01-20-2017, 04:57 PM
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.Â
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.
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.Â
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.