|
|
Post by hal on Feb 23, 2024 14:34:00 GMT -4
I mean, am I really going to get worked up as a STH about losing 2 Wednesday home games against Maritimes teams that we match up against like 8 times a year? No. What if the price is the same? I don't think anyone cares about the number of games. But people will certainly care if the cost for 32 games is the same as it was for 34. Especially in Cape Breton .....Where with all the Promotions going on , the Season Ticket is already de-valued but we will address that issue at Season's End . |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Feb 23, 2024 14:43:17 GMT -4
What if the price is the same? I don't think anyone cares about the number of games. But people will certainly care if the cost for 32 games is the same as it was for 34. Especially in Cape Breton .....Where with all the Promotions going on , the Season Ticket is already de-valued but we will address that issue at Season's End . The more I think about it the more its clear that the only people really losing out here are the long time season ticket holders in each market because we can be fairly sure that prices won't decline for their 2 less games. Smart teams would get ahead of it by trying to add some value to the package for those people. And you're right on the promotions devaluing the season ticket. Its an impossible juggle but in reality the only thing you're paying for is that same seat. Give that up for some $13 Thursdays and other promotions while adding in those you miss anyway and you're probably up a decent chunk of cash. The teams need to find ways to get more value to those season ticket holders or they will lose them. |
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 23, 2024 14:50:55 GMT -4
I mean, am I really going to get worked up as a STH about losing 2 Wednesday home games against Maritimes teams that we match up against like 8 times a year? No. What if the price is the same? I don't think anyone cares about the number of games. But people will certainly care if the cost for 32 games is the same as it was for 34. I'm going to be brutally honest (while recognizing my privilege), not worked up in the slightest. You're talking about the cost difference going from $18.38 per game now to $19.53 per game with two less games. I'm already shelling out $1250+ for my pair of seats, that difference is chump change to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Feb 23, 2024 14:56:41 GMT -4
What if the price is the same? I don't think anyone cares about the number of games. But people will certainly care if the cost for 32 games is the same as it was for 34. I'm going to be brutally honest (while recognizing my privilege), not worked up in the slightest. You're talking about the cost difference going from $18.38 per game now to $19.53 per game with two less games. I'm already shelling out $1250+ for my pair of seats, that difference is chump change to me. In the big centers I would expect that to be the reaction by most. Economies are bigger and there's more disposable income. Now put yourself in a smaller more rural market where a big percentage of your season tickets holders are say 60+ and trying to stretch any and every dollar. Much harder job for that smaller market to retain their fans. The smaller the market and the larger the impact this could have when you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 23, 2024 15:09:00 GMT -4
I'm going to be brutally honest (while recognizing my privilege), not worked up in the slightest. You're talking about the cost difference going from $18.38 per game now to $19.53 per game with two less games. I'm already shelling out $1250+ for my pair of seats, that difference is chump change to me. In the big centers I would expect that to be the reaction by most. Economies are bigger and there's more disposable income. Now put yourself in a smaller more rural market where a big percentage of your season tickets holders are say 60+ and trying to stretch any and every dollar. Much harder job for that smaller market to retain their fans. The smaller the market and the larger the impact this could have when you think about it. Yep, I completely get that. You, hal and Mika are 100% right in how smaller market teams will need to deliver additional value to their STHs to increase the value prop of renewing. I actually have another thought to all this (maybe relevant to small market/big market?): how many STHs actually go to all 34 home games? My wife and I normally go to 26-28 games a year - between work, travel and other entertainment options I'm not "extracting value" out of all 34 (soon to be 32) games anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by hal on Feb 23, 2024 15:10:27 GMT -4
What if the price is the same? I don't think anyone cares about the number of games. But people will certainly care if the cost for 32 games is the same as it was for 34. I'm going to be brutally honest (while recognizing my privilege), not worked up in the slightest. You're talking about the cost difference going from $18.38 per game now to $19.53 per game with two less games. I'm already shelling out $1250+ for my pair of seats, that difference is chump change to me. Sprinkle in some $13 Thursday Game Tickets and every Friday and Sunday at 4 for $50 dollars and it adds up to a lot more then what you are quoting . Like Johnny said I am paying a Premium Price to secure the Same Seat every game , that was never the most important thing to me and as I get Older it means even less . |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Feb 23, 2024 15:43:29 GMT -4
In the big centers I would expect that to be the reaction by most. Economies are bigger and there's more disposable income. Now put yourself in a smaller more rural market where a big percentage of your season tickets holders are say 60+ and trying to stretch any and every dollar. Much harder job for that smaller market to retain their fans. The smaller the market and the larger the impact this could have when you think about it. Yep, I completely get that. You, hal and Mika are 100% right in how smaller market teams will need to deliver additional value to their STHs to increase the value prop of renewing. I actually have another thought to all this (maybe relevant to small market/big market?): how many STHs actually go to all 34 home games? My wife and I normally go to 26-28 games a year - between work, travel and other entertainment options I'm not "extracting value" out of all 34 (soon to be 32) games anyways. I'd say thats common. Its hard to not have something come up when committing to 30+ random dates in advance. But its more of a perception thing. Especially for that older generation who feels like they're always paying more for less in every area of life. I might only go to 26 of 34 but still want to pay less to go to 26 of 32 kind of thing. When that generation is your who you rely on to pay the bills you need to have some plan in place or expect some backlash. |
|
|
|
Post by j3e4 on Feb 23, 2024 19:58:41 GMT -4
Every product has its point of diminishing returns. It appears for at least 2/3 of QMJHL teams, this point is closer to 32 home games than it is to 34. They figure the costs saved by having 2 fewer games outweighs the lost revenue. With attendance not being great in a lot of markets, it's not really that surprising.
A lot of non STH will attend X number of games per year. Whether that be X out of 32 games or X out of 34. So with all other things being equal (which they rarely are but hypothetically speaking) teams should see a slight increase in average attendance.
As for season ticket holders, team likely believe 1 of 2 things to be true. Their target market will have a significant response to a change in ticket prices (whether it be the total for season tickets or the price per game) or there won't be much of a response to a change. If it's the former then they would keep price per game as it is and lower the price for season tickets. This would create an opportunity to increase their season ticket base as they wouldn't cost as much. If it's the latter, then the total price for season tickets would remain the same without much concern of losing many season tickets holders while increasing profit margins for each season ticket sold. Either way there could be an opportunity to increase profitability as long as they know their market.
Of course they can't go too low as some costs are fixed regardless of how many games they play. Also the fan base will become less engaged if there are too few games, not to mention merchandise/concession sales. Of course one of the league's selling points to attract players is that the number of games is closer to pro than NCAA. Basically there are a lot of moving parts for determining the optimal number of games to play. Some factors push for a lower number while others push for a higher number and every team's situation would be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Feb 24, 2024 9:45:30 GMT -4
It costs money to play games (even home games) and you don't make money all the time. Case in point night of the week and capacity per game varies. There is likely a sweet spot. Most teams are not Halifax, Moncton, Gatineau, Quebec, or Sherbrooke. They all have different lease and concession agreements.
But in theory 34 or 32 home games mean if the same fans usually come they certainly vary their spending at games because can only stretch disposable income so far. People run out of money and sometimes choose not to attend because supply is not constrained - subtract two games tightens it.
It may actually boost playoff attendance - playoff first round attendance is awful in the Q because of how its scheduled....do they have more wiggle room in scheduling so they can abandon first round Tues/Wed games 3 and 4....?
Someone has done the math. 2/3 of league realize the cost of those two extra games is probably not coming back in revenues. And if they might not want to charge more for tickets/food the expense side is the only other way to make ends meet without scaring away patrons.
|
|
|
|
Post by bois on Feb 26, 2024 8:13:37 GMT -4
I'm gonna look at it from a totally different pespective..... fewer games diminishes opportunities for kids to chase records..... and chasing records is a marketing draw to the home team
much harder to score 50 goals... to score 100 points etc when you keep shortening the league schedule
|
|
|
|
Post by Mika on Feb 26, 2024 9:08:03 GMT -4
I'm gonna look at it from a totally different pespective..... fewer games diminishes opportunities for kids to chase records..... and chasing records is a marketing draw to the home team much harder to score 50 goals... to score 100 points etc when you keep shortening the league schedule Apparently the feedback from players has been positive though. However if they thought 68 games was a tough schedule, they're in for a rude awakening when they go to the AHL or NHL where there's more games with a much higher physical intensity. Definitely a lot of good can come of this for teams. Less travel and it cuts out two midweek games that a lot of teams lose money on. As for records, all success for the team should be prioritized over personal accolades (a lesson Washington will learn the hard way with Ovi). If cutting the schedule down by 4 games helps teams in the long run, I'm all for it. I do agree on cost of season ticket passes, the price should reflect the loss of those two games. I hope teams do get creative with ways to make back that money too with theme nights. Tons of ways they can pull that off with a little creative thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Feb 26, 2024 9:25:56 GMT -4
I'm gonna look at it from a totally different pespective..... fewer games diminishes opportunities for kids to chase records..... and chasing records is a marketing draw to the home team much harder to score 50 goals... to score 100 points etc when you keep shortening the league schedule Apparently the feedback from players has been positive though. However if they thought 68 games was a tough schedule, they're in for a rude awakening when they go to the AHL or NHL where there's more games with a much higher physical intensity. Definitely a lot of good can come of this for teams. Less travel and it cuts out two midweek games that a lot of teams lose money on. As for records, all success for the team should be prioritized over personal accolades (a lesson Washington will learn the hard way with Ovi). If cutting the schedule down by 4 games helps teams in the long run, I'm all for it. I do agree on cost of season ticket passes, the price should reflect the loss of those two games. I hope teams do get creative with ways to make back that money too with theme nights. Tons of ways they can pull that off with a little creative thinking. I think over the next say 20-25 years we will see "load management" become a bigger deal as sports science proves that playing a certain schedule based on different factors (age, rest, etc) will become the norm like in the NBA. I think we'll see the 80 game seasons stick around but you're going to get 68-72 games of elite players over those 80+. We're already there with goaltenders when you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Feb 26, 2024 9:27:12 GMT -4
I'm gonna look at it from a totally different pespective..... fewer games diminishes opportunities for kids to chase records..... and chasing records is a marketing draw to the home team much harder to score 50 goals... to score 100 points etc when you keep shortening the league schedule Never thought of this angle but its very true. We already see less of this simply due to the style of play. Add in less games and eventually 40 goals becomes what 50 used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by islander19 on Feb 26, 2024 13:39:37 GMT -4
I'm gonna look at it from a totally different pespective..... fewer games diminishes opportunities for kids to chase records..... and chasing records is a marketing draw to the home team much harder to score 50 goals... to score 100 points etc when you keep shortening the league schedule Never thought of this angle but its very true. We already see less of this simply due to the style of play. Add in less games and eventually 40 goals becomes what 50 used to be. This is 100% correct…the only counter point that could be legit is that if kids aren’t playing 3 in 3’s, they’re more rested for the games they’re actually playing…but I don’t think that’s enough of a difference to offset the 4 less games points wise |
|
|
|
Post by islandersfan01 on Feb 26, 2024 20:10:11 GMT -4
Did they lower the price of season tickets when they went from 70 to 68 games?
|
|
