Attendances

[darrenrover]

Just now, K-Hod said:

I'm not making a point about the impact of it, I'm making a point on the need for it. Can you tell me what the need for it is? I still don't know. People would still have to go to 4 over the season to make it worth being in the reward scheme. 

For point of clarity, I don't see the point of 1875 club now either, it just adds to the confusion in what should be a simple exercise of buying a ticket to see a game of football.

My idea would be: for away games, season ticket holders have priority for a period, after which (if in demand) a period for those with previous away purchases and then general sale. The price for home games would be set at a price of £? for the season for 'walk ons', with a £3 discount if purchased in advance. (much better incentive than 'surcharge', although the result may be the same!).

If this applied, then the club would also be able to offer incentives over the season for 'bring a friend for a fiver', 'adult and a kid for a quid' etc.

We need to be innovative to attract and not offer deterrents. 

[MCMC1875]

10 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

For point of clarity, I don't see the point of 1875 club now either, it just adds to the confusion in what should be a simple exercise of buying a ticket to see a game of football.

My idea would be: for away games, season ticket holders have priority for a period, after which (if in demand) a period for those with previous away purchases and then general sale. The price for home games would be set at a price of £? for the season for 'walk ons', with a £3 discount if purchased in advance. (much better incentive than 'surcharge', although the result may be the same!).

If this applied, then the club would also be able to offer incentives over the season for 'bring a friend for a fiver', 'adult and a kid for a quid' etc.

We need to be innovative to attract and not offer deterrents. 

Agreed, the pricing needs to be simplified, it's too complex.

Edited November 14, 2018 by MCMC1875

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

Can you tell me what the need for it is? I still don't know.

In any event, people would still have to go to 4 games over the course of the whole season to make it worth being in the reward scheme and never receive the surcharge..... 

We are talking about a business in an industry where the average salary at our level is more than 500k a year and rising! Costs go up, thus prices follow. 

The waiver for all surcharges at 12 quid really that bad? Jesus, I’d say the price of chips and hotdogs is more worthy of complaint. Factor in club cash, other offers, first choice on away seats etc - it’s worth it for a minimum of four games. Surely you’d agree we should be trying to encourage those to go more not pandering for going less?

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

Comparing the demand for a Lancashire derby away game with a limited 5,500 allocation, where season ticket holders and other Ewood regulars need to buy a ticket, to a standard Championship home match with 20,000 seats to sell will tell you nothing.

 

I think it’s obvious why comparing demand for a standard home game with a local or a perceived away “derby”; People will go to the one they want to regardless of cost. Would halving cost of tickets double walk ons for that fixture? I don’t think so personally.

1 hour ago, MCMC1875 said:

If the cost is negligible, then why have the surcharge?

Turnover has to go up. I can see why people might think we should perhaps be doing or wording it differently (see @darren_rover ‘s post) but at the end of the day I accept that we need to boost the coffers- particularly when there is evidence they’re investing more on the pitch.

[Mattyblue]

But a load of the away end will be Ewood regulars anyway, so that’s a load of the ‘demand’ you have every week.

[darrenrover]

Ultimately the turnover does need to go up but not by charging those already committed more. Use marginal costing as the base and look how to attract more multiples of £20 tickets for 'walk ons' who may buy a season ticket next season. Look at kids who have previously been season ticket holders when their parents paid but now they're young adults and expected to pay full wack, no longer attend...... The list of opportunity is endless, the club just need to look outside the box and more importantly not make any already committed supporters feel penalised in any way, shape or form.

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

But a load of the away end will be Ewood regulars anyway, so that’s a load of the ‘demand’ you have every week.

Yea I know that, it’s not relevant. The discussion seemed to be suggesting the surcharges and costs are putting people off in numbers - the point I’m making is the product or fixture tends to dictate people’s interest in attending.

Just now, darrenrover said:

Ultimately the turnover does need to go up but not by charging those already committed more. Use marginal costing as the base and look how to attract more multiples of £20 tickets for 'walk ons' who may buy a season ticket next season. Look at kids who have previously been season ticket holders when their parents paid but now they're young adults and expected to pay full wack, no longer attend...... The list of opportunity is endless, the club just need to look outside the box and more importantly not make any already committed supporters feel penalised in any way, shape or form.

The surcharges don’t cost people committed to season tickets or regular walking on more. They cost people more who turn up last minute on a whim. 

I agree the other potentials are endless, I’ve said it before, kids of a certain age should be free and there are other great ideas.  

Still doesn’t change that this is an small and easily avoidable charge that’s being jumped on as something that it’s not.

[darrenrover]

The mere fact that a £3 surcharge is even being debated should be enough. It's a deterrent and certainly not an incentive. Surely the club should be looking to attract as many as possible to home games?

Marginal costing: if it puts 10 off going (say 10x£20) what's the net result in terms of revenue versus cost?

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

The mere fact that a £3 surcharge is even being debated should be enough. It's a deterrent and certainly not an incentive. Surely the club should be looking to attract as many as possible to home games?

Marginal costing: if it puts 10 off going (say 10x£20) what's the net result in terms of revenue versus cost?

I could be wrong, but I suspect people who wouldn't go anyway are using the surcharge as an excuse. 

[JBiz]

Just now, darrenrover said:

The mere fact that a £3 surcharge is even being debated should be enough. It's a deterrent and certainly not an incentive. Surely the club should be looking to attract as many as possible to home games?

Marginal costing: if it puts 10 off going (say 10x£20) what's the net result in terms of revenue versus cost?

The fact it’s being complained at as a deterrent is exactly what I have problem with. It’s a decision they’ve made. Their reasoning? I can only assume but you say it may put 10 off.... what if it puts 10 others into jointing the rewards, ordering their tickets differently e.g. setting up an account or even thinking it’s better value to buy a half ST or participate in multi game offers?

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

I could be wrong, but I suspect people who wouldn't go anyway are using the surcharge as an excuse. 

Bingo. The club should focus on making us better on the pitch to encourage fans and that takes money. 

If that means upping cost or selling 7000 tickets to Leeds and villa fans - so be it.

[Crimpshrine]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

I could be wrong, but I suspect people who wouldn't go anyway are using the surcharge as an excuse. 

Firstly, you don't need any excuse - it's a free world.

However, if a ticket is normally £27 but £30 on the day it is a consideration to some people.

If the surcharge puts one person off then Rovers lose out by by £30 so it takes 10 other 'walk ons' paying an extra £3.00 to make up the difference.

It would be far preferable to get all 11 fans paying £27 in the ground and get (very nearly) the same income. 

If it never puts anyone off and everyone is happy to pay the surcharge then  Rovers income is up slightly but not great for PR

[Bigdoggsteel]

9 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

Firstly, you don't need any excuse - it's a free world.

However, if a ticket is normally £27 but £30 on the day it is a consideration to some people.

If the surcharge puts one person off then Rovers lose out by by £30 so it takes 10 other 'walk ons' paying an extra £3.00 to make up the difference.

It would be far preferable to get all 11 fans paying £27 in the ground and get (very nearly) the same income. 

If it never puts anyone off and everyone is happy to pay the surcharge then  Rovers income is up slightly but not great for PR

Just buy your ticket before the surcharge kicks in then. 

I still think if you are willing and able to fork out £27 for a ticket, you would only refuse to part with £3 extra out of principle. Which of course is fair enough and your own prerogative.  I also think that is cutting your nose off to spite your face at this point. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[roversfan99]

24 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Just buy your ticket before the surcharge kicks in then. 

I still think if you are willing and able to fork out £27 for a ticket, you would only refuse to part with £3 extra out of principle. Which of course is fair enough and your own prerogative.  I also think that is cutting your nose off to spite your face at this point. 

The first sentence is voided by the fact that obviously many people may make a judgement on the day, for example they may have potential other plans.

I dont get this mentality that we should be criticising these fans or that they require an excuse. Its not being embraced and grasped that these fans in the main are not hardcore fans that we are trying to tempt in. They are fans who can take or leave attending, but that doesnt mean that we can turn our nose up at them for having such a mentality. For them, a hard working young team and some moderate success wont be enough in isolation. The club need to empathise with that and try and pull them back in at a time when the club is on an upward trajectory.

The surcharge is partially a point of principle, but you would naturally be more reluctant to buy a ticket at a higher price that people only hours ago will have paid for the same match. I also agree with @Crimpshrine regarding marginal costing, and am unconvinced that they will actually make any extra money from charging surcharges anyway, for example, if £27 tickets go to £30 then it only takes 1 person being put off to offset 9 buyers worth of surcharges. There is an obvious psychological element too, take the above example, if a ticket was £27 I dont think half as many people would grumble as if a ticket was £30 in general as we saw with the backlash and relatively poor following to Bolton away.

[Crimpshrine]

26 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Just buy your ticket before the surcharge kicks in then. 

I still think if you are willing and able to fork out £27 for a ticket, you would only refuse to part with £3 extra out of principle. Which of course is fair enough and your own prerogative.  I also think that is cutting your nose off to spite your face at this point. 

OK, so I don't have a credit card and like to pay cash.

An advance trip to Ewood to buy a ticket would cost me more than £3.00 and take up valuable time. Why should I pay more than anyone else ?

[DaveyB]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

From my point of view it's an example of the club trying to squeeze another few quid out of generally loyal supporters. As I said it's not the money but the principal. I'd like to see the membership numbers from last year to this. Perhaps they can be requested at one of the fan group meetings.

At the moment I'm considering going to watch Accrington on Saturday. In the past I have got my tickets at 2.30 on the day of the game. If I had to pay any more than face value I simply wouldn't go. I know the Chief Executive there and he knows the walk on numbers would be severely depleted if they charged any extra.

Maybe, but my point is that you don't have to buy it - as many people have pointed out, they haven't and aren't really missing out on anything. Increased ticket prices, and even the surcharge to some extent, are more of an example of the club trying squeeze fans - as the match ticket is a fairly essential part of the whole fan experience - but the membership scheme isn't. It is a add-on, something that people will buy if they feel it is good value and won't if they don't, and ultimately it's something that won't massively affect your experience either way.

[darrenrover]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I could be wrong, but I suspect people who wouldn't go anyway are using the surcharge as an excuse. 

I don't necessarily disagree Bds but remove the £3 and then 'could be wrong' and you 'suspect' would no longer apply as a potential excuse would it?

[Leonard Venkhater]

4 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

I don't necessarily disagree Bds but remove the £3 and then 'could be wrong' and you 'suspect' would no longer apply as a potential excuse would it?

Any disincentive just has to be avoided, as far as I can see.

I think the biggest danger is the mere fact of the negative publicity that this club really doesn't need.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Leonard Venkhater

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

I don't necessarily disagree Bds but remove the £3 and then 'could be wrong' and you 'suspect' would no longer apply as a potential excuse would it?

I agree it should be removed 100%

[Stuart]

6 hours ago, Biz said:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/november/ticket-news-sheffield-wednesday-h/

27 quid in the riverside if you’re not in the 1875 club. 24 quid if you are. Will this game see the tickets fly out like Preston away? No, and It’s got feck all to do with surcharges.

And yet, £30 to watch Sheff Weds (or £27 in the cheap seats) if you rock up at the window before the game sounds even worse. You can watch Man City in the Champions League football for £30!

The idea that planning ahead to avoid the club imposed surcharge “saves you money” is exactly the kind of response Waggott is hoping for.

But while you are here, do you want to buy my bridge?

[tomphil]

It's just penny pinching at the end of the day just using another stealth method to try and squeeze a few extra quid out of non ST attending fans whilst covering it with the extra ticket office staff excuse.

We aren't the only club guilty of it we've just jumped on board and thought 'why not'.

[darrenrover]

£

30 minutes ago, Stuart said:

And yet, £30 to watch Sheff Weds (or £27 in the cheap seats) if you rock up at the window before the game sounds even worse. You can watch Man City in the Champions League football for £30!

The idea that planning ahead to avoid the club imposed surcharge “saves you money” is exactly the kind of response Waggott is hoping for.

But while you are here, do you want to buy my bridge?

Ist December, prior to Christmas and post 2 expensive away games at PNE and Wigan: Sheff Wednesday at home, let's charge £27 for a Riverside seat!

If ever there was an opportunity to exercise some common sense with regards to pricing and offer 'a deal' in the run up to Christmas with perhaps a reduction for a half season ticket thrown in for good measure too, then this was it. Wednesday, Birmingham and Norwich for £50? (IMO of course)

Edited November 14, 2018 by darrenrover

[gumboots]

8 hours ago, Biz said:

No B.B. I get that people aren’t too happy about paying more in this climate, but I think you’re missing my point; This is also a perfect excuse for the lapsed fans who simply can’t be arsed with Rotherham at home. They’d pay it 3/4 times over if we had United, Liverpool, City etc, and never bat a eyelid. 

If it was price not product, wouldn’t we have seen at least one complaint about Preston charging us 27 quid basic for their game? Reason is- as you are pointing it out - that’s because entertainment wise, local derby with an edge is fair more enjoyable than the latest DC abomination or Star Wars Episode 19.

I am not the marketing department or involved in finance so I cannot explain their decisions, but put it this way - I still think our tickets are correctly and fairly priced. 

If an improving young team on an upwards trend, with a good manager adding quality and class, investing in players, showing team spirit not seen for years, with a 1 defeat in over a year at home - needs to do more to “encourage fans to attend” then I personally think the fans deserve the criticism not the club.

We're not necessarily talking about Rovers fans though are we. Or at least not committed, diehard ones. We're talking about people who like watching football for whom Rovers is their local club who may become hooked if they can be brought into the ground or people who have been so worn down by events at Ewood over a number of years that the words enjoyable Saturday afternoon and Rovers don't quite go together in their minds anymore. They may have felt marginalised by the club in the past, even if they can see the sense of some of the decisions that annoyed them. They know the team is doing well. They realise that this is a team that works hard for each other, the manager, the fans and the club but somehow they've lost the passion that took them to Ewood whenever they could get there. They've lost the emotional connection and to get that back they need to be encouraged to attend. Anything that gets them there, any idea that's economically feasible and doesn't diminish the value of being a season ticket holder should be considered. 

[darrenrover]

Just now, gumboots said:

We're not necessarily talking about Rovers fans though are we. Or at least not committed, diehard ones. We're talking about people who like watching football for whom Rovers is their local club who may become hooked if they can be brought into the ground or people who have been so worn down by events at Ewood over a number of years that the words enjoyable Saturday afternoon and Rovers don't quite go together in their minds anymore. They may have felt marginalised by the club in the past, even if they can see the sense of some of the decisions that annoyed them. They know the team is doing well. They realise that this is a team that works hard for each other, the manager, the fans and the club but somehow they've lost the passion that took them to Ewood whenever they could get there. They've lost the emotional connection and to get that back they need to be encouraged to attend. Anything that gets them there, any idea that's economically feasible and doesn't diminish the value of being a season ticket holder should be considered. 

I totally agree. It's pointless arguing about the whys or wherefores of peoples individual reasons for non attendance because they will still remain irrespective.

The secret to success is understanding them and doing something about overcoming them.........

[Stuart]

Just now, darrenrover said:

£

Ist December, prior to Christmas and post 2 expensive away games at PNE and Wigan: Sheff Wednesday at home, let's charge £27 for a Riverside seat!

If ever there was an opportunity to exercise some common sense with regards to pricing and offer 'a deal' in the run up to Christmas with perhaps a reduction for a half season ticket thrown in for good measure too, then this was it. (IMO of course)

I wouldn’t target the 1st Dec game - too early. The strategy I’d be looking at would be to use the two games right before Christmas.

First up,15th December against Big Club. £10 per ticket, kids for a quid. Really go for a big sell just ahead of the Christmas period and try to get the ground as full as possible. Let the atmosphere sell itself.

Then normal price for the following Saturday against Norwich BUT the club will deduct the price of that ticket from the price of a half season ticket if you buy one between 15th and 22nd December.

Advertise the hell out of the latter game at the former game, and see how many extras you can shift as late Christmas presents.

Maths...

2000 walk ons x £25 = £50,000

Av Half ST (less discount) = £175

Rough cut, you need to shift an extra 300 adult STs to make it work.

We got 25k on against Oxford. If we can get 20k (cheap but minus the promotion factor) then that’s up to 6000 extra fans to try to get your 300 from.

Seems worth a try to me. Even if we don’t tempt people back you’ve got at least one bumper crowd against Birmingham and nobody can say the club didn’t try.

[darrenrover]

28 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I wouldn’t target the 1st Dec game - too early. The strategy I’d be looking at would be to use the two games right before Christmas.

First up,15th December against Big Club. £10 per ticket, kids for a quid. Really go for a big sell just ahead of the Christmas period and try to get the ground as full as possible. Let the atmosphere sell itself.

Then normal price for the following Saturday against Norwich BUT the club will deduct the price of that ticket from the price of a half season ticket if you buy one between 15th and 22nd December.

Advertise the hell out of the latter game at the former game, and see how many extras you can shift as late Christmas presents.

Maths...

2000 walk ons x £25 = £50,000

Av Half ST (less discount) = £175

Rough cut, you need to shift an extra 300 adult STs to make it work.

We got 25k on against Oxford. If we can get 20k (cheap but minus the promotion factor) then that’s up to 6000 extra fans to try to get your 300 from.

Seems worth a try to me. Even if we don’t tempt people back you’ve got at least one bumper crowd against Birmingham and nobody can say the club didn’t try.

We're both 'working off the same page' Stuart. The more positive ideas the better:  hopefully the club are listening too!

[OldEwoodBlue]

6 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

Firstly, you don't need any excuse - it's a free world.

However, if a ticket is normally £27 but £30 on the day it is a consideration to some people.

If the surcharge puts one person off then Rovers lose out by by £30 so it takes 10 other 'walk ons' paying an extra £3.00 to make up the difference.

It would be far preferable to get all 11 fans paying £27 in the ground and get (very nearly) the same income. 

If it never puts anyone off and everyone is happy to pay the surcharge then  Rovers income is up slightly but not great for PR

Agreed

20,000 empty seats...

Thread is about increasing attendances which starts with 1 more, 2 more, etc fans.

Those arguing for the surcharge or attempting to justify it, clearly prefer attendances to remain the same. Strange POV

Edited November 14, 2018 by Franky