[82lsju]

well at least 4 shady side seats won't be renewed

a couple in our tailgate group that has had tickets since 1960 are not renewing.  They have been on the sunny side most (maybe all) the time since 1960.  Their seats on the ~20 yard line were going to be almost $1100 each for the coming year ($500 donation and $5xx for the tickets).  The have missed some of the late kick-offs given their drive home after the games and the required donation was the straw that broke the camels back.

We'll miss them at the tailgaters and games.

[82lsju]

well at least 4 shady side seats won't be renewed

a couple in our tailgate group that has had tickets since 1960 are not renewing.  They have been on the sunny side most (maybe all) the time since 1960.  Their seats on the ~20 yard line were going to be almost $1100 each for the coming year ($500 donation and $5xx for the tickets).  The have missed some of the late kick-offs given their drive home after the games and the required donation was the straw that broke the camels back.

We'll miss them at the tailgaters and games.

[Treebound]

Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option.   

[Treebound]

Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option.   

[Leftcoast]

Another set of casualties to the preeminent new goal of the Stanford AD - maximizing short term revenue. 

I look at basketball (where fans left in droves and all those empty seats still require large donations) and wonder about the longer term. 

Watch for the hand wringing if football ever experiences a downturn.  "How did our fanbase shrink during a period of such unprecedented success?  Can't be the high prices that discourage families, we just need to win more...."

[Leftcoast]

Another set of casualties to the preeminent new goal of the Stanford AD - maximizing short term revenue. 

I look at basketball (where fans left in droves and all those empty seats still require large donations) and wonder about the longer term. 

Watch for the hand wringing if football ever experiences a downturn.  "How did our fanbase shrink during a period of such unprecedented success?  Can't be the high prices that discourage families, we just need to win more...."

[winflop]

I look at basketball (where fans left in droves and all those empty seats still require large donations) and wonder about the longer term. 

Watch for the hand wringing if football ever experiences a downturn.  "How did our fanbase shrink during a period of such unprecedented success?  Can't be the high prices that discourage families, we just need to win more...."

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

[winflop]

I look at basketball (where fans left in droves and all those empty seats still require large donations) and wonder about the longer term. 

Watch for the hand wringing if football ever experiences a downturn.  "How did our fanbase shrink during a period of such unprecedented success?  Can't be the high prices that discourage families, we just need to win more...."

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

[2006alum]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I don't know about alumni sections, but the Sixth Man definitely dropped off in attendance numbers immediately after the renovation. During my sophomore year in 2003-2004 -- when we were briefly #1 in the country -- it was always packed, even for games against schools like Oregon State. By fall 2005 post-renovation, the new "bleachers" without any bounce were quite spacious and I don't remember a fully "sold out" Sixth Man for a single game our senior year. I really miss the bouncy floors...

[2006alum]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I don't know about alumni sections, but the Sixth Man definitely dropped off in attendance numbers immediately after the renovation. During my sophomore year in 2003-2004 -- when we were briefly #1 in the country -- it was always packed, even for games against schools like Oregon State. By fall 2005 post-renovation, the new "bleachers" without any bounce were quite spacious and I don't remember a fully "sold out" Sixth Man for a single game our senior year. I really miss the bouncy floors...

[Goose]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I think you are correct that the conference and member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance (if they ever really did). They do prioritize making money, and they must not think that TV money is enough or attendance to the games would be free. Their actions in this case show very clearly they are revenue driven. One can argue that this price increase is ill-advised because of it's long term potential downsides, and I would certainly listen to those arguments. However, I just desire some assurance that this move is actually going to increase game revenue at all, and that there is some plan to measure this (alleged) increase. Doing the increase in a year where revenue will naturally increase (because of more and better home games) will tend to mask any effect of reduced ticket sales due to price increases. This makes it real easy for the marketing types to declare victory without asking "compared to what?". We have heard that "there is demand for tickets between the 20 yard lines". I ask, says who, and by what metrics? This may result in a sub-optimal pricing structure next year and in future years. Stanford fans are a bit quirky. The have, in general, above average disposable income. However, very few Stanford fans are truly "fanatic".  They DO drink chardonnay and clap politely for a good play (although I am a Northern Rhone man myself). They don't respond the same way as Texas fans, or even USC fans. Things that work in those markets often don't work at Stanford, so the AD has to be a bit careful in developing policies. I am not sure they have in this case. Stanford fans also tend to have long memories. Piss them off, they don't come back.

[Goose]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I think you are correct that the conference and member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance (if they ever really did). They do prioritize making money, and they must not think that TV money is enough or attendance to the games would be free. Their actions in this case show very clearly they are revenue driven. One can argue that this price increase is ill-advised because of it's long term potential downsides, and I would certainly listen to those arguments. However, I just desire some assurance that this move is actually going to increase game revenue at all, and that there is some plan to measure this (alleged) increase. Doing the increase in a year where revenue will naturally increase (because of more and better home games) will tend to mask any effect of reduced ticket sales due to price increases. This makes it real easy for the marketing types to declare victory without asking "compared to what?". We have heard that "there is demand for tickets between the 20 yard lines". I ask, says who, and by what metrics? This may result in a sub-optimal pricing structure next year and in future years. Stanford fans are a bit quirky. The have, in general, above average disposable income. However, very few Stanford fans are truly "fanatic".  They DO drink chardonnay and clap politely for a good play (although I am a Northern Rhone man myself). They don't respond the same way as Texas fans, or even USC fans. Things that work in those markets often don't work at Stanford, so the AD has to be a bit careful in developing policies. I am not sure they have in this case. Stanford fans also tend to have long memories. Piss them off, they don't come back.

[76lsjumb]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

Wrong. There were quite a few seats in the center [i.e., half-court] and immediately adjacent sections that weren't renewed as a result of the installation of the Maples "seat license" plan.  And many of those seats certainly appear to have remained either empty or not purchased as season tickets [i.e., when occupied, they're occupied by different people at different games] ever since.

[76lsjumb]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

Wrong. There were quite a few seats in the center [i.e., half-court] and immediately adjacent sections that weren't renewed as a result of the installation of the Maples "seat license" plan.  And many of those seats certainly appear to have remained either empty or not purchased as season tickets [i.e., when occupied, they're occupied by different people at different games] ever since.

[Farm93]

Goose,

In the 80s and 90s the AD toggled between free and low cost tickets for students.  Perhaps ironically, attendance was better when the students had to pay something.  The free stuff lowered the incentive to attend, created overall apathy, etc..  That changed with the point systems based on attendance closer to 2000, but prior to that the students would take the tickets and then not show up.  No personal investment and no rewards for attendance meant no students at lower profile games.

Same thing actually works here.  Too many fans sitting between the 30s have had tickets forever and are very comfortable buying relatively low cost tickets, given their wealth, and attending 1-3 games per year.  That creates an awful game day environment.  Worse, a lot of more eager fans are locked out.  They sit at the goal line and wonder why the AD can't find them seats near the 40 given all of the empty seats they see each week.  That creates customer dissatisfaction with the group that is more likely to be alive in 25 years.  This forced donation ups the ante and will almost certainly improve game day attendance.  How?  Why?  Those there will have invested more and will be more motivated to get someone they know in those seats.  Occupied seats based on donations will also improve the fairness perception for those still locked out of the best seats.

As you must know, future based revenue forecasting simply can't provide the certainty you claim to need.  That said, Stanford is not the first to try this scheme.  If the team is strong, this will drive a big increase in donations with no drop in sales and likely an INCREASE in actual game day attendance.  Plenty of the most successful D1 schools have been down this road, and the ones that have not are often the lower tier D1 schools with some combination of alumni networks that are small in size, poor or detached from their alma mater.

Besides, if it fails miserably, the AD could lower prices in the future.  It is actually pretty sound business practice to test the bounds of your pricing power.  I am highly confident our AD is highly likely to succeed given the relative loyalty and wealth of the season ticket holders coupled with the current winning product on the field and the size of the waitlist for some of the better seat locations.

I don't believe it would be sound practice for the AD to share any of the pricing strategy details or research with everyday fans, but I suspect if you are a top tier donor they will have someone sit down and share a quick outline with you. 

Time will tell.  But my bet is there are enough Tesla, Lexus and BMW loving alums with homes often worth $3 million or more willing to give their alma mater an extra $500 a year to sit between the 30s and fill those sections up.  Just a hunch.

[Farm93]

Goose,

In the 80s and 90s the AD toggled between free and low cost tickets for students.  Perhaps ironically, attendance was better when the students had to pay something.  The free stuff lowered the incentive to attend, created overall apathy, etc..  That changed with the point systems based on attendance closer to 2000, but prior to that the students would take the tickets and then not show up.  No personal investment and no rewards for attendance meant no students at lower profile games.

Same thing actually works here.  Too many fans sitting between the 30s have had tickets forever and are very comfortable buying relatively low cost tickets, given their wealth, and attending 1-3 games per year.  That creates an awful game day environment.  Worse, a lot of more eager fans are locked out.  They sit at the goal line and wonder why the AD can't find them seats near the 40 given all of the empty seats they see each week.  That creates customer dissatisfaction with the group that is more likely to be alive in 25 years.  This forced donation ups the ante and will almost certainly improve game day attendance.  How?  Why?  Those there will have invested more and will be more motivated to get someone they know in those seats.  Occupied seats based on donations will also improve the fairness perception for those still locked out of the best seats.

As you must know, future based revenue forecasting simply can't provide the certainty you claim to need.  That said, Stanford is not the first to try this scheme.  If the team is strong, this will drive a big increase in donations with no drop in sales and likely an INCREASE in actual game day attendance.  Plenty of the most successful D1 schools have been down this road, and the ones that have not are often the lower tier D1 schools with some combination of alumni networks that are small in size, poor or detached from their alma mater.

Besides, if it fails miserably, the AD could lower prices in the future.  It is actually pretty sound business practice to test the bounds of your pricing power.  I am highly confident our AD is highly likely to succeed given the relative loyalty and wealth of the season ticket holders coupled with the current winning product on the field and the size of the waitlist for some of the better seat locations.

I don't believe it would be sound practice for the AD to share any of the pricing strategy details or research with everyday fans, but I suspect if you are a top tier donor they will have someone sit down and share a quick outline with you. 

Time will tell.  But my bet is there are enough Tesla, Lexus and BMW loving alums with homes often worth $3 million or more willing to give their alma mater an extra $500 a year to sit between the 30s and fill those sections up.  Just a hunch.

[76lsjumb]

Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option. 

Of course, those of us who purchased tickets, sat in the seats, and cheered for the teams during those 1-10, 1-11, 2-9, 3-8, etc. seasons have already paid a "price of success" over a very long period for which the University apparently assigns zero value.

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?

[76lsjumb]

Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option. 

Of course, those of us who purchased tickets, sat in the seats, and cheered for the teams during those 1-10, 1-11, 2-9, 3-8, etc. seasons have already paid a "price of success" over a very long period for which the University apparently assigns zero value.

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?

[Farm93]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=16476.msg186953#msg186953 date=1484928249]
Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option. 

Of course, those of us who purchased tickets, sat in the seats, and cheered for the teams during those 1-10, 1-11, 2-9, 3-8, etc. seasons have already paid a "price of success" over a very long period for which the University apparently assigns zero value.

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?
[/quote]
Stanford has not been quick to displace those that occupy seats.  Some schools, like UCB at Haas, have complex reassignment programs every few years so that one never knows where they will sit after the next reshuffling.  I like that Stanford allows fans to stay in their seats, assuming they are willing to pay the market rate.    So it is more like renting an apartment than owning a home.  Apartment renters are going to see rents move up (or down) based on the overall market and the quality of their unit.  We are all renters of Stanford football seats, and the landlord just announced a big increase confident it has plenty of applicants eager to fill any vacancies.  You can stay, but while they may love you as a tenant the sound revenue maximizing move is to demand and collect fair market rates.

I suspect that fair market rate for sitting between the 40s at Stanford Stadium in the Coach Shaw era is far, far in excess of the program announced this year.  The school has been showing loyalty to those octogenarians by lagging 10 to 15 years behind the curve on this one.  Much like the nice elderly lady renting here Sunnyvale apartment for $2000.  That may seem like a lot, but in truth the market rate is much higher.  That mean landlord is in a business and has been too kind for too long.  Now trying to move her up to the market rate almost looks cruel.  Same applies here.

Others mentioned it, but I would agree that the Stanford AD likely has a report from some consultant or other that suggests the AD could command quite a bit more per year per seat if pure event revenue maximization was the only objective.  The variables are all there.  High net worth alums with ample discretionary income and a proven capacity to spend thousands on cars, trips, and other things they covet, etc. etc.

That said, the end is near.  With current TV technology, Pac-12 AfterDark scheduling, and the worries over CTE the window to really wring money out of the 6 football Saturdays is likely near a peak.  Wring it dry while it is here though.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=16476.msg186953#msg186953 date=1484928249]
Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.  There are plenty of non-donation options around the stadium that people can move into.  The sight lines around our stadium are very good.   

Stanford has been on the low end of ticket pricing and required donations for a very long time.  With the rising costs of college athletics and providing scholarships to student athletes, I'm not surprised that the AD has made this move.  It has been under discussion for some time.  We are now a top ten program and there is demand for seats between the 20's.  This is an efficient way to re-seat the stadium, which many top programs do every year.  I guess I look at it as the price of success.  10 years ago this program would not have been an option. 

Of course, those of us who purchased tickets, sat in the seats, and cheered for the teams during those 1-10, 1-11, 2-9, 3-8, etc. seasons have already paid a "price of success" over a very long period for which the University apparently assigns zero value.

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?
[/quote]
Stanford has not been quick to displace those that occupy seats.  Some schools, like UCB at Haas, have complex reassignment programs every few years so that one never knows where they will sit after the next reshuffling.  I like that Stanford allows fans to stay in their seats, assuming they are willing to pay the market rate.    So it is more like renting an apartment than owning a home.  Apartment renters are going to see rents move up (or down) based on the overall market and the quality of their unit.  We are all renters of Stanford football seats, and the landlord just announced a big increase confident it has plenty of applicants eager to fill any vacancies.  You can stay, but while they may love you as a tenant the sound revenue maximizing move is to demand and collect fair market rates.

I suspect that fair market rate for sitting between the 40s at Stanford Stadium in the Coach Shaw era is far, far in excess of the program announced this year.  The school has been showing loyalty to those octogenarians by lagging 10 to 15 years behind the curve on this one.  Much like the nice elderly lady renting here Sunnyvale apartment for $2000.  That may seem like a lot, but in truth the market rate is much higher.  That mean landlord is in a business and has been too kind for too long.  Now trying to move her up to the market rate almost looks cruel.  Same applies here.

Others mentioned it, but I would agree that the Stanford AD likely has a report from some consultant or other that suggests the AD could command quite a bit more per year per seat if pure event revenue maximization was the only objective.  The variables are all there.  High net worth alums with ample discretionary income and a proven capacity to spend thousands on cars, trips, and other things they covet, etc. etc.

That said, the end is near.  With current TV technology, Pac-12 AfterDark scheduling, and the worries over CTE the window to really wring money out of the 6 football Saturdays is likely near a peak.  Wring it dry while it is here though.

[Phogge]

Apathy for the fans by the conference is a given. The other downer for the Pac 12 is the football telecast itself. Second rate crews, poor direction and third rate announcers and color people. Scott wants it all and refuses to upgrade the product so he is really giving the finger to everybody. He runs the network the same way the Wells Fargo guy ran the bank. The schools act like lemmings as they count the dollars. We live in a bottom line world. I don't think I'll have trouble getting an end zone seat for the day games.

[Phogge]

Apathy for the fans by the conference is a given. The other downer for the Pac 12 is the football telecast itself. Second rate crews, poor direction and third rate announcers and color people. Scott wants it all and refuses to upgrade the product so he is really giving the finger to everybody. He runs the network the same way the Wells Fargo guy ran the bank. The schools act like lemmings as they count the dollars. We live in a bottom line world. I don't think I'll have trouble getting an end zone seat for the day games.

[BurgXXIII]

Wow, this thread is profoundly discouraging. It would seem the platitudes we receive in the mail from Stanford are just that. Stanford family? Participatory alumni? Institutional memory? Who cares? Round up the old fogies and bus them away. What's the point of homecoming anyway? I guess so we can laugh at the 50 year reunion people. How could you not enjoy paying through the nose to park in a mud puddle?

[BurgXXIII]

Wow, this thread is profoundly discouraging. It would seem the platitudes we receive in the mail from Stanford are just that. Stanford family? Participatory alumni? Institutional memory? Who cares? Round up the old fogies and bus them away. What's the point of homecoming anyway? I guess so we can laugh at the 50 year reunion people. How could you not enjoy paying through the nose to park in a mud puddle?

[82lsju]

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?

just a data point but my friends were offered seats in the sideline endzone on the shady side

[82lsju]

Also, if someone wants to move from , say, Section 112 [shady side], to the corresponding seats in the sunny side section, will they be able to do so?  That is, will existing sunny side season ticket holders be relocated to allow folks from the shady side to occupy the mirror-image sunny side seats, or will those moving from the shady side be relegated to whatever may be available on the sunny side -- which will almost certainly be poorer [i.e., further away and more toward the end zone] seats than what they had in years past?

just a data point but my friends were offered seats in the sideline endzone on the shady side

[Goose]

I suspect that fair market rate for sitting between the 40s at Stanford Stadium in the Coach Shaw era is far, far in excess of the program announced this year.  The school has been showing loyalty to those octogenarians by lagging 10 to 15 years behind the curve on this one.  Much like the nice elderly lady renting here Sunnyvale apartment for $2000.  That may seem like a lot, but in truth the market rate is much higher.  That mean landlord is in a business and has been too kind for too long.  Now trying to move her up to the market rate almost looks cruel.  Same applies here.

I disagree with the idea there is a "fair" rate. What there is is an "optimal" rate that maximizes the return to the Athletic Department. This return is being measured in dollars primarily. I am fine with that.

Others mentioned it, but I would agree that the Stanford AD likely has a report from some consultant or other that suggests the AD could command quite a bit more per year per seat if pure event revenue maximization was the only objective.  The variables are all there.  High net worth alums with ample discretionary income and a proven capacity to spend thousands on cars, trips, and other things they covet, etc. etc.

The idea that the AD has such a report is believable. I would hope he has such a report. But, given how Stanford has done things in the past, I wouldn't bet on it. It may be just an in-house "study" with no real facts, i.e. a glorified "hunch".  I agree Stanford fans have higher than average net worth. However, many alums don't attend games, and many others that do attend aren't real "fanatic" about it. How they will behave is not obvious, at least not to me. We see some indication on this board that the price/demand elasticity may not be what one would expect.
What is important is that the report (if it exists)  contain quantified projections that can be verified in the future, so that if the report proves a poor model, it can be dropped. In particular, if it doesn't accurately predict the revenue next year, it should be questioned. Other posters have asserted that there is a long waiting list for tickets between the 30's. They apparently have information I do not. If the AD would share with the fans how long the waiting list currently is, and how many people on this list actually "pony up" and buy the open seats created by non-renewals, and what the revenue increase was, then we can give him kudos on a good pricing policy and nobody need feel they somehow are slighted. But if the AD won't/doesn't do this (which I don't expect, BTW), one might wonder why? We are all supposed to be supporting the same team after all.

[Goose]

I suspect that fair market rate for sitting between the 40s at Stanford Stadium in the Coach Shaw era is far, far in excess of the program announced this year.  The school has been showing loyalty to those octogenarians by lagging 10 to 15 years behind the curve on this one.  Much like the nice elderly lady renting here Sunnyvale apartment for $2000.  That may seem like a lot, but in truth the market rate is much higher.  That mean landlord is in a business and has been too kind for too long.  Now trying to move her up to the market rate almost looks cruel.  Same applies here.

I disagree with the idea there is a "fair" rate. What there is is an "optimal" rate that maximizes the return to the Athletic Department. This return is being measured in dollars primarily. I am fine with that.

Others mentioned it, but I would agree that the Stanford AD likely has a report from some consultant or other that suggests the AD could command quite a bit more per year per seat if pure event revenue maximization was the only objective.  The variables are all there.  High net worth alums with ample discretionary income and a proven capacity to spend thousands on cars, trips, and other things they covet, etc. etc.

The idea that the AD has such a report is believable. I would hope he has such a report. But, given how Stanford has done things in the past, I wouldn't bet on it. It may be just an in-house "study" with no real facts, i.e. a glorified "hunch".  I agree Stanford fans have higher than average net worth. However, many alums don't attend games, and many others that do attend aren't real "fanatic" about it. How they will behave is not obvious, at least not to me. We see some indication on this board that the price/demand elasticity may not be what one would expect.
What is important is that the report (if it exists)  contain quantified projections that can be verified in the future, so that if the report proves a poor model, it can be dropped. In particular, if it doesn't accurately predict the revenue next year, it should be questioned. Other posters have asserted that there is a long waiting list for tickets between the 30's. They apparently have information I do not. If the AD would share with the fans how long the waiting list currently is, and how many people on this list actually "pony up" and buy the open seats created by non-renewals, and what the revenue increase was, then we can give him kudos on a good pricing policy and nobody need feel they somehow are slighted. But if the AD won't/doesn't do this (which I don't expect, BTW), one might wonder why? We are all supposed to be supporting the same team after all.

[76lsjumb]

Same thing actually works here.  Too many fans sitting between the 30s have had tickets forever and are very comfortable buying relatively low cost tickets, given their wealth, and attending 1-3 games per year.  That creates an awful game day environment.  Worse, a lot of more eager fans are locked out.  They sit at the goal line and wonder why the AD can't find them seats near the 40 given all of the empty seats they see each week.  That creates customer dissatisfaction with the group that is more likely to be alive in 25 years.  This forced donation ups the ante and will almost certainly improve game day attendance.  How?  Why?  Those there will have invested more and will be more motivated to get someone they know in those seats.  Occupied seats based on donations will also improve the fairness perception for those still locked out of the best seats.

What about those of us sitting between the 30s who have been attending every game since Braden Beck kicked field goals, including that Utah game in the pouring rain and countless others in less than ideal conditions, who never leave before the game is over and wonder why all those people sitting at the goal line decide to leave early so they can get their BMWs and Teslas out of the parking lots faster, who ignore the people behind us telling us to sit down when we're standing up cheering, who were in our seats a few years ago for the S.C. game when all of the other seats around us had been purchased by S.C. fans because Stanford could hardly give away season tickets then, who don't give up on Stanford teams -- ANY Stanford teams -- just because they're not winning, but, for all that, who aren't in a position to pay $250/game next season and thereafter? 

Telling us that we are responsible for creating an "awful game day environment" is not just extremely unfair; it's insulting.  And, while you may say we're not the ones to whom you are referring, the new pricing plan penalizes each of us just as much as anyone else in those sections. 

Worrying about who is going to be around to watch in 25 years seems a little ridiculous, since, with the "it's all about business" mindset, there likely won't be anything worth watching in 25 years.  In any event, for that group who is still around in 25 years, be warned: 25 years of loyal fandom apparently means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the University!

[76lsjumb]

Same thing actually works here.  Too many fans sitting between the 30s have had tickets forever and are very comfortable buying relatively low cost tickets, given their wealth, and attending 1-3 games per year.  That creates an awful game day environment.  Worse, a lot of more eager fans are locked out.  They sit at the goal line and wonder why the AD can't find them seats near the 40 given all of the empty seats they see each week.  That creates customer dissatisfaction with the group that is more likely to be alive in 25 years.  This forced donation ups the ante and will almost certainly improve game day attendance.  How?  Why?  Those there will have invested more and will be more motivated to get someone they know in those seats.  Occupied seats based on donations will also improve the fairness perception for those still locked out of the best seats.

What about those of us sitting between the 30s who have been attending every game since Braden Beck kicked field goals, including that Utah game in the pouring rain and countless others in less than ideal conditions, who never leave before the game is over and wonder why all those people sitting at the goal line decide to leave early so they can get their BMWs and Teslas out of the parking lots faster, who ignore the people behind us telling us to sit down when we're standing up cheering, who were in our seats a few years ago for the S.C. game when all of the other seats around us had been purchased by S.C. fans because Stanford could hardly give away season tickets then, who don't give up on Stanford teams -- ANY Stanford teams -- just because they're not winning, but, for all that, who aren't in a position to pay $250/game next season and thereafter? 

Telling us that we are responsible for creating an "awful game day environment" is not just extremely unfair; it's insulting.  And, while you may say we're not the ones to whom you are referring, the new pricing plan penalizes each of us just as much as anyone else in those sections. 

Worrying about who is going to be around to watch in 25 years seems a little ridiculous, since, with the "it's all about business" mindset, there likely won't be anything worth watching in 25 years.  In any event, for that group who is still around in 25 years, be warned: 25 years of loyal fandom apparently means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the University!

[Goose]

[Worrying about who is going to be around to watch in 25 years seems a little ridiculous, since, with the "it's all about business" mindset, there likely won't be anything worth watching in 25 years.  In any event, for that group who is still around in 25 years, be warned: 25 years of loyal fandom apparently means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the University!

You are almost correct. There are many individuals at the University to whom it does mean something. To the body of alumni, it means something. But to the Athletic Department, as an institution, it is meaningful only to the extent they can convert it into dollars. It has always been this way, for the past 49 years that I have been around it anyway. It is their job, and they do it. Sometimes, they do it well. Other times, maybe not so much.

[Goose]

[Worrying about who is going to be around to watch in 25 years seems a little ridiculous, since, with the "it's all about business" mindset, there likely won't be anything worth watching in 25 years.  In any event, for that group who is still around in 25 years, be warned: 25 years of loyal fandom apparently means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the University!

You are almost correct. There are many individuals at the University to whom it does mean something. To the body of alumni, it means something. But to the Athletic Department, as an institution, it is meaningful only to the extent they can convert it into dollars. It has always been this way, for the past 49 years that I have been around it anyway. It is their job, and they do it. Sometimes, they do it well. Other times, maybe not so much.

[teejers1]

What "market rate" are people talking about for midsection seats?  Those charged by other, larger schools who have devoted fan bases?

Get a clue:  Stanford's fan base is soft and weak.  This is about maximizing return from Stanford's most price inelastic football fans (many of whom may have season tix just to have them for the one or two games they want to attend).  Period.  This will obviously have a negative effect on overall attendance, which clearly is not a priority of the Athletic Department.

BTW, I am an unaffected sunny sider, so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt (other than my sadness at witnessing the seemingly inexorable decline of the Stanford football fan base). 

[teejers1]

What "market rate" are people talking about for midsection seats?  Those charged by other, larger schools who have devoted fan bases?

Get a clue:  Stanford's fan base is soft and weak.  This is about maximizing return from Stanford's most price inelastic football fans (many of whom may have season tix just to have them for the one or two games they want to attend).  Period.  This will obviously have a negative effect on overall attendance, which clearly is not a priority of the Athletic Department.

BTW, I am an unaffected sunny sider, so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt (other than my sadness at witnessing the seemingly inexorable decline of the Stanford football fan base). 

[Goose]

What "market rate" are people talking about for midsection seats?  Those charged by other, larger schools who have devoted fan bases?

Get a clue:  Stanford's fan base is soft and weak.  This is about maximizing return from Stanford's most price inelastic football fans (many of whom may have season tix just to have them for the one or two games they want to attend).  Period.  This will obviously have a negative effect on overall attendance, which clearly is not a priority of the Athletic Department.

I agree. I would however change the description of the fan base to "relatively small and diverse", it sounds more positive. Some fans will pay the increased prices. Some fans (few, I expect) will just opt for less expensive tickets (the "re-seating" referred to in other posts). Many will just say "OK, its not worth that much money. I'm going to ...  instead". Yes, they have the money and could pay it. But they won't. This will have an overall negative effect on actual attendance, but could net more money if the remaining attendees are numerous enough. If not, it will net less, but we won't know because nobody seems willing to share the expected benefit. Others have said there is a waiting list for tickets in  the "good" seats. If all that is so, it is much more likely that the displaced fans would just "re-seat" themselves, as they would have some data indicating it was "worth it". But so far, nobody has provided that data. What possible good could come from not making it public? If the details of the unmet demand and the expected ticket sales at the new prices was public, displaced people could at least say "well, these less-pricey seats are a great buy". As it is, they just feel disrespected.
Remember, Sandy Barbour had a great idea that she could get lots more money for seats in their stadium. If the full details had been made fully public, I expect that maybe some Cal alumni would have enlightened her about those ticket sales.Similarly, we Stanford fans were assured that out new, smaller, but "state of the art" stadium would be full all the time. That turned out to be a bit optimistic. Not as much as Cal, but still off the mark. Are we repeating the same reasoning here?

BTW, I am an unaffected sunny sider, so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt

Me too.

[Goose]

What "market rate" are people talking about for midsection seats?  Those charged by other, larger schools who have devoted fan bases?

Get a clue:  Stanford's fan base is soft and weak.  This is about maximizing return from Stanford's most price inelastic football fans (many of whom may have season tix just to have them for the one or two games they want to attend).  Period.  This will obviously have a negative effect on overall attendance, which clearly is not a priority of the Athletic Department.

I agree. I would however change the description of the fan base to "relatively small and diverse", it sounds more positive. Some fans will pay the increased prices. Some fans (few, I expect) will just opt for less expensive tickets (the "re-seating" referred to in other posts). Many will just say "OK, its not worth that much money. I'm going to ...  instead". Yes, they have the money and could pay it. But they won't. This will have an overall negative effect on actual attendance, but could net more money if the remaining attendees are numerous enough. If not, it will net less, but we won't know because nobody seems willing to share the expected benefit. Others have said there is a waiting list for tickets in  the "good" seats. If all that is so, it is much more likely that the displaced fans would just "re-seat" themselves, as they would have some data indicating it was "worth it". But so far, nobody has provided that data. What possible good could come from not making it public? If the details of the unmet demand and the expected ticket sales at the new prices was public, displaced people could at least say "well, these less-pricey seats are a great buy". As it is, they just feel disrespected.
Remember, Sandy Barbour had a great idea that she could get lots more money for seats in their stadium. If the full details had been made fully public, I expect that maybe some Cal alumni would have enlightened her about those ticket sales.Similarly, we Stanford fans were assured that out new, smaller, but "state of the art" stadium would be full all the time. That turned out to be a bit optimistic. Not as much as Cal, but still off the mark. Are we repeating the same reasoning here?

BTW, I am an unaffected sunny sider, so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt

Me too.

[HisKneeWasDown]

I sit in 115. There are two seats next to me that have been unsold and empty for all but 1 season since the renovation. Pretty sure charging this seat tax isn't gonna miraculously result in those getting sold. And we plan on reducing the 4 we have to 2. Pretty sure those 2 will also go unsold.

If the twisted logic here is that by charging more you'll kick out the dead wood who doesn't attend, then you should reward renewals where people actually show up. You know they track those barcodes (I get a friendly spam email thanking me for attending). Increase prices, then refund a portion for each game you actually attend.

Note that after MBB started charging the seat tax they had to send out an appeal to people to come to the games. The fear was that there would be more purchasing by business people to give out as perks to clients. Really not the fan base you want to build.

[HisKneeWasDown]

I sit in 115. There are two seats next to me that have been unsold and empty for all but 1 season since the renovation. Pretty sure charging this seat tax isn't gonna miraculously result in those getting sold. And we plan on reducing the 4 we have to 2. Pretty sure those 2 will also go unsold.

If the twisted logic here is that by charging more you'll kick out the dead wood who doesn't attend, then you should reward renewals where people actually show up. You know they track those barcodes (I get a friendly spam email thanking me for attending). Increase prices, then refund a portion for each game you actually attend.

Note that after MBB started charging the seat tax they had to send out an appeal to people to come to the games. The fear was that there would be more purchasing by business people to give out as perks to clients. Really not the fan base you want to build.

[82lsju]

I agree. I would however change the description of the fan base to "relatively small and diverse", it sounds more positive. Some fans will pay the increased prices. Some fans (few, I expect) will just opt for less expensive tickets (the "re-seating" referred to in other posts). Many will just say "OK, its not worth that much money. I'm going to ...  instead". Yes, they have the money and could pay it. But they won't. This will have an overall negative effect on actual attendance, but could net more money if the remaining attendees are numerous enough. If not, it will net less, but we won't know because nobody seems willing to share the expected benefit.

over time one can loosely track the "benefit" if the AD continues to publish its annual report, here's the one from 2014-15

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

[82lsju]

I agree. I would however change the description of the fan base to "relatively small and diverse", it sounds more positive. Some fans will pay the increased prices. Some fans (few, I expect) will just opt for less expensive tickets (the "re-seating" referred to in other posts). Many will just say "OK, its not worth that much money. I'm going to ...  instead". Yes, they have the money and could pay it. But they won't. This will have an overall negative effect on actual attendance, but could net more money if the remaining attendees are numerous enough. If not, it will net less, but we won't know because nobody seems willing to share the expected benefit.

over time one can loosely track the "benefit" if the AD continues to publish its annual report, here's the one from 2014-15

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf