So this is the model the Angels seem to be following. Screw it- enough trying to cater to the larger community. The Dodgers kind of have "those people" locked down (which feels like the case in California, southern or central). And who cares, they don't spend as much money. So let's start focusing more on bringing in the Newport Beach and Anaheim Hills types.
But the obvious difference here is that the Angels are not at capacity, right? Look at all the empty seats.
I'd bet you their honest answer if you asked them about this, though, would be to say that the stadium is too big! All those empty seats are not because of the attendance drop, the issue is that there are too many seats.
They feel Angel Stadium is oversized at 45,000 seats, just as the Arizona Diamondbacks are constantly bemoaning having built a 49,000 seat stadium 20 years ago (and wishing it was more like 35,000).
That's why the Marlins built such a small stadium recently, it's why the Rockies and Indians just finished projects removing cheap seats and replacing them with restaurants, and it's why I would bet any new MLB stadiums will be sized along the lines of 35,000. If/when the Angels get their new stadium, or if they renovate Angel Stadium, they'll cut capacity too. More fans just means more people to manage, which isn't worth it unless they're wealthy and will buy beers and souvenirs.
Baseball teams are learning from the Disney model. You could price things in an accessible way to drive up attendance. Or you could just start pricing people out all while creating a "premium experience," and raise profits that way instead. Reduce stadium capacities. Jack up prices. Fancy it up.
posted by Old Man McKay at 1:25 PM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
2012 37,799 -1,291 3rd in AL West. Average ticket price $17.19
2013 37,277 -522 3rd in AL West. Average ticket price $19.71
2014 38,221 944 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-0. Average ticket price $27.14
2015 34,061 -4,160 3rd in AL West (currently). Average ticket price $27.54
Or in other words if you are going to raise prices by 35% you better put a product worth watching on the field.
posted by Gungho at 1:59 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
2013 37,277 -522 3rd in AL West. Average ticket price $19.71
2014 38,221 944 1st in AL West, lost ALDS 3-0. Average ticket price $27.14
2015 34,061 -4,160 3rd in AL West (currently). Average ticket price $27.54
Or in other words if you are going to raise prices by 35% you better put a product worth watching on the field.
posted by Gungho at 1:59 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
According to this article, things really changed after free agency:
posted by Melismata at 2:07 PM on June 18, 2015
Over the long haul [since 1975], the changes have been even more dramatic. The average salary increased from $45,000 in 1975 to $2.4 million in 2002, while the minimum salary increased from $6000 to $200,000 and the highest paid player increased from $240,000 to $22 million. This is a 5200% increase in the average salary. Of course, not all of that increase is due to free agency. Revenues increased during this period by nearly 1800% from an average of $6.4 million to $119 million, primarily due to the 2800% increase in television revenue over the same period. Ticket prices increased by 439% while attendance doubled (the number of MLB teams increased from 24 to 30).A lot of greedy people, everywhere.
posted by Melismata at 2:07 PM on June 18, 2015
Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but I tend to think that the real cause of the changes baseball (and other pro sports) are facing is not free agency... it's the death of the middle class and the growth of income inequality, coupled with the growth of television over the last 40-50 years.
Take a look at this graph, and notice what happens in about 1975...
Baseball and other pro sports have increasingly targeted the wealthier fan as the middle class fan disappears.
posted by Old Man McKay at 2:14 PM on June 18, 2015
Take a look at this graph, and notice what happens in about 1975...
Baseball and other pro sports have increasingly targeted the wealthier fan as the middle class fan disappears.
posted by Old Man McKay at 2:14 PM on June 18, 2015
Baseball and other pro sports have increasingly targeted the wealthier fan as the middle class fan disappears.
The problem with this is they're limiting the long term health of the sport.
posted by drezdn at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem with this is they're limiting the long term health of the sport.
posted by drezdn at 2:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
But because space and opportunity is limited, that limits our ability to offer things at higher price points for persons buying expensive tickets.
I feel like this is a standard problem and there are lots of solutions, like selling the same product in either a cheap or fancy container at difference prices, or selling the same amount of stuff in two sizes where one "looks" larger (but that can backfire). These can backfire, on the other hand people who are "in the know" might feel good that they are gaming the system and not one of the suckers. Or there's less obviously evil things like coupons and special sale prices which people have been using forever.
Capturing both the smart/frugal/cheapskate money AND the stupid/lazy/rich/willing to overpay money at the same place in the same store for the same thing is not at all impossible or even that hard. The real magic is to turn the smart money into lazy money by running them ragged, or getting them used to having the cheap thing and ding them sometimes when they can't get it, and turn them into people paying the sucker prices.
posted by nom de poop at 2:28 PM on June 18, 2015
I feel like this is a standard problem and there are lots of solutions, like selling the same product in either a cheap or fancy container at difference prices, or selling the same amount of stuff in two sizes where one "looks" larger (but that can backfire). These can backfire, on the other hand people who are "in the know" might feel good that they are gaming the system and not one of the suckers. Or there's less obviously evil things like coupons and special sale prices which people have been using forever.
Capturing both the smart/frugal/cheapskate money AND the stupid/lazy/rich/willing to overpay money at the same place in the same store for the same thing is not at all impossible or even that hard. The real magic is to turn the smart money into lazy money by running them ragged, or getting them used to having the cheap thing and ding them sometimes when they can't get it, and turn them into people paying the sucker prices.
posted by nom de poop at 2:28 PM on June 18, 2015
The NFL hasn't given a damn about non-affluent fans in at least 20 years.
posted by bukvich at 3:03 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by bukvich at 3:03 PM on June 18, 2015
Yeah, you guys need to have a look at the Toronto Maple Leaf's marketing plan if you want to see insanity. If fans are willing to pay any price for tickets, any price is what the owners will charge.
posted by GuyZero at 3:20 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by GuyZero at 3:20 PM on June 18, 2015
Heh, yeah. Few NHL fans have been able to afford a top tier live game for decades. Even the medium tier teams are nearly unreachable.
posted by clvrmnky at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by clvrmnky at 3:34 PM on June 18, 2015
The problem with this is they're limiting the long term health of the sport.
Very few in business have the capability of thinking more than a couple of quarters ahead at most. Long-term planning? That's not improving shareholder value/owner revenue RIGHT NOW. Screw the grandkids, I want my bonus!
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:25 PM on June 18, 2015
Very few in business have the capability of thinking more than a couple of quarters ahead at most. Long-term planning? That's not improving shareholder value/owner revenue RIGHT NOW. Screw the grandkids, I want my bonus!
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:25 PM on June 18, 2015
Can anyone clarify this, from the last link:
the hypothesis that this was all a power move to stay under a certain season attendance benchmark, thereby circumventing a payout to the city of Anaheim and continuing the ugly back and forth between Arte and Anaheim mayor Tom Tait.
posted by mediareport at 4:01 AM on June 19, 2015
the hypothesis that this was all a power move to stay under a certain season attendance benchmark, thereby circumventing a payout to the city of Anaheim and continuing the ugly back and forth between Arte and Anaheim mayor Tom Tait.
posted by mediareport at 4:01 AM on June 19, 2015
I will not take anything that article has to say seriously, Melismata, because they should have used median, not average, and as economists they should know that.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:43 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:43 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Heh, yeah. Few NHL fans have been able to afford a top tier live game for decades. Even the medium tier teams are nearly unreachable.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:34 PM on June 18 [+] [!]
Exactly. I used to have season tickets. It was more for convenience than anything, the prices were reasonable, in fact even discounted from box office prices, and while the team was doing well in the standings I had no problem selling games to friends and relatives. Then the team started tanking, and I couldn't even give tickets away...So I went to a 1/2 season. At this point the team started cutting the benefits associated with a full season. No discount from box office prices, no guaranteed playoff tickets, no guaranteed renewal for the next season. Three times my seats were sold from underneath me which forced me to move to a more expensive seat. Then the outrageous price increases started. What was once a $10.00 ticket soon became a $25.00 ticket, then $32.00, $36.00, and the final insult from $36.00 to $65.00! I gave up the seats when they went to $69.00 per seat per game. That was three years ago. Today the box office price on that seat, row 12 of a 15 row balcony, is $85.00. I splurged last year, and went to one game seated in the lower bowl, at $169.00.
posted by Gungho at 7:29 AM on June 19, 2015
posted by clvrmnky at 6:34 PM on June 18 [+] [!]
Exactly. I used to have season tickets. It was more for convenience than anything, the prices were reasonable, in fact even discounted from box office prices, and while the team was doing well in the standings I had no problem selling games to friends and relatives. Then the team started tanking, and I couldn't even give tickets away...So I went to a 1/2 season. At this point the team started cutting the benefits associated with a full season. No discount from box office prices, no guaranteed playoff tickets, no guaranteed renewal for the next season. Three times my seats were sold from underneath me which forced me to move to a more expensive seat. Then the outrageous price increases started. What was once a $10.00 ticket soon became a $25.00 ticket, then $32.00, $36.00, and the final insult from $36.00 to $65.00! I gave up the seats when they went to $69.00 per seat per game. That was three years ago. Today the box office price on that seat, row 12 of a 15 row balcony, is $85.00. I splurged last year, and went to one game seated in the lower bowl, at $169.00.
posted by Gungho at 7:29 AM on June 19, 2015
Baseball and other pro sports have increasingly targeted the wealthier fan as the middle class fan disappears.
The problem with this is they're limiting the long term health of the sport.
posted by drezdn at 2:20 PM on June 18 [+] [!]
I'm not so sure. When I was a kid in the 80s a big part of the appeal of going up to the Bronx was that the game never looked that good on even a great TV at that time. Being there live made it possible to see and hear and understand so much more. But even a mediocre, mid-sized HDTV now looks pretty good, and buying one costs less than going to the new Yankees stadium (another rant for another day...), so a fan can have a not-so-bad experience at home.
To put it another way, I don't think the long term health of the sport is dependent upon non-rich people being able to afford the live experience, and I don't think the live experience is a billion times better than home viewing anymore.
posted by ben242 at 7:45 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem with this is they're limiting the long term health of the sport.
posted by drezdn at 2:20 PM on June 18 [+] [!]
I'm not so sure. When I was a kid in the 80s a big part of the appeal of going up to the Bronx was that the game never looked that good on even a great TV at that time. Being there live made it possible to see and hear and understand so much more. But even a mediocre, mid-sized HDTV now looks pretty good, and buying one costs less than going to the new Yankees stadium (another rant for another day...), so a fan can have a not-so-bad experience at home.
To put it another way, I don't think the long term health of the sport is dependent upon non-rich people being able to afford the live experience, and I don't think the live experience is a billion times better than home viewing anymore.
posted by ben242 at 7:45 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can anyone clarify this, from the last link:
the hypothesis that this was all a power move to stay under a certain season attendance benchmark, thereby circumventing a payout to the city of Anaheim and continuing the ugly back and forth between Arte and Anaheim mayor Tom Tait.
I don't know anything about a specific payout that goes to the city if attendance reaches a particular benchmark, but here are some details on tensions between the Angels owner, Arte Moreno, and Tom Tait, the mayor of Anaheim:
Angels owner Arte Moreno discusses stadium lease at spring training
Will Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait Profit if Angels Move to Tustin?
posted by The Gooch at 7:58 AM on June 19, 2015
Does this really surprise anyone? Dude runs a business. That's what businesses do: they cater to customer demographics and pursue practices that are profitable, and ignore demographics and practices that aren't.
I'm neither condemning nor defending that state of affairs. I'm just saying: if you're outraged over this one guy, just wait until you see the entirety of global capitalism.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:53 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm neither condemning nor defending that state of affairs. I'm just saying: if you're outraged over this one guy, just wait until you see the entirety of global capitalism.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:53 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Does this really surprise anyone?
I doubt anyone finds it surprising that many businesses run on the philosophy of catering to higher end customers with more disposable income. It's just that rarely do representatives of such businesses so publicly lay bare how much disdain they have for lower income customers with less purchasing power. I think this falls into the category of things that people generally know to be true, but rarely say out loud (which is what got this guy in trouble).
posted by The Gooch at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I doubt anyone finds it surprising that many businesses run on the philosophy of catering to higher end customers with more disposable income. It's just that rarely do representatives of such businesses so publicly lay bare how much disdain they have for lower income customers with less purchasing power. I think this falls into the category of things that people generally know to be true, but rarely say out loud (which is what got this guy in trouble).
posted by The Gooch at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Found an answer to my question in a comment at the 2nd-to-last link:
The OTHER business being overlooked here is the return on investment due to taxpayers who have been covering the Stadium nut since 1966. Our payback is not based on revenues, it is based on NUMBER of tickets sold. So while Arte Moreno makes the same or more by putting fewer butts in the seats but charging more for the butts, Anaheim residents who own the Stadium get LESS or possibly NOTHING because the benchmark for paying us BEGINS at 2 million tickets sold. (Same deal covers our share of parking lot revenues too) Less than two million tickets and we get NADA. Over 2 million and we get $2 per ticket.
You'd think that would be worth confirming by a journalist somewhere, but there's the theory, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 1:40 AM on June 20, 2015
The OTHER business being overlooked here is the return on investment due to taxpayers who have been covering the Stadium nut since 1966. Our payback is not based on revenues, it is based on NUMBER of tickets sold. So while Arte Moreno makes the same or more by putting fewer butts in the seats but charging more for the butts, Anaheim residents who own the Stadium get LESS or possibly NOTHING because the benchmark for paying us BEGINS at 2 million tickets sold. (Same deal covers our share of parking lot revenues too) Less than two million tickets and we get NADA. Over 2 million and we get $2 per ticket.
You'd think that would be worth confirming by a journalist somewhere, but there's the theory, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 1:40 AM on June 20, 2015
« Older Number one in the hood, G. | The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dortmunder at 9:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]