Jonathan Daniel - Getty Images
The bleachers are starting to look like this -- much more often than Cubs management would probably like, with more gulls than people.
For the last seven years, since the 2003 Cubs came within five outs of the... well, you know... the Cubs have simply assumed that they could just swing open the gates for each home game and every seat would be filled. Not only that, but a huge, 100,000+ name waiting list for season tickets has given them the presumption that if the ballpark started to empty out -- as it has begun to -- that people would be lined up to take the place of those who no longer want to go, whatever their reasons for not buying tickets.
This post will take a look at current attendance trends and why the Cubs can no longer operate under that assumption -- or they will wind up losing tens of millions of dollars.
The Cubs have sold over three million tickets (and I say "tickets sold" because that is far different from how many are actually in the park) every year since 2004. In fact, they would have done so in 2003 had the final Friday game of the season not been rained out; because there were only two days left they had to play a straight doubleheader the next day and had only 80 home dates. The 2003 Cubs finished 37,370 short of three million, and only 27 dates that year drew less than 37,370, almost all of them in April and May.
Using that 37,370 figure as a benchmark -- because early-season games have occasionally not sold out due to cold weather, even in good years -- the following box will clearly illustrate the Cubs' problem. These are the number of crowds lower than 37,370 each season since 2003:
2004: 1 2005: 1 2006: 14 2007: 6 2008: 0 2009: 9 2010: 27
The figure from this season, obviously, stands out. Of the six remaining dates this year, three of them (the three night games vs. the Giants) are almost certain to draw less than 37,000 -- and if the weather isn't good for those games, the "crowd" in the house those nights could be 10,000 or less. Total attendance reported to date in 2010 is 2,840,917; the Cubs need to average 26,514 over the remaining six dates to pass three million for the seventh straight season and they should do that, barring a rainout that has to be made up as anything other than a split doubleheader. This will still be the smallest attendance figure since 2003, and there are, in my opinion, two primary reasons:
Those aren't in order of importance, and I think the Cubs completely discounted the effects of the recession this season. None of the lack of ticket sales had anything to do with lack of "buzz" or promotional efforts; it's simply a combination of a bad team and tough financial times for many.
The 2009 team wasn't terrible, but neither was it great and after early August, it faded out of contention -- we saw the results in the stands when late-season crowds were only about half the "tickets sold" number. That's been the case again in the just-completed homestand. Total attendance for the nine games was 303,013, or 33,668 per game. That number is skewed by the sellouts last Saturday and Sunday; average for the other seven dates (by tickets sold) was 31,822 and I would estimate that the average "in the house" on those dates was under 20,000. A number to watch for in the remaining six home dates is 30,000; there have been only two paid crowds under that number since 2002, on September 7, 2006 (27,105) and August 30, 2010, last week against the Pirates, 29,538. If the Cubs draw fewer than 27,105 for any game during the next homestand, it would be the smallest since September 11, 2002, when only 20,503 paid to see the Cubs play the Expos. That was, of course, before the 2003 team raised expectations and, until now, demand for tickets.
This is what the Cubs risk by pricing their product too high during tough economic times. The Cubs had four pricing tiers this year: marquee (26 dates), gold (30), silver (19) and value (five). There's no way there were 26 dates during 2010, as priced, that were actually "marquee" dates. A more reasonable split might be the way the New York Mets split up their dates, five ways: platinum (four), gold (21), silver (25), bronze (21) and value (10). Night games in April, May and September draw good TV ratings -- but in cool weather, people aren't going to buy tickets next year at these prices. If the Cubs do go to a Mets-style schedule split, though, one thing they should not do is emulate the Mets' seating and ticket pricing chart, which is almost incomprehensible. There are 210 different pricing levels based on game date for Mets games on that chart.
Back to the Cub Dilemma: if they want to be a big-market team and compete with the big boys (Yankees and Red Sox, primarily), they have to be able to spend like those teams on payroll. But the high payrolls of the last two years have not resulted in winners, thus depressing demand for tickets and reducing revenue. And yet, if the Cubs keep the ticket prices at current levels, demand is likely to continue to be depressed. Look at the large numbers of people this year who bought tickets and didn't even show up over the last nine games. Next year, those tickets won't even be sold, unless prices come down, even by a modest amount as a goodwill gesture.
The Cubs could try a model like the Giants' dynamic pricing system, which adjusts prices for every game based on opponent, weather, time of year, even whether Tim Lincecum is pitching or not. Now, if the team doing that does poorly, the season ticket holder (like me) winds up paying more than someone buying individual games -- but if the team does well, the season ticket holder, who has price certainty, gets a bargain. That would be the risk taken by a season ticket buyer in such a system, but that person also gets the reward of guaranteed postseason ticket purchasing rights if the team makes it.
Now, of course I have a personal stake in this. Sure, I'd love for my tickets to be less expensive in 2011. But I also understand that the Cubs have to generate money to put a winning team on the field. It is a difficult issue and I know I don't have all the answers -- one of which, of course, is trying to move some of the large-dollar contracts that have not been productive.
I do know that if the Cubs don't find a fan-friendly answer to this issue, they are likely to have ticket sales drop precipitously in 2011, because the economic recession isn't ending any time soon. The Cubs aren't the only team that's fighting this battle -- check out Maury Brown's post today at Biz of Baseball which indicates that MLB attendance is going to be down for the second straight year, and the numbers would be even lower if not for the opening of Target Field. Twins attendance is up over 11,000 a game, and the only contending teams with significant attendance increases are the Rangers, Reds and Rockies.
I don't know if there is any conclusion I can draw except that some lowering of ticket prices, whether it be by dollar amount, different tiers of games or both, is necessary to lure ticket buyers back to the ballpark -- even if the player payroll is kept the same in an attempt to contend next year. Otherwise, there will be more empty seats in 2011.
1 recs | 297 comments
It's pretty sad that the Rays play such good ball, but they barely draw anyone.
braziliancubsfan - September 9, 2010
Yes...Tampa fans don't know how good they have it:
That is mind boggling, to say the least. I know things are bad all over, but, not even 2 million?
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
Rays tickets appear to be overpriced
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
WOW!!!...I'd say so
No wonder. Isn’t Tampa sort of a retirement community? If so, no wonder nobody goes. That’s ridiculous.
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
It is also a 20 year old domed stadium
It’s not like they are playing at Miller Park, Chase Field, etc.
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
True.
If they ever build this new park, they’ll draw a lot better.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
That looks cool!
Can that roof come down?
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
Not sure.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
New Rays Marketing Slogan
Tampa Bay Rays: Stealing the Mothership from the Chicago Bears
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
This is what they said back in the early 1970s about THIS place...
One of the worst venues for baseball ever. Might as well have been an airport hanger. It sure sounded like one…
Zeke - September 9, 2010
Expos Drew Well For A While
The Expos drew well in the early 1980’s. After Gary Carter left the club, the attendance tanked.
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
I saw the Cubs play there in 1981
and it was terrible. There might have been 8,000 there. Mostly Cubs fans. The echo was ungodly…ly…ly…ly…
Zeke - September 9, 2010
Really, That's Surprising
The Cubs were terrible in 1981. Not all that many had WGN back in those days. The WGN effect hadn’t kicked in yet to make Cubs fans of those outside Chicagoland. It’s all relative. Even with attendance being down league wide the last couple of years, MLB draws a whole lot better than it did in 1981. 8000 fannies in the seats might not have looked so horrible back in 1981.
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
Checking my old ticket stubs, I was wrong. It was 1990.
Zeke - September 10, 2010
Stade Olympique
Saw the Cubs play there in 2004. Most bizarre baseball experience I think I’ve ever had. Small crowd, lousy atmosphere. Sad, really.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 10, 2010
Best thing about the park was being able to take a subway
and have it drop you off right under the park entrance. Easy in- easy out, back to the hotel.
Zeke - September 10, 2010
Oh, 1990
That explains everything. I believe the Expos in the early 1980’s benefitted from getting good at the same time the Canadiens were beginning to slide. The Canadiens had a series of playoff failures in the early 1980’s. After Gary Carter left the Expos, the Canadiens started having success again in the playoffs. The Expos franchise never recovered.
memphiscub - September 10, 2010
yes
I vaguely remember hearing that it function like the expos park (pictured below) was supposed to work.
mjk83 - September 10, 2010
And it was regularly broken to the point that the last time it broke
they simply refused to fix it and left the dome closed all the time.
Zeke - September 10, 2010
It's a canopy...
that can open and close as the weather requires.
That stadium plan is not likely to happen though due to political reasons, that and keeping the team in St. Pete period won’t help attendance, particularly on weekdays.
Chris Dobbertean - September 9, 2010
In a hurricane, sure.....
ClarkFan - September 9, 2010
It was supposed to, yes.
BabeRuthPose - September 10, 2010
The roof is actually a a teflon tarp
It WOULD have been pulled over the stadium with pullies. Actually pretty cool. Too bad the plans for this park are void. its not gonna happen.
blbnow - September 10, 2010
Talked to some folks from Tampa up here during the previous homestand
and they said that plans for that park and location have fallen through. Guess they just couldn’t make the numbers work. Supposedly team and local officials are now trying to find a new location on the Tampa side of the bay.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
Too bad.
That’s the coolest stadium design I have ever seen.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Agreed
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
Wonder if the lagoon is home run reachable?
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
Yes
It was supposed to be the Tampa Bay equivalent of McCovey Cove.
Chris Dobbertean - September 9, 2010
Looks like the perfect structure to watch on Youtube
get absolutely decimated by any tropical storm.
Craig in South Bend - September 9, 2010
My thoughts EXACTLY. This is hurricane alley for pete's sake!
They understand the concept of a SAIL, right?
Zeke - September 9, 2010
Yeah that would be my worry as a resident.
Pay a lot of money for a unique, wonderful stadium with tax dollars and watch it slide into the sea…
Sandberg's evil twin - September 9, 2010
That link posted here the other day
regarding the design of the Rockies/D-Backs Spring Training facility also posted a story about a new baseball park for Las Vegas.
Mayor Oscar Goodman said (if it’s built) it’s to lure 2 AL teams away from their current locations. He didn’t name the teams.
But, the Rays, are one of the teams…since their plans for the above pictured ball park have ended…and the A’s, since Cisco Field plans seem to have fallen apart.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - September 9, 2010
The Rays will never draw until they move to Tampa...
…the dome is just too far removed from Tampa, and there is really nothing/no one near the dome. People from Tampa, or even inland towards Orlando, are simply not gonna make that trip to St. Pete everyday. Good baseball, or not.
NashCub - September 9, 2010
Why not?
It’s not that far from Tampa to St. Pete.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 9, 2010
Maybe it's not far as the pelican flies...
…but as the car drives, it has the potential to be far – time-wise – considering there aren’t too many ways to get across the bay.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
Let me put it this way...
I used to live in Polk County, East of Tampa. My parents and brother, who are all huge Rays fans (since the days when they were terrible…my dad never even watched baseball until we took him to a game in ’04), still live there and used to go a fair number of games, but the time investment, especially on weekdays was just too much.
I used to be able to make it to the Trop in 45-60 minutes from my apartment in Lakeland on Saturday or Sunday, but the same trip for a 7 p.m. weeknight start takes anywhere from 2-3 hours because of traffic. It’s simply not fun to sit through rush hour in both Tampa and St. Pete.
Chris Dobbertean - September 10, 2010
I've never
driven that stretch in rush hour. Didn’t realize it was that bad.
Is it as bad from St. Pete to Tampa?
Not Bruce Froemming - September 10, 2010
the top tier is cray-zee -
but those upper deck seats aint that bad compared to cubs tix prices.
paul_reuschel - September 9, 2010
To be fair...
They’re only overpriced when they’re playing anyone who’s not the Royals.
BabeRuthPose - September 10, 2010
You are kidding right?
I can get a lower box (encompasses all but the best seats and includes seats next to the bullpen) for between $33 and $65 depending on the opponent? Oh, and I get to see the best or second best team in baseball? That sounds like a good deal to me.
JSB - September 10, 2010
I'll put it this way
For your seat (outfield) you can pay between $12 and $27.
That chart you linked to is really misleading because probably less than 5% of the seats are in the top 5 price tiers.
JSB - September 10, 2010
Doesn't look that way to me.
The best seats in the house are overpriced.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
"The best seats in the house"
There are plenty of seats that are very affordable. The sections that are “overpriced”
Fieldside box (pink colored): Look to be the first 5 rows up to the bullpen. You could never sniff those seats at Wrigley Field.
Lower Infield Box (black colored): Look to be the next 3 rows up to the bullpen. Same.
Whitney Bank Club (bright teal): a single section that looks to be some sort of suite area
Avatair Home Club (white): probably a total of 100 seats right around home plate
Whitney Bank Club (purple): fairly large section of seats, but it looks to be skyboxes. The Cubs don’t even advertise these.
’
If you have to sit in the first 5 rows on the infield to want to go to a ballgame, then perhaps they are overpriced. But, I don’t believe the pricing of super-premium seats are why the Rays can’t draw more than 12,000 fans. Compared to any of the big market ballclubs, Rays seats are a steal.
JSB - September 10, 2010
Stubhub has a better chart
As you can see, the super-premium seats are very small in number.
http://www.stubhub.com/tampa-bay-rays-tickets/rays-vs-yankees-9-13-2010-894027/
JSB - September 10, 2010
It's supply and buy (demand).
“What the Cubs are supplyin’, the public ’ain’t buyin’.”
Sounds like a bumper sticker to me. I get 10% of all sales for the idea.
Zeke - September 9, 2010
I'm curious, Al.
Did tiered pricing come up in your talk with Ricketts last month?
elgato - September 9, 2010
Are you talking about the current tiers?
Or something like the dynamic pricing model of the Giants?
In either case, the answer is no.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I was talking about the issue generally.
I thought you might have mentioned it to Ricketts.
Good article, BTW. My only gripe is that I don’t think the team thought that filling seats was as easy as you described after 2006. The big part of the spending that offseason was to get fans back. But I think you know that, and you were just over-generalizing a bit in your writing.
elgato - September 9, 2010
Exactly.
Two things are different now: prices are much higher and we are in a recession.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Increase Number of Value Games
You’ll never see me at Wrigley between June and August because of the insane amount of platinum games the Cubs have. The Cubs need to cut back on the platinum games and increase the amount of bronze or value games to increase attendance.
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
It's not just that.
As I said, April, May and September night games are a tough sell because of the weather. Some of those need to be value games, too, not just the April/May/Sept day games.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
It's exactly what the movie states...
“If you build it, they will come”. Meaning, a half-assed team like this year’s, just won’t cut it. Not for those prices. It must give SOME incentive for Ricketts to put a winner on the field…sooner than later, wouldn’t ya think?
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
Gulls count too!
And look, most of them are paying attention to the game!
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
But they didn't pay to get in.
And FWIW, they appear to be gone for the season — didn’t see them at all this past homestand.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Probably flying around Soldier Field now...Bears still have a chance, but, they'll be gone from there soon, too.
Easy Ed - September 9, 2010
Not even the gulls can stomach the Cubs any longer...
Sad… :(
Zeke - September 9, 2010
That is sad when even the gulls don't want to stay long enough to crap on the field.
Probably have seen too much of the home team doing it.
Sandberg's evil twin - September 9, 2010
Don't tell that to Frank Maloney
“Nobody gets in for free.” said Frank “Tommy, get out the pellet gun.”
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
It's no longer cool...
…to simply go watch a losing team at Wrigley and this changed after 2003.
The occasional divisional win has bought good will during down years, but two straight under performing seasons with the highest payroll has become more difficult to digest and will continue to be if it isn’t fixed.
Now, Ricketts has to ask himself one question; how do I fix this to put the club in the best position to have “long term” success and not suffer huge down years like 05, 06, 09 and 10?
I believe his actions over the next several months will tell us how he will answer this question.
MPH73 - September 9, 2010
Well, that and $50 bleacher tickets and $7 beers...
Zeke - September 9, 2010
I understand....
…but that wouldn’t matter if the product was quality.
MPH73 - September 9, 2010
Dump season tickets
Yes they will. Are you giving up your tickets? I know you have stated before that you aren’t, but have you changed your mind?
I did a poll in my section and everyone I have spoken to is renewing next year. No one can stomach being left out of a Cubs World Series season even when there is every reason in the world to believe that the Cubs are nowhere close to making that happen.
Season ticket holders will come back because they all know there are 100,000+ people waiting to take their tickets when they tell the Cubs to shove their “Way of Life.” I can’t get the Cubs to give me an answer about how many of the tickets sold are season tickets, but I guesstimate about 25,000 and I bet I’m not far off.
They will keep ticket prices where they are because they will sell almost 60% of their seats without having to do anything. If they don’t sell one single-game ticket next year, they will already be ahead of 10 MLB teams average attendance figures from this year.
I’m done with handing over large chunks of my cash to a team that has no plan to act like a large market team any time soon. I beg other season ticket holders to also tell the Cubs to take their renewal form and cram it.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
No, I'm not giving up my tickets.
I think people here should know that by now. You make your own choices, and so will everyone else. I suspect there are a lot of season ticket holders like you, and a lot of the people on the waiting list won’t buy them if the prices aren’t lowered. My guess is that half of the people on that list signed up during the fair-weather frenzy around 2007 or 2008 and don’t even care any more.
I had heard the figure 27,000 for season tickets — that sounds about right. Might be a little less.
One other thing that the Cubs have to worry about in terms of sales: not all those empty seats are from season ticket holders who didn’t show up. Some of them are from single game buyers or brokers who bought those tickets for various reasons. My guess is that more than 90% of those tickets won’t be bought in 2011 unless prices come down and/or the team is perceived to be better.
For the first time in years, they may not need a wristband system for the first day of single game sales next February.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
27,000 season tickets puts them ahead of 13 other teams...
…and right behind the White Sox. That is over 65% of capacity without having to do anything. They could bat Laura Ricketts clean-up and they would draw 27,000 people every game. For every dollar they reduce ticket prices, they will lose almost $2.2 million in revenue from the people who are locked in.
Sure there will be turnover, but those 27,000 seats are sold. They could raise prices and they would be sold. They don’t have to do anything to appease you or anyone else because they have 100,000 people waiting to take those tickets. Even if there is a 90% decline rate, more than 10,000 current season ticket holders would have to bail to make the guranteed number of sold tickets go down.
Why on earth would they lower prices for no reason when they have $450 million in debt?
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
They'd lower prices ...
if they think that enough people would buy tickets at the lower prices to make up or surpass the $2.2 million you came up with in your (admittedly, not crazy) cocktail napkin math.
Changes to the tiered pricing is something that SHOULD happen.
elgato - September 9, 2010
I'm not so sure they'll all be sold.
You might be surprised at how quickly that waiting list dwindles to zero.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Then why not give up the tickets?
If the wait list is going to be down to zero so fast, we can get right back in if we bail.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
Because I don't want to give them up.
My choice. Your choice is different. I have my reasons, you have yours.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I was speaking in general terms
Do what you want with your money.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
You too.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
How often do you plan to jump back in?
After 1997? – 68 wins
After 2002? – 67 wins
After 2006? – 66 wins
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
I got in 1998
I thought the farm system was starting to come around and I liked the moves they had made in the short-term. Clearly I was wrong about the farm system, but it was a fun ride.
My seats cost $750 at the time and now they are over $3300. I won’t pay that amount to watch crappy baseball anymore. I’ve reached my limit. As long as there are 27,000 people who haven’t reached theirs, ticket prices will go nowhere but up.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
I'm in the same boat as you
Got in 1998. My tickets are not quite that price, but not far behind. I was easier before when we had just nights and weekend and we could buy extra tickets before the single game tickets went on sale. Then 2003, season tickets sales went up…
I expect a few people that I share tickets with to bail. But not the people I go to the most games with.
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
Risky, I own 5 seats, 5th row behind the plate and bought them in the
winter of 1983, before the 84 season. That year, my tickets cost $3800 for all five. Last year the same seats cost me $38,900. I am considering bailing out and buying tickets from a broker when I want to go. Years ago, I bought them for business, but that’s not the case now. I talked to some of my seat neighbors last weekend and they too are thinking of bailing. Too many games at too high a price. The Cubs have a real problem this offseason. I’m not spending that much money to watch a Chicago version of the Pirates/Indians/Royals, trying to go young and cheap. Simple as that.
cubswin - September 9, 2010
No problem! My salary today is 10 times what it was in 1983, so...
… oh, … wait a minute… no it isn’t. CRAP!
Son of a
Zeke - September 9, 2010
The price is steep
and at least before August of 2009, you could offset your cost on the resale market.
I have a friends with seats in the same section. When the Dugout box seats went, people asked if he was mad. He said no, the dugout box seats just the secondary market for his seats. I think they were originally $250 when they were built.
RiskyBusiness - September 10, 2010
Also...
… the White Sox don’t have 27,000 season tickets. 17,000 is more like it — the Sox have had 34 announced crowds of under 27,000 this year, which would be impossible if they had 27,000 season tickets.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Right.
The Cubs would almost outdraw the Sox based on season ticket sales alone. Where is the incentive to drop prices?
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
See below.
A drop of 10,000 per game would cost the Cubs tens of millions of dollars.
Lowering prices would allow a lot of those tickets to sell. Wouldn’t the Cubs rather sell tickets at a lower price than NOT sell them at the current price?
I could see them going to a dynamic pricing system like the Giants.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Depends how much the drop in price is, and how much the attendance increases because of it.
If you drop prices by 50% to get a 25% increase in attendance, you will have less money than if you’d just left prices where they were.
Wreckard - September 9, 2010
Of course.
But I’m not suggesting that large a decrease.
What’s your opinion on the dynamic pricing model?
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I like dynamic pricing, though to a certain extent the Cubs already do that
By having their own secondary market (reselling their own tickets at a markup) they are sort of doing this in high-demand situations.
The problem of course is that seasons like this are not high-demand situations. I’d be curious if the Cubs-owned ticket broker is now selling their tickets below face.
That’s irrelevant. The point is that if the % of cost decrease is less than the increase in attendance that results, you loose money.
Wreckard - September 9, 2010
As far as the Cubs owned broker is concerned
I’m pretty sure all their inventory was placed back for general sale. Their booth at the ballpark is never open.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Any Numbers on Concession Sales?
I’ve got to think there has been a serious dropoff in that area with fewer fannies in the seats.
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
Fans spend $2-5 per person on concessions
From here
Wreckard - September 9, 2010
$2-$5 seems low
Should be more like $20-$50 unless there is a lot of people that don’t spend anything.
MikeOxbyg - September 9, 2010
Actually that's revenue generated per fan for the team
After the contractors take their cut. They talk about it in the link.
Wreckard - September 9, 2010
There has been a serious dropoff.
section229beer - September 10, 2010
One more thing.
If the Cubs draw 27,000 per game in 2011, they will be in serious financial trouble. That would be a 30% drop in attendance.
Which is equivalent to what they dropped between 1973 and 1974, when that core team was broken up and they lost 96 games in 1974.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
A new core is in place now, is it not?
Did they have something to build around then, or did they just break up everybody with no real talent left?
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
They pretty much broke up the entire team.
Go look at the Cubs 1973 roster and compare it to the 1974 roster.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
How is a new core in place?
Castro is there, but Colvin (as things stand right now) isn’t even guaranteed a starting job next year. Byrd, Soriano, Ramirez and Soto are are holdovers, DeWitt is no lock (though I think he’ll be next year’s starter) and who knows who will be at first?
I’d say a new core is forming, but slowly.
elgato - September 9, 2010
You know...
Castro,Soto,Dewitt(who more than likely will be our starting 2b next year and maybe longer), Colvin, and our pitching rotation that will fix itself with some of the young pitching talent.
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
I guess we're just debating semantics.
But Soto is far from new, and the middle-order guys as of right now are still holdovers.
elgato - September 9, 2010
People will buy tickets if the team is good
They won’t if it is bad. Dropping ticket prices is asking the Ricketts to take a known amount of money out of their pockets on the proposition that their marketing plan trumps whatever crap team the Cubs field next year.
They would be reducing the revenue stream on purpose in hopes that single-game purchasers (who are inherently fickle) will all decide that Cubs baseball is awesome again. if I have 27,000 people who want to buy my product at any price, I keep it exactly the way it is and have a few sales during the year if it looks like the single-games aren’t selling so well.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
I'm not suggesting a 50% cut in price or anything like that.
A small reduction would send a goodwill message to fans, while not reducing revenues that much.
And, if they went to a dynamic pricing model, if the team did well, they could RAISE prices during the season when demand went up.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Dynamic pricing could work
But it still adds an unknown factor into the mix when they don’t need one. Right now, the best plan is to overprice and get as much money from the fans who are afraid they’ll miss out on something special and then offer discounts later to people who stayed away.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
Which...
… as happened earlier this year, pissed off a lot of season ticket holders.
The dynamic pricing model wouldn’t, because you would be getting price certainty as a STH. If the team sucks and the price drops — well, that’s the chance you took, but you knew ahead of time.
If the team is good and prices go higher than what you paid, then you get a bargain AND you have postseason rights.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Yes, but not enough to make you stop being a customer
They have you and me and everyone else who is locked into season tickets because they know whatever crap they pull, we aren’t going anywhere.
So I am and I hope others do too, but I know they won’t and so do the Cubs.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
Revenues outside tickets will go up if price comes down.
When the price hits a fairer value more folks will come. This means more merch and food/beer revenues and parking (I think the Grace St) lot is Cub-owned.
This argument would say that variable pricing model is best. You aren’t ever going to be overpriced. Or you shouldn’t be, anyways.
cj100683 - September 9, 2010 via mobile
There's something else beyond ticket pricing.
Food and souvenirs are also overpriced.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
But...
People need to eat and they certainly need their beer so they still buy it. The profit margins on beer are extremely high. Less people to buy the beer is not good for business.
Also the problem with fans not coming is that to a lot of people (like me) already-purchased tickets are a sunk cost. It may not be worth 60 bucks to drive down from Wisconsin and take a day off of work to see the Cubs/Cards game on Friday. I can’t even sell the tickets for half price to people in Chicago!
cj100683 - September 9, 2010 via mobile
That’s right — for this year. Next year, will tickets like that even be sold? That is the Cubs’ dilemma.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Not to me.
I did the 9 game pack. I’m still on the waitlist so I don’t lose out on anything. I don’t think the product on the field will make the playoffs. If it does, I’ll splurge with what I didn’t spend during the season.
cj100683 - September 9, 2010 via mobile
Sure, IF you can get tickets.
That’s one reason why people get season tickets in the first place.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I'll take my chances
cj100683 - September 9, 2010 via mobile
You can always get tickets
for any game including playoffs. I’ve never missed out on a game when I wanted to go, and the most (by far) I ever payed was for a last minute ticket to Game 7 in 2003 for $250.
paulucla - September 10, 2010
You're very lucky.
WHEN the Cubs make the World Series, tickets won’t be that cheap.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
I wanna go to a game, but...
with it being a PITA to get there, lousy parking and all I’m not willing to shell out the cash for a team that stinks on ice. If they were playing good ball I certainly would. Heck now that they apparently have handicapped seats in the bleachers I wanna come out and hang with the BCB crew.
Endrick - September 9, 2010
This is so dumb...
I want a winning team again. Once the winning comes back, so will the fans. Losing sucks.
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
Look at the 2008 team having 0 games with less than 37,370 people...
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
Lower attendance also means lower concession sales too
Assuming on average that one fan will spend $10 on concessions at the game, a drop of actual attendance of 5,000 per game means a loss of approximately $4 million in revenue.
Chi-Fed - September 9, 2010
Am I the only one...
who misses the old, half-empty, advertising-free Wrigley, with the habitually crappy teams and the low expectations and the hot dog wrappers swirling in the outfield? Maybe it’s just because that was the baseball I grew up with and learned to love, but these last few years I’ve found myself following the Royals and Pirates out of the corner of my eye, envying their fans’ low expectations. I guess I have a thing for underdogs, which the Cubs just aren’t anymore, 102-year World Series drought or no. They are one of the “big boys” now, kind of like the Yankees and Red Sox, but more like the Mets, because they don’t win and are relatively unlikeable.
DomingoRamos - September 9, 2010
Nope, not the only one.
Dan Serafini - September 9, 2010
Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration? Do you really think the Cubs just made that assumption? I realize much of what this team has done over the years has constantly befuddled us, but your opening lines makes them out to be somewhat akin to marketing morons. I don’t think they’re that stupid.
I also don’t think they’re just sitting around, looking at the 120,000+ names on the waiting list and chuckling as they drink their brandy and smoke cigars. You don’t think they realize there’s a lot of ‘fat’ in that list?
What they need to do – and I would guess they are constantly doing this – is figure out how many of those names are legitimate, i.e. folks who would be serious about buying season tickets if given the opportunity. If that number is in the 50-60,000 range, i.e. 50%, then I don’t see them sweating much. However, the closer that number gets to say… 10,000, then yeah, I’d think they’d be properly motivated.
It’s a business, Al. Goodwill gestures are a nice thought and all, but I don’t see them making big changes quite yet. There’ll be some changes for sure, but not to the extent you’ve suggested. They’ll try the small stuff first before they go for the big overhaul.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
You & I talked about this yesterday.
Yes, small changes will probably come first, because yes, I do believe the Cubs think they can just throw the gates open and people will flock to the park. Look at this year’s marketing campaign: it was trying to sell the Wrigley experience. As I have said many times, if they keep doing that, they will fail. Look at the minor league game they put on this year — drew less than 9,000, compared to a near sellout the first time.
They have to make adjustments. Your ‘brandy and cigars’ line is an exaggeration — but not by much.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I guess I didn't get my point across yesterday then
The motivation to make any changes is going to be determined by how big the realistic number is on that waiting list. Given that their season ticket base is 25-27K, I’d say anything in the range of 1.5-2.0x that figure is enough of ‘safety stock’ that they don’t need to be sounding the alarm. Once you get below your turnover figure, i.e. 1.0x, then you better start bailing fast.
Just putting it in nice round numbers:
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
The point, however...
… is that unless people think the team is going to be better next year, there may be a mass exodus from both the season ticket base AND the waiting list, at current prices.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Al, I agree with that statement 100%
cubswin - September 9, 2010
A mass exodus to the tune of 80,000+?
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
80,000+ what?
People on the waiting list? Maybe. There may be 100,000 names on it, but as I wrote above, maybe as many as half of those signed up in the 2007-2008 frenzy and don’t care any more. Costs nothing to stay on the list. Maybe the Cubs should charge a small annual fee (say, $50-$100) to stay on the list and give people the right to buy a small number of tickets (2-4) for doing that.
That’d weed out half the list at least.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I only signed up a couple weeks ago
to find out for you how many were on that list. It was 115646. I decided to stay on the list just on the off chance that if and when the time comes I want them.
katie casey - September 9, 2010
Thanks for the report on how many people are now on the list.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
no problem
katie casey - September 9, 2010
Gee, I'm feeling better about my position:
10234! We moved UP this year!
Zeke - September 9, 2010
Damn...ya got me!
I’m at 103700!
mikegncb34 - September 9, 2010
I'm surprised Crane hasn't already implemented this idea
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
Think about it.
Say 50,000 stay on the list at $50 each. That’s $2.5 million, essentially free money.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Half of John Grabow's 2011 salary!!!
ClarkFan - September 9, 2010
Don't you think there would be some sort of backlash?
I mean, really, If I was on the waitlist, now I have to PAY to stay on the waitlist? Depending on my number, I could be on that list for 10 years.
The reason I am saying this is because the Cubs have one of the highest ticket prices and now you are scalping more money from me for the opportunity to buy season tickets in the future? It’s not the money, it’s the principle, in my opinion.
Sure, the Cubs need $ to stay competitive (what did I just type! Highest payroll in the NL and we were out of it before the ivy turned green, for goodness sakes). They need to improve how they scout their free agents, especially the ones that they give away the farm to.
The problems this team has are many and they have been discussed as nauseum, but giving them more money when they really haven’t improved the product is beyond me.
BigJohnAZ - September 9, 2010
But the point is...
… probably half that waiting list doesn’t even care any more. That was evidenced by the fact that many people turned down the chance to buy season tickets last winter even though they were at the top of the list and as such, had been waiting up to six years to get them.
A small cost per year — say, $50 — which would also give you a chance to buy a small number of tickets ahead of the general sale, would tell the Cubs who is serious about season tickets and who isn’t, without a huge cost attached.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
We were #3000 on the list before the season
We checked about 3 weeks before the season and I was still #3000+ on the waiting list (I signed up in 2004). A week later I got a call from the Cubs, so that gives you an idea how quickly that waiting list can dwindle down. Besides lack of interest, think about how outdated the contact information becomes if people change email addresses or phone numbers. And no, we don’t see the Cubs lowering ticket prices next season.
Cubs Fan Report - September 10, 2010
Say they charge $200 per season ticket holder for PSLs
That’s roughly $5.5 million of essentially free money
berselius - September 9, 2010
You're talking about $200 per PSL?
Or $200 per year per PSL?
I’d pay that for a PSL — but I doubt PSL’s would come that cheap.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
$200 was just a number I pulled from my ass
I don’t remember what the amount discussed was (if there even was a number). My point is the same ‘free money’ argument applies just as easily to PSLs as it does to doing so on the waiting list.
berselius - September 10, 2010
or simply raising season ticket prices
If people are willing to pay more, for the off chance of getting WS tickets, then it’s ‘free money’ to the Cubs
berselius - September 10, 2010
My point was...
… in this economy, people aren’t going to do that.
PSL’s aren’t quite the same as a spot on the waiting list. PSL’s, at least the way I understand them, allow you to buy/sell the rights to your season tickets. $200 is way too low for that.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
My recollection of PSL's
Was that it was basically a fee you either had to pay or lose your tickets.
berselius - September 10, 2010
Correct, but..
… no PSL fee I’ve ever heard of was as low as $200.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
I feel as though this conversation comes up a lot
but I have my name on the Bears list now. I had to pay $100 per requested seat to get on it. Largely because of that I am #5575 on the Bears list as opposed to 40,000+ on the Cubs list.
mjk83 - September 10, 2010
Let's say for the sake of argument, Cubs make no ticket prices/tiers changes, i.e. status quo.
We now know, thanks to Katie, how many are currently on the waiting list. And using your STH educated guesstimate, we have the current scenario:
Season Ticket Holders – 27,000
Waiting List – 115,000 (rounding down)
So if there are no changes in ticket structure, how many STH’s do you think will leave? Even if half the waiting list is fat, that’s still 57,500 people waiting to buy. That’s over twice the season ticket holder base.
I understand your pain and/or outrage, but simple math ought to tell you it just doesn’t matter yet. And please note, I keep using the word ‘yet’.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
ballhawk
I think they probably have a very good idea of how many people on the waiting list are serious.
Two or three years ago they starting offering the mini-pseudo packages of 9 games (and did it go up to 13?) to people on the waiting list, a month ahead of single tickets going on sale. The results of those promotions will pretty much tell them all they need to know.
(BTW, I wouldn’t call the non-serious people on the list “fat”, I’d call them something more like “phantom” buyers. As in they’re not really there….)
JohnM - September 9, 2010
The 9 and 13 game packs were offered to everyone, not just waiting list people.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Yes
but there was a two week period in January when it was offered to waiting list people first (in the first year, 2008, anyway). Regardless, they have data on how many of the waiting list people jumped at that chance and how many blew it off.
JohnM - September 10, 2010
Earlier this year..........
…………I met a new (2010) season ticket holder in the bleachers. After the 2009 season, he knew was roughly 2500th in line, and believe it or not, a large number of those ahead of him did not take the season ticket offer.
Not sure how many tickets became available for the 2010 season, but it was likely far less than 2500. The Tribune’s “appetite” was likely greater than the Ricketts family needs, but that could only account for a few hundred seats at the most. That means more than 2000 folks decided to take a pass on purchasing season tickets, knowing full well they would have to move to the back of the line.
tville - September 9, 2010
Right, and that was BEFORE this awful season. There may be quite a lot more people willing to do the same thing this winter.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I was stunned, Al...........
……..when in April he told me he was that deep in the queue. I’d have figured turnover to be less than 1000, but who knows how many names were whacked from the list this past off-season.
I saw him at Tuesday night’s game and he asked, “So…..are you renewing for next year?” Only in for one season and he had his doubts. Pretty revealing.
tville - September 9, 2010
That's my impression, too.
I have met a handful of new bleacher STH who are there more than occasionally. I would be surprised if more than that handful renew for next year.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I'm pretty sure more than half the sign-ups on the waiting list are frivolous
There are probably thousands of people (like me) who don’t even live in Chicago who signed up for the list on a lark, thinking a) By the time my name comes up, I might be living in Chicago, and b) by the time my name comes up, I might have several thousand dollars of spare money every year.
There was no cost. You didn’t even have to pay for a stamp. Or leave your desk/house. Signing up for free stuff online is easy. Paying for 81+ tickets every year is not.
JohnM - September 10, 2010
Right.
That’s why a small charge to stay on the list would be beneficial to the Cubs.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
I'd be furious.
If they applied the fee towards the season tickets I purchase if/when it’s my turn, then I’d be OK with it. But to be charged for nothing but to wait, possibly indefinitely? You’ve got to be kidding me. No way.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
Even if you get the right to buy some tickets ahead of the general public?
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Well that might be OK.
They’d have to give something for the money. But a charge just to be on the list. NO.
I’ll be honest though. The right to buy tickets ahead of time doesn’t excite me like it used to. Not in a year like this when I had no problem getting whatever tickets I wanted. As a matter of fact, the other night I thought for a second we may have left our tickets at home. My husband joked at my initial panic saying no big deal. We could probably find some for a couple bucks.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
You're not alone in that feeling.
Which is yet another reason why they should charge to stay on the list. It would weed out the list of people who just fill out online forms for the heck of it, and get a list full of serious buyers.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Why does the list need to get weeded out?
Seriously, I really don’t understand what difference it makes? So what if they have to email a few more people.
I’m sure there were some people that were serious when they signed up but have since changed their mind and didn’t bother to take their name off. But I also think a lot of people on the list are simply thinking ahead. They might not be serious buyers if they were asked today. But they are confident that they will be serious buyers by the time their turn comes. I fit that latter category.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
even if you had the opportunity to buy Premium rivalry series?
Like Cubs v Cards before the general public?
KyCubsFan - September 10, 2010
no thanks
The last rivalry game I went to Pujols got 3 homeruns. Opening Day might interest me though.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
only rivalry game I went to
it was 5-0 Cards by the time I sat in my seat … Fortunately this being 2008 and the fact we clinched the division the next day I took the opportunity to see the ballpark.
But it sounds like a fee with “benefits” is attractive to you so then it becomes the marketing gurus job to find the right point along the curve.
KyCubsFan - September 10, 2010
It's all relative, Al
Until that season ticket waiting list gets whittled down to the 25-30,000 range, it’s not going to be significant.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
It may move faster than you think.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
So you think that list will be reduced by 75-80% in one offseason?
ballhawk - September 10, 2010
Yes, I do.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Well then, I guess I should be expecting a call/e-mail from the Cubs this off-season
Don’t know my exact place but I recall being somewhere around #72,000 on the list. Better start saving my pennies now…
ballhawk - September 10, 2010
Just checked - I'm higher than I thought. (wait for it...)
#66816. So if Al’s right, I’ll definitely be getting a phone call/e-mail from the Cubs. Guess I better start saving my nickels too…
ballhawk - September 10, 2010
I wouldn't be surprised if they went that far on the list...
… especially if prices don’t come down.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
If renewals
are slow and they start going through the list with prices at current levels and get to X (40000 or so) declines from the list CAN they make a price adjustment at that time? Or would they have to much back tracking with people who had already been passed/renewed?
What would placate a season ticket holder if they dropped ticket prices a refund or perks or a combination?
KyCubsFan - September 10, 2010
They can't do it that way.
Let’s put it this way. I was upset about the $10 bleacher tickets in June because it was a last-minute announcement that sold tickets at an 80% discount to what I paid.
Now, if they did something like a dynamic pricing model for single-game sales, with that understood up front, I would pay my season ticket price knowing that some games might sell for less. But some might sell for MORE than I paid, depending on how the team did during the year.
Adjusting season ticket prices after people had renewed — that’s not good policy and it wouldn’t happen.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
I don't think they can do it that way either.
Dynamic pricing is just a new age term for Yield Management which you have experienced in many aspects of your life previously airline flights, hotel rooms, grocery stores, so its not too big a leap that its come to baseball.
As a fan of the Cubs and someone who wants them to improve their product long term I don’t care if they give away the tickets to get the concession revenue. As long as they are generating more revenue for the team its a GOOD thing.
Also they very very much need to do this as a good business decision to see where the price point is for tickets going forward so that they can recognize what is the true value for their product.
I do think a communication to STH would be inline before they started reducing face value costs. Dear STH our cubs suck this year and we want somebody in the ballpark therefore we have to take a step we hoped never to have to in order to make sure in the long term the Chicago Cubs ball club is a perennial contender. yada yada marketing bs.
KyCubsFan - September 10, 2010
I don't think the Cubs have done a lot of Marketing for ticket sales
They definitely do not market ticket sales like a sox advertising campaign. I think the Cubs have focused on more event marketing (bobblehead) over any brand/team/player marketing campaign. And the ticket sales have shown them that they did not need to sell the brand.
In 13 years, I have seen season tickets prices increase just about every other year. It is almost like clockwork.
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
My season tickets are up 42% since 2007.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
holy cow!
katie casey - September 9, 2010
I know you said that with a Harry Carey voice
Bleachers tickets went up like a late 90’s dot-com IPO. They may have been underpriced before, but they are probably overpriced now for season tickets.
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
Right.
They passed the breaking point this year. They need to scale back or sales will drop.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
How many season tickets are sold for the bleachers?
I think Trib only sold a few hundred. did Ricketts increase that a little?
holy mackeral - September 9, 2010
Hopefull your salary went up proportionately during that time... (cough)...;)
Zeke - September 9, 2010
I can assure you it did not.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Huh. Mine neither.
In fact, after figuring in cost of living, I’m making less I think.
Zeke - September 10, 2010
They seem to have done a huge amount of marketing this year
but it is all touchy-feely brand marketing. The Wrigley Life and It’s A Way of Life campaigns are designed to sell a “lifestyle”. There’s no mention of the actual product (i.e., “tickets” for “games” featuring “players” and “wins/losses”).
And yet despite the warm and fuzzy content of the campaign, the frequency of the ads (I’ve mostly heard them on radio broadcasts) seems a very hard sell approach.
JohnM - September 9, 2010
I wouldn't call it "huge."
It was large here in town, but it wasn’t massive or anything close to that. I’m pretty sure the Sox spent more in marketing than the Cubs between March and today.
chilango2 - September 9, 2010
Good Point
The whole Year One campaign.
RiskyBusiness - September 9, 2010
I bet they will have a couple different packages
similar to the 13 (or 9?) game one they have done for the past couple years – with the additional ones for only 5 – 7 games (including at least 3 in April, May and/or September) – that plus the "’Mastecard + 15% or whatever pre-sale – with more tickets available then too. There may be some sort of limited dynamic pricing – but I’ll be it would be run through the Premium Sales department
doofusguy - September 9, 2010
Dynamic pricing
is like what the airlines do. The prices will go up closer to game time if there are very few seats left and they’ll go down if there are lots of available tickets. (The Giants softpedal that, they always say buy now to avoid price increases.) But it’s a pretty innovative way to sell tickets and if you don’t mind seeing the Brewers on a Thursday, there are some great bargains to be had.
I would think it would be at least worth investigating.
Josh Timmers - September 9, 2010
It's worked quite well for the Giants this year.
And as you say, that’s encouraged people to buy early for SF games.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Speaking of seeing the Brewers
There are tickets on Stubhub for tomorrow’s game vs. the Cubs in the upper level going for under a dollar. Two tickets + fees would be less than seven bucks.
I saw “Diamond Loge” seats under $25, face value $65.
ChipSet - September 9, 2010
A drop in ticket prices would be nice.....
even keeping prices the same would be a nice gesture. But the bottom line on this, which they are seeing up close and personal this year, is that winning is the best marketing promotion at all. Recession or no recession, if the Cubs are winning, the ballpark will be full. In fact, “Winning is the best marketing promotion” would be a great marketing promotion for next year. The fact that the marketing promo in the first year under the Ricketts was selling the ballpark experience, as opposed to winning, is concerning to say the least. Win, Mr. Ricketts, and everything else will take care of itself. Attendance, your debt, everything.
ctcoff99 - September 9, 2010
I am so happy that this has finally happened
- fans giving a bad team and a badly-run team the back of their hand. Maybe it will wake up ownership. Yeah, they can think it is about ticket prices if they want to -but they would be in denial. I am not in a mood anymore to pay even $25 to watch a bad team.A savvy owner who really wants to win will dump Hendry, put one of the winning GM’s in his big chair, and start over. What sense does it possibly make to ask the mope who designed this team — with an 8-year contract for Soriano, etc — to do the rebuilding? Some guys have a track record for sucess as GM’s. Hendry may be a nice guy but he isn’t going to put a winner on the field.
I agree that we are going to learn a lot about the Ricketts brain trust in the next few months.
NYShep - September 9, 2010
These are interesting times for the Ricketts family
A couple of really poor seasons nestled in a recession with high ticket prices makes for a potential dramatic falloff in ticket sales next year.
We will see how many season ticket holders hang on to their seats, still thinking that the Cubs chances of a WS is imminent. And, if there are a fair amount of people that do decide not to renew, we will see what the real waiting list number is.
That being said, if on December 1, the Cubs announce Ryno as manager of the team, I think they get another season of good ticket sales, as long as the Cubs are reasonably in it early on. For all intents and purposes this year, the Cubs were out of it the first week of May. They can’t do that again next year, even with the Ryno factor.
BigJohnAZ - September 9, 2010
Good call
Ryno would stir some interest for 2011, but beyond who knows. They better hope Brett Jackson, Archer are ready to take it to MLB level, and Castro, Colvin, Soto, Cashner and Marmol are at least mentioned as All Star type players.
Grockcubs - September 9, 2010
The idea to compete
with the Yankees is not in the equation. They are in a league of there own when it comes to generating revenue. They can sign Pavano, Kevin Brown, Hiedeki Irabu, and Steve Karsay ( 21M over 4 years ??) to name a few, and get away with it, absorb the loss. Red Sox can tolerate it to some extent. The Cubs appear are not able to absorb terrible signings ( or choose not to over spend). So IMO that is the predicament the Cubs are in. Bad free agent signings happen to all teams. The key is not to have as many as the Cubs have had in the last few years when it comes to length, money and the NTC.
I guess what I am trying to say is, I like the Twins model. Build within with the draft Sign your core young players ( Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer, etc..). When this happens you do not have to reach for a free agent, ie Dome, Bradley, Grabow, and go 16 years of length on Soriano’s contract.
Cubs need to build a consistent winning team like the Twins. Then you will have a product that the fans will be glad to pay see play everyday. The ticket sales boils down to one thing and one thing only, Winning.
Grockcubs - September 9, 2010
Ryno gets them through 2011
Then when next year falls apart, they blame and fire Hendry and the new hotshot GM that is full of promises will sell 2012. That is why Hendry still has a job. The Cubs are hoping by then that the Cubs farm system will have actually started bearing some fruit, a few more of their revenue enhancers will be in place, most of the bad contracts will be off the books, and they can legitimately start selling a team on the upswing.
Aisle 424 - September 9, 2010
It's not just winning or losing any longer
It is just simply not as much fun to go to a live sporting event any longer. Or, better put, the difference in experience between going to a game and staying home is not as great.
Baseball still has the hammer over other sports in this regard. It is more fun to attend a live MLB game than a live NFL game (and a live NBA or NHL game, unless you have the resources to get REALLY good NBA or NHL seats)
But here is what you get at home:
Here is what you get in the stadium
Are the stars next to the stadium experience worth the money, hassle, time? For many, they are. God bless you.
For me, they aren’t. (I also live far enough away from a major-league city to where I have to factor in a two-hour drive each way too, so keep that in mind)
I suspect a lot of others, in this economy, are making the same calculation.
Worf - September 9, 2010
You have summed this up quite well, actually.
“In this economy” is the key. The Cubs overestimated the number of people who are willing to pay these prices in this economy. Crane Kenney told me in the interviews I’ve done with him that they want to emulate the Red Sox model.
The Red Sox are able to sell tickets at high prices and sell out because they’ve won two World Series in the last ten years and make the playoffs almost every year!
The Cubs have attempted to price themselves like the Red Sox without that success first. It doesn’t work.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
The Red Sox also benefit because
Boston, in its heart and soul, is a baseball town. The Patriots, for all their success, are still not the hottest ticket in town. The Celtics, for all their success, are still not the hottest ticket in town.
I don’t know if Chicago is a baseball (and Cubs town) to the extent that Boston is a Red Sox town. At the very least, the Red Sox don’t have to compete with a team in South Boston.
Also, the Red Sox draw from all of New England and upstate New York. A great many Yankees fans make the trek to Boston and they are willing and able to pay high prices. (Fenway is probably a bargain compared to Yankee Stadium)
Our biggest geographic rivals (Milwaukee and St. Louis) are also in the same boat economically.
Worf - September 9, 2010
Fenway is also 10% smaller than Wrigley.
If Fenway’s capacity were 41,000+, it might not be sold out every single day.
I think Chicago is a baseball town, but its loyalties are also split. There are more Cubs fans than White Sox fans, but it’s still different when you have only ONE team in a market, as they do in Boston.
The Cubs do also draw regionally from downstate Illinois, parts of Indiana and Iowa.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
In a way, the smaller stadium helps
I know that is one of the big ideas in the NFL — with the next round of stadiums, build smaller.
At some point, a sellout helps as much psychologically as it does economically. A team that sells out has the perception of being a hot ticket and you can’t lollygag if you want to see them.
A team with empty seats, even if it is making almost as much as a team selling out a smaller stadium, loses that.
Worf - September 9, 2010
And Michigan
Don’t forget us :-)
leftycub - September 9, 2010
I know a lot of Cub fans in WI.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
No offense to those in
downstate Illinois, Indiana or Iowa (or Kentucky) Mostly don’t have the same economic resources as the much more heavily populated North east.
KyCubsFan - September 10, 2010
And distances in the Northeast are much more compressed
making commutes to games much easier
Worf - September 10, 2010
Fenway is one of the smallest parks in baseball.
And the seats do not have much room in between them. Rows, individual aisles, it’s the same.
Not surprisingly, tickets to Fenway Park are the toughest tickets to get in Boston. This is especially true in the Yankees series in Boston. Imagine a series like the White Sox series at Wrigley, but make three such series. That’s how quickly each Red Sox-Yankees game at Fenway sells out.
Vermont Cubs Fan - September 9, 2010
Worf, what you described is exactly the problem the NFL is having. Going to be
lots of blackouts for many teams this year. Season ticket sales are down again.
cubswin - September 9, 2010
I think the problem is greater in the NFL
for now. It is really not fun to go to an NFL game in person. I went to one — Bears-Tampa — and had seats on a 20-yard line. It was great when it was on our side, but anything in the other end zone was completely blocked.
Further, the NFL translates to TV a LOT more.
WIth fantasy leagues and office pools (more prevalent in the NFL than in other sports) and people are a LOT more interested in every game going on, which means Sunday tickets, sports bars, etc… are more appealing.
The NFL can still charge an assload for TV rights. Baseball and other sports don’t get away with that as much.
Worf - September 9, 2010
Only Go to 1 NFL Game A Season
I find a weekend where Vanderbilt and the Titans are both at home in Nashville. I always enjoy the Vandy game on Saturday more than the Titans game on Sunday. Even at Vandy, there’s more of a great atmosphere for a football game than there is for the NFL. I’m talking about freaking Vanderbilt, people!
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
May your son not be like mine
or you will have a line for the bathroom at home.
katie casey - September 9, 2010
We have two bathrooms now and that number will only increase
Mrs. Worf the Evil Cardinals Fan and I decided that separate bathrooms is the key to a happy marriage
Worf - September 9, 2010
Good for you.
We have three bathrooms, but it’s much more fun to pound on the door and ask if he’s fallen in than go upstairs.
katie casey - September 9, 2010
The NFL
is finding this out also. Granted not at the scale of other major sports, however 3 years in a row of ticket sales drop. People want to stay at home more. People spend 3 to 5 thousand on an entertainment center, the game looks good at home.
Grockcubs - September 9, 2010
I can't believe you made it an entire post without commenting on a sort of sexual innuendo
as a positive for staying at home.
I don’t even know who you are anymore.
dtpollitt - September 9, 2010
You can watch naked at home
Worf - September 9, 2010
I go to NFL games and I sit there and think:
People think this is “faster” than baseball? It’s not! There’s time outs every few plays, lots of injury timeouts, reviews, etc. Baseball may be slow, but at least it’s at a consistent pace. Football is lots and lots and lots of waiting.
Dan
dtpollitt - September 9, 2010
This is NOT the case with the Blackhawks
Season tickets exploded and the upcoming season was sold out…the biggest reason: the Hawks are winners. Ticket prices went up and “the economy” didn’t slow people down one bit…even though, as you claim, it’s not as great a sport to watch in person. People are much more likely to spend a little over their budget to watch an exciting, winning, hometown team.
Sure, it’s not just winning and losing, but it plays a massive part in how much effort people will put into forking over the additional cash.
HawkVision - September 10, 2010
Also, there are half as many seats for Hawks games and half as many games.
Supply is more limited, thus demand drives prices up.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
…and when the team was doing very poorly, the building was half-filled.
My point was winning and losing has A LOT to do with it, and not so much as the reasons that he listed.
HawkVision - September 10, 2010
Judging from that pic....
some serious cleaning is in order!
SackMan - September 9, 2010
Jessica, where are you? I'm getting worried.
I’ll have to put up a “lost doggie” sign.
.
katie casey - September 9, 2010
Internet problems
Thanks for worrying.
Doggie Stalker - September 10, 2010
This is very interesting stuff from ST owners.
Al, can you add a poll to see how many are renewing?
chilango2 - September 9, 2010
Yes.
I’ll add a poll to this post. Thanks for the idea.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I would add the following to the poll...
if you are on the waiting list will you purchase a plan if the price is right.
mph3 - September 9, 2010
see that you did... cool
mph3 - September 9, 2010
I think those choices cover just about everything
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I can't make up my mind. :)
Season tickets vs. my kid’s college tuition…hmmm…tough call.
katie casey - September 9, 2010
A college education is vastly overrated...
chilango2 - September 9, 2010
hehehe
katie casey - September 9, 2010
Sad, but true...
Zeke - September 9, 2010
Where's Jessica?
You know it’s only a matter of time until she shows up here.
Vermont Cubs Fan - September 9, 2010
OK everyone...
…. I added a poll to this post. Please vote for the choice that most closely matches how you feel.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
I think you are overstating the economic factor,
If the Cubs were in the Reds position right now, every game would be fully attended and tickets would be selling at multiples on StubHub.
The main factor is the the poor team performance. There are related factors to this as well. This team has no beloved star (Banks, Santo, Sandberg, Grace, Maddox, Wood), and no high profile performer. So, it very difficult to associate with this team the way Cub fans have associated with losing teams of the past.
Economics may be playing a factor in some people deciding to eat their tickets and not spending for the in-park expereince, and it certainly affects the resellers. But, the current attendence issues are all driven by a bad team.
BatCubFan - September 9, 2010
EXACTLY
THE STANDS WOULD BE FULL IF THE CUBS PUT A GOOD TEAM ON THE FIELD. RYNO MAY PROP UP SALES IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT THE MANAGER CAN’T DO MUCH WITHOUT A DECENT TEAM.
IT’S ALL HENDRY. RICKETTS HAS TO BE WILLING TO WRITE OFF THE REST OF HIS CONTRACT — AND LOOK FOR A GM WHO KNOWS WHAT HE’S DOING. A LA THE REDS. IT’S A DREAM TO THINK IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ANY OTHER WAY.
WHY, OH WHY, ARE PEOPLE SO FORGIVING OF HENDRY?
NYShep - September 9, 2010
Been on this site much?
If rants against Hendry were bullets, he would look like a piece of Swiss cheese.
Deservedly…
ClarkFan - September 9, 2010
Wish I agreed
A lot of folks want to believe that a managerial change will do the trick. And many continue to defend Hendry — well, he had a few good years…
NYShep - September 9, 2010
It's easier that way
shoemile - September 10, 2010
Eric?
Zeke - September 10, 2010
OT: ESAVER Coupon Code for Sept. 13-15 Games
A lot of the tickets for the Cubs-Cardinals series in St. Louis next week are going for half-price by punching in “ESAVER” for the coupon code. This doesn’t apply for bleacher tickets.
memphiscub - September 9, 2010
Tom Ricketts is going
to be on Chicago Tribune Live which just started on CSN.
sue369 - September 9, 2010
Actually it's Todd.
sue369 - September 9, 2010
Probably something about the bike ride to Milwaukee this weekend.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Yes it was.
Paul Sullivan asked him what was going on with the Under Cover Boss show and Todd looked at him and answered that it was “under cover”. Paul had nothing to say.
sue369 - September 9, 2010
Been gone for awhile. This is a good post, recommended Al.
I went to my first game of the 2010 season last Friday, the windy beat down of the Mets. I also stayed at my first rooftop. My thoughts on this attendance drop:
1: Rooftops are way too overpriced. They cater to the rich business types hosting clients, not fans. I won’t stay in one again, unless it’s free.
2: I for one am GLAD attendance numbers are down. They should be! We are a horrible, horrible team. Just atrocious. Fans should NOT be going to games to watch this crap. I hope this is a loud enough unified voice for Ricketts to get the message: WE DO NOT WANT CRAP LIKE 2010 ON THE FIELD AGAIN.
Dan
dtpollitt - September 9, 2010
Rooftop pricing, of course, is not determined by the Cubs.
But, it is subject to the same economic factors.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
Waiting list movement
I’m curious as to how others are advancing on the waiting list. Here’s my numbers, what are yours?
sign up pre-2008 (i think)
2/1/2009 : 54,634
12/26/2009:54,527
9/9/2010: 51,902
El Borto - September 9, 2010
Does it cost money to be on the waiting list?
dtpollitt - September 9, 2010
nope
katie casey - September 9, 2010
I signed up in 2003.
And I’m 5,031.
chilango2 - September 9, 2010
You'll prolly get them soon if they keep sucking
mikegncb34 - September 9, 2010
Judging from the poll so far (1 out of 3 is not renewing)
you will be getting called next year even if everyone ahead of you buys them.
katie casey - September 10, 2010
I like the post, Al. I'm very interested in this subject as well.
mikegncb34 - September 9, 2010
I'm on the list
and if I were offered, I wouldn’t take them.
But here’s the thing, I’m not happy about saying that. It’s not that I wouldn’t want season tickets, it’s that my current financial situation doesn’t really allow me to shell out that sort of cash. A couple of years ago, and hopefully in a couple of years, I would jump at the chance, but I just couldn’t justify them right now.
The fact that the team is lousy this year just makes it easier for me to say it. Luckily, I’m still over 100,000 back on the list, so I don’t have to worry about it.
chitownhawkeye - September 9, 2010
OT: Just got back from Wrigley
Got a few autographs (Dernier & Colvin) as the team boarded the bus to go up to Milwaukee. Actually, seeing as how all the veterans probably drove up there with families/friends, it looked more like kids getting on a school bus. Seriously, these guys are young! I swear I saw a few still having acne problems.
Now if only Scott Maine could pitch as well as he acts like a tough guy, we’d be all set. There were only 4 of us standing there, Maine walks by, and only 1 of us (not me) asks (politely) for an autograph. He says “No thank you” rather brusquely, and keeps walking. Then he turns around, apparently feeling the need to explain further. “Off day” he says.
“Off day”? “Off day”??? What the heck does that mean? Man, oh man, were we cracking up. That was way better than actually getting the autograph. If I had money to burn, I’d buy some seats close to the dugout for the next homestand and hope that Maine gets into a game. Then assuming he got shelled (always a possibility), I’d wait until he gets pulled and then ask him as he walks back towards the dugout “Off day?”.
Other interesting sights: Tyler Colvin’s a musician. Saw him load a guitar into bus.
Grounds crew was real busy today, hauling a bunch of equipment, screens, tools, etc. from under the bleachers and taking it over across street into storage building. Evidently they’re clearing out space for all the DMB concert equipment coming in next week. Also, no chairs on the field this time – just standing room.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
Think Scott Maine will have the nickname "Off Day" now?
Or will we say he had an “Off Day” when he struggles while pitching?
Vermont Cubs Fan - September 9, 2010
Does Scott Maine
understand where he is at in life? Goodness. “Off Day” That is priceless.
Grockcubs - September 9, 2010
It was indeed priceless.
I got no problem if he doesn’t want to sign. I asked Cashner for his today, and he just walked right by without saying a word. That’s fine. Bad mood, late for meeting, hand hurts, only signs inside, etc. etc. I mean, it’s only gonna take a few moments of your life, but if you don’t want to, that’s cool.
But just the way he said “Off day” like that explained everything… it was just too funny. I’m not serious into autograph collecting like the other guys that were there, but I know them and they know me from hanging out at Wrigley. And we all agreed that “Off day” was going to be in the autograph-collecting-stories Hall of Fame that will be told and retold for many generations…
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
I agree.
From here forward, “Off Day” is Maine’s official BCB nickname.
You’d think, given that he was almost killed in a car accident five years ago, he might be a little more grateful to be where he is.
Al Yellon - September 9, 2010
ah, that might explain the scar then
it looked like he had a slight scar on the left side of his face. Nothing too obvious, but in keeping with his tough guy persona, it was just enough of a scar to make you think there’s a story behind it and you don’t want to ask…
Meanwhile Thomas Diamond looked like a kid in a candy store. He walked by a few times, talking on his cell phone once, going to/from McDonalds, always with at least a half-smile on his face, and you could easily tell he was just happy to be here.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
At least one of the rookies "gets it".
Unlike “Off Day” Maine.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
No kidding
mikegncb34 - September 9, 2010
Colvin's a musician?
He’ll get along great with Brett Jackson, who is a sculptor.
Josh Timmers - September 9, 2010
Scott who?
Wow how arrogant of him. “Off Day” is a perfect nickname for him.
sue369 - September 9, 2010
I don't know that I'd call it arrogance. Maybe more like ignorance...
Let me make this perfectly clear – He wasn’t mean or nasty to us. And he certainly didn’t talk down to us or act dismissive like I’ve seen Sammy Sosa or other prima donnas do before.
It was more like he really thought he didn’t have to sign because it was an off day, almost like it was something he read in a MLB Rookie Handbook. And that’s what made it so funny.
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
I see.
sue369 - September 9, 2010
Meanwhile, he sees his teammates, many of them also rookies, signing. No, it sounds like “Off Day” Maine is just a jerk.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Maybe he meant it like he was having an off day
rather than that it was a day off and turned around to say that after realizing he had been rude. Sort of like “hey I’m having a rotten day, sorry.”
katie casey - September 10, 2010
Ok, now you're putting me in the position of having to defend Maine...
…which I will because I was there and I want to be fair, even if he did stiff us for an autograph.
When Maine came in, he was all by himself – it was still quite early. And we didn’t even know who he was – that’s why the one guy asked for his autograph. There were no other teammates around for him to “learn” from. And when those teammates did come in, frankly, not a lot of them signed either.
A bunch of rookies did come in together – all piling out of a cab – but we couldn’t figure out who any of them were. Same thing with Diamond. I didn’t know who he was until I went home and started looking at head shots on cubs.com. And as I said earlier, Cashner didn’t say a word as he walked on by.
There were only about a dozen players total that got on the bus and of the ones I recognized, Colvin easily had the most seniority. Not sure, but I think I heard him lead the group in a round of “Old MacDonald Had A Farm” as the bus was leaving… Ok, I’m kidding about that last part, but that’s how surreal a sight it was seeing the players get on the bus – they were all just so young-looking. It was like a batboy convention. ;-)
ballhawk - September 10, 2010
Seems like he could have just been a good guy and signed.
Instead, he came off like a jerk, even with your story here.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Do you have a lot of Cub autographs?
Cubbiegoon - September 9, 2010
not a lot - just a few here and there I've gotten over the years.
I do have a lot of autographs from players on the other teams though. They are usually a lot easier to get as they get out of cabs and walk by the
Harry CarayBilly Williams statue on their way into the park.The funny/sad thing is I have a whole tub full of autographed baseballs that I have no idea who the players are because I forgot to write down their names. After they sign, you look at it and say to yourself “oh, that’s such-n-such” and no need to write it down ‘cause you’ll remember. Then a week later you pick it up and say “who the heck is this?”
ballhawk - September 9, 2010
That's a hilarious story...
and I seriously had never even heard of Scott Maine before that post. Which, of course, makes it even funnier.
kanderber - September 9, 2010
Great nickname
Too Bad he won’t be around long enough to cal him that!
Dan Serafini - September 10, 2010
He might get a LOT of "off days".
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
That's lame of Maine.
Good story i like it.
mikegncb34 - September 9, 2010
What the hell is wrong with you?
No, seriously.
A professional baseball player was asked for to autograph something for an adult skulking around the team’s bus like a creepy overgrown groupie and not only declined politely, but even offered an explanation for why.
That makes him a “tough guy”? A jerk? Worth openly mocking?
Wow.
Wreckard - September 10, 2010
Wow.
kanderber - September 12, 2010
The economic recession
is having a huge impact on people’s spending decisions. Everyone knows friends and family that are out of work or severely underemployed. People aren’t banging the credit cards and expecting their bonuses and raises will catch them up. That said, many now choose to not splurge on going to a baseball game, particularly since the team is lousy and they can watch it on TV.
All the supply/demand curves that businesses used to rely upon are invalid because we’re in a time where buying habits have changed from historic models. In my mind the price of Cubs tickets are clearly overpriced. The Wrigley experience no longer is sufficient to induce fans to ignore the overpricing.
That said, I believe Ricketts is smart enough to realize these times call for a new direction. It’s not merely about putting band aids on the numerous problems the team faces. Adding Dunn or Sandberg won’t turn this organization around. From the size and quality of the scouting and coaching throughout the system to the improvement of facilities at Wrigley, to the change in reliance on free agents, there are many changes that cannot be effected overnight. Patience if we see a long term plan. Revolt if we see sugar pills rather than real change.
tharr - September 10, 2010
Price Opinion
I don’t think they should raise ticket prices next seasn. First, they currently have the highest average ticket prices and, second, they are coming off of a losing season. They economic landscape, as said, doesn’t support raising them either.
I also don’t think they should lower the average ticket prices unless the other franchises are lowing theirs. This wouldn’t necessarily happen, but if so word gets out and leaves a bad taste when the higher prices become yet higher than the rest.
With the above exception they shouldn’t lower average prices because it would take too much of a decrease to lure people who don’t attend currently because of price. If the team is good fans will fill the stands. If the team isn’t good there are some people who will go anyway because they like baseball, they like the Cubs, or because they go for a more general entertainment experience. The people who go anyway can’t be considered a real price sensitive market.
It might be a good idea to blur the price differences a bit and maintain the same average. Raise the average price of value dates and add a few more of them. Those buying only the cheapest might appreciate having more dates from which to choose. A few might talk themselves into an upgrade seat or game if the price difference isn’t as big. The higher priced games should stay the same if they expect those games to sell-out anyway. Adjust to get the same average.
Ricketts has to field the best team possible because it is the main reason why attendence and other revenues fluctuate or why fans start to question their own spending. I don’t see how he can significantly lower team payroll and still field the best team possible for 2011. It’s fair, IMO, to expect an owner to have pockets deep enough to weather some seasons gone sour due to contracts outliving the usefulness of the player. Can’t just keep the attention of fans, even with lower prices, while whole seasons pass. It isn’t a good business posture to have or take. The economy had already dipped before Ricketts bought the team and the purchase price was less because of the financing options available in the down economy.
AboutTheCubs - September 10, 2010
Ricketts has to balance...
…trying to be as competitive next year, with building an organization that won’t experience the bad down years the Cubs have recently. Simply making splashes in FA has not delievered the goods and I firmly believe he will be cautious (he will pick his spots) going forward.
Payroll will not be “significantly” lower, but I would guess it won’t be higher than 130 or so mil (still high enough to probably be top 2 or 3 in NL). Can you win with that payroll? Absolutely, if you know how to put the right roster together.
I would be surprised if the Cubs have a “major” FA acquistion this offseason, and I highly doubt Jim Hendry will be the one making the call on whenever the Cubs sign their next “big time” FA.
MPH73 - September 10, 2010
Rec'd
Being selective is important. They have to have the money in order to spend it, but they also should be selective when they do have it and sometimes hold-off when the opportunities aren’t good, aren’t what is needed, or aren’t the appropriate deal.
The Soriano deal is going to clog the outfield improvement for a few more years. Basically, they either couldn’t afford Soriano when they signed him or they just didn’t want to pay him his market value when they signed him. The point
AboutTheCubs - September 10, 2010
Sorry
The point being that Soriano was worth more than what they paid him in the first few years of his contract, but they didn’t want to or couldn’t pay him leading to the long john backloaded deal.
AboutTheCubs - September 10, 2010
Soriano is one example...
…of many moves that haven’t really followed any logical plan to build a nice balanced roster.
Hendry has always been a very “reactive” guy, and seems to be a guy who goes by the seat of his pants and doesn’t have a well thought on plan and or the discipline to follow it through without knee jerk decisions.
MPH73 - September 10, 2010
So back in Feb
when I went on my endless rant that they were screwing up paying almost no attention to
the standard fan sales ( as witnessed among other things by their complete failure to even tell people about the wristband sales) but instead focusing on getting even more money for games that sell out anyway I was told it did not matter and they would sell out anyway.
The “premium” pricing and other plans to squeeze a few more bucks at the expense of regular fans has in fact increased under the supposedly fan friendly Ricketts ownership.
The Cubs neglected the “average” fan from day one and now they are desperately trying to sell remaining tickets after a crappy season. They need to focus on their base of fans. They need to make it easier for regular people to get decent seats to a variety of games at the start of and throughout the season and stop assuming corporations and brokers are the ones they cater to.
I would start by offering the mini ticket packages in ways that actually reflect the schedule instead of making people a bunch of unpopular M-Thursday games in April, May & Sept just to get one or two summer games.
Doggie Stalker - September 10, 2010
If Ricketts makes the right moves...
…to improve the baseball organization, they won’t have to worry about ticket demand.
MPH73 - September 10, 2010
The Cubs didn't sell out anyway...
… because the team was bad and the tickets were overpriced, NOT because of your claims about lack of promotion.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
The point was to sell as many tickets from DAY ONE
so you would not be at the mercy of weather or team play. This is exactly what we argued about in Feb when you told me not to worry. The Cubs totally downplayed “regular” fan sales then. In theory they could in fact have had their premium and eaten it too but they were so obsessed. with the special extra price deals that they did virtually nothing to promote standard sales. You may have forgotten but I have not that it was not until basically a day or two before tickets went on sale to the general public that they even promoted it on the web site. They neglected these sales and they paid a price. While some games would indeed never have sold out , many more tickets could have been sold BEFORE the season started it the marketing people had cared about or paid attention to standard single game sales to ordinary people.
Doggie Stalker - September 10, 2010
That isn't the point here.
They did not sell out. So what? Your reasoning is still faulty, and they would not have sold more tickets based on your claims.
I repeat, there are two reasons the Cubs did not sell more tickets this year:
Your scenario pretends it’s still 2004. Those conditions no longer exist.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Total tickets sold
does not always make for a 1-to-1 relationship in revenue and profit margin.
The reason the Cubs didn’t sell out – in no particular order – are:
1. Economy
2. Poor performance
3. Excessive pricing
You keep harping on average fans and regular people. Just what are the criteria for those?
The Cubs tried to generate the greatest REVENUE in their scheme this year. We STILL do NOT know how well that was/is going with respect to EXPECTATIONS. Don’t think any of us will even know exactly, even Al.
But what we do know is if they don’t gauge the economy better, put a better & more marketable team out there and price their product accordingly, 2011 could lead to a significant decline in margins.
blackhawk24 - September 10, 2010
The criteria are tons of people I met at the Convention
who were eager to buy tickets but complained they felt they had no chance to get ANY decent tickets. See above for the Cubs marketing people’s total failure to promote standard day of game sales in any serious way in advance of the day they went on sale.
For the record I was a TOTAL idiot. I could have sold a lot of my games to folks at the convention who asked, but I usually hold back too many waiting for my “regulars” or figuring out my schedule. Had I in fact sold tickets to people I met at the convention who wanted them and were willing to take some hard to sell games in order to get a fair number of harder to get games, I would have “sold out” instead of eating so much money. I have learned my lesson and will make sure to be far more organized next year with my own “mini packs” ( which unlike the ones sold by the Cubs won’t force anyone to buy 3 crappy games in April to see the Cards once in the summer). It remains to be seen if the Cubs marketing department has learned their lesson.
Doggie Stalker - September 10, 2010
The point is...
… even your “mini packs” won’t sell if the Cubs don’t lower prices and/or have a better team or both.
You are assuming ticket sales in a vacuum, as if it’s still the afterglow of a division title in a strong economy.
A few people you met at the convention doesn’t prove your point.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
In Feb there WAS demand
At what I posted over and over and over was that the Cubs were blowing it by focusing on premium stuff and utterly neglecting ordinary fans. You and others kept telling me I was exaggerating and ticket sales would be fine, Again what I posted over and over and over was that the key was to sell the maximum number of tickets BEFORE the season started so weather and play would not matter.
I agree that having treated fans badly for a long time it will be hard for the ticket people to dig out of it. They have no good will or track record for dealing with this.
FYI it was not a “few” people at a convention. Pretty much any Cub fan I have met that finds out I have season tickets and can’t go to most games asks me to buy tickets. The demand was always there, especially for access to decent seats at fair price.
As a side note, the fact that the Cubs continue to let the false charge that they have the highest average ticket price in the MLB go unchallenged shows what a poor job they do. Since that figure was arrived at by NOT counting tens of thousands of "premium " seats for the Mets, Red Sox , Yankees and others it is totally bogus but I have never heard the Cubs say peep and it gets used all the time. The fact is the Cubs have far more decent seats at lower prices than any of those teams.
Doggie Stalker - September 10, 2010
It may be a play on words by some folks
Is it average price or median price? Those are 2 very different numbers but sometimes are used interchangeably. Quite often in these stadiums the “premium” tickets are limited to only a few hundred, maybe 1,000 at most. While those prices do intrinsically increase the average price, they do not have much of an affect on median price. In Wrigley it can be argued the premium seats are the dugout and bullpen boxes. What’s that 400 seats total? Hardly a huge – but still measurable – impact on a ballpark seating 41,230.
That’s why the housing market overtly states median pricing. Because a few homes in a particular [smaller] area that go for 7-figures would severely distort average prices but have virtually no affect on median pricing.
Don’t think you were a TOTAL idiot as you mentioned further above in not selling your tix earlier. You were considering the feelings of other folks at the time and that is commendable. If you were only in the situation to re-sell [which we all know you were/are not] then yes you would have made a big monetary mistake.
One final thing: What we were telling you back in Feb/Mar was that ticket revenue would be fine. I’m not defending all the Cubs’ positions here but they were trying some things (folks here may call them schemes and that’s fine) to maximize revenue in a down-economic time.
blackhawk24 - September 13, 2010
Well said...
…and lets hope that Ricketts is doing some serious analysis on how to do the most important thing he can do to protect his families ample investment – improve the baseball product.
I hold out hope that there is more there than wearing goofy glasses and bowing to one of their former players.
MPH73 - September 10, 2010
Hope so too
Can’t imagine they’d blow $845M + a lot of interest just to be goofy.
I still think they’re going to make some serious changes right after their season ends.
blackhawk24 - September 13, 2010
Man...
…I hope you are right. Another year of this baseball brain trust, would put them right up there with how the Bears are run.
MPH73 - September 13, 2010
Me too
Or something that clearly shows some vision.
After watching how the ’Hawks came back from the abyss
-yeah, different problems-in less than 3 years and now finally got my wish of a new Cubs ownership, there has to now be a plan.Is it me or do the Bears (front office) need the some kind of enima ?? Wow! What a sorry-ass organ-I-zation. Makes me think of Dollar Bill & silver-tongued Bob Pulford.
blackhawk24 - September 13, 2010
Take a look at...
…the common dimominator that has defined long term success in most Chicago sports teams:
The Bears had a long run of success in the 80’s because of a guy named Jim Finx who oversaw the build up of talent that led to that run. When he left, they still had some quality football people running the team.
The Cubs came from the abyss when Dallas Green was allowed to come in and run the show with some shrewd moves and farm development. When he was run off, they had a long dry run.
The Bulls won with the greatest player whoever lived (with only 5 players, one guy makes a big difference), but he was surrounded with good talent.
The Hawks won with some good young picks, but they didn’t get over the top until a guy named Bowman recommended a few changes (notably a new coach) and other behind the scenes advice.
The Bears are currently being run by a guy who is an accountant by background. How can he possibly be in the best position to determine the strength of their football operation?
Right now, the Cubs are structured like the Bears, with a new owner directly overseeing a GM that has made a lot of crucial mistakes. How can Ricketts know whether what Hendry is telling him is more BS, a sell job, etc..? He desperately needs a new outside influence who simply has a better overall vision to take the baseball organization and eliminate some of the bad calls on roster selection, a better philosophy and hopefully instill a culture of accountability in the organization.
MPH73 - September 13, 2010
It would seem....
… from the results of the poll as of noon Friday (447 votes at that time) that about half of those who voted, whether they have season tickets or not, are going to buy fewer tickets in 2011.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Needless to say, this will be a very, very interesting
offseason, both with regards to on-field moves and off-field moves.
blackhawk24 - September 10, 2010
On that, I think we can all agree.
Al Yellon - September 10, 2010
Guess I'm one of the 17%
I’m on the waiting list and it looks like I’m going to finally be offered tickets next year. I’m right around #250 now.
I hadn’t planned on being offered tickets for another 7-10 years, so I’m still trying to wrap my head around all this. I had never expected such a large jump. Even after the horrible 2006 season, the list only moved several hundred.
I know prices are higher now, and many fans are upset, but I still don’t see mass movements off the wait list any time soon. Even if the list moves at a couple thousand every year (highly unlikely, based on the past), they still have enough people to call for what, 50 years?
I plan to try it out for a year and see how it goes. Hopefully I won’t be disappointed like Aisle424 and others.
bluemagic9 - September 27, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.