|
Post by AzTex on Sept 25, 2016 8:39:14 GMT -8
Glad to hear that you are willing to pay $1200 per season ticket. You are the few elites who are fortunate to have the money to do so. I guess you will be enjoying the game with the 200 other wealthy alums at each game. By the way, $900 was the lowest priced seat that they mentioned I believe. I have been a season ticket holder for both basketball and football as well. I am a family of 4. Just the thought of spending nearly $8000 per year to continue to go to these games sounds ridiculous. By the way, I also contribute to non-sports related donations as well, so continue to do all three will be impossible. Go Aztecs That is not accurate. Depending on your response the questions in the survey changed. I believe the cheapest seats were in the upper end zone around $150-$350; can't remember exactly. This is only a survey to collect data. I personally would pay at least equal to what i pay for basketball tickets. It is the price we will pay if we want a new appropriate stadium for SDSU football. The football program should have comparable athletic facilities as the basketball program if we want our football program to maintain its status as one of the best teams in the MWC and G5. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS! Good to hear that they are testing prices at different locations. I'd guess they might also be testing different prices at the same locations as well. Thank you for the pricing and seating charts that you posted. I was thinking of looking up some comparable schools with newer stadiums to see what the prices were. You saved me some work.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2016 8:44:18 GMT -8
I wonder what old Deano did when he saw that basically the Padres and Aztecs put out a survery to build a new stadium that will basically undercut one leg of their three legged milk stool?
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 25, 2016 8:50:57 GMT -8
The reason for doing surveys like this is to peg the demand at different price points, so these numbers aren't necessarily the final ones. And yes, the MSL will contribute. But hey, we knew prices would have to rise in the event a new stadium ever became reality. A vastly better facility that would be essential to our making the jump to a higher level was obviously not going to come without costs. And we, the fans and boosters who have been clamoring for the program to someday grow up and realize its potential, will be expected to put our checkbooks where our mouths are. I've been ready for that all along. If you want Aztec Football to be a big-time program, one that is a fixture in the top 25 every year, then be prepared to pay for it. If saving your bucks is a higher priority, then accept a mediocre football team--or none at all. Those are your choices. Well, for a lot of people it isn't about, "Saving your bucks," it's about having bucks to spend on increased ticket prices. A lot of people in this economy won't be able to pay anything more than they pay now, so significantly increased ticket prices will negatively impact attendance. They have to find that sweet spot where they get more revenue from higher prices, but don't lose revenue because attendance drops significantly. At what price point would attendance go down significantly? They're going to have to be real careful about pricing - especially in San Diego!
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Sept 25, 2016 9:08:12 GMT -8
The reason for doing surveys like this is to peg the demand at different price points, so these numbers aren't necessarily the final ones. And yes, the MSL will contribute. But hey, we knew prices would have to rise in the event a new stadium ever became reality. A vastly better facility that would be essential to our making the jump to a higher level was obviously not going to come without costs. And we, the fans and boosters who have been clamoring for the program to someday grow up and realize its potential, will be expected to put our checkbooks where our mouths are. I've been ready for that all along. If you want Aztec Football to be a big-time program, one that is a fixture in the top 25 every year, then be prepared to pay for it. If saving your bucks is a higher priority, then accept a mediocre football team--or none at all. Those are your choices. Well, for a lot of people it isn't about, "Saving your bucks," it's about having bucks to spend on increased ticket prices. A lot of people in this economy won't be able to pay anything more than they pay now, so significantly increased ticket prices will negatively impact attendance. They have to find that sweet spot where they get more revenue from higher prices, but don't lose revenue because attendance drops significantly. At what price point would attendance go down significantly? They're going to have to be real careful about pricing - especially in San Diego! This is the dilemma of every business (substitute sales for attendance).
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2016 9:16:03 GMT -8
The reason for doing surveys like this is to peg the demand at different price points, so these numbers aren't necessarily the final ones. And yes, the MSL will contribute. But hey, we knew prices would have to rise in the event a new stadium ever became reality. A vastly better facility that would be essential to our making the jump to a higher level was obviously not going to come without costs. And we, the fans and boosters who have been clamoring for the program to someday grow up and realize its potential, will be expected to put our checkbooks where our mouths are. I've been ready for that all along. If you want Aztec Football to be a big-time program, one that is a fixture in the top 25 every year, then be prepared to pay for it. If saving your bucks is a higher priority, then accept a mediocre football team--or none at all. Those are your choices. Well, for a lot of people it isn't about, "Saving your bucks," it's about having bucks to spend on increased ticket prices. A lot of people in this economy won't be able to pay anything more than they pay now, so significantly increased ticket prices will negatively impact attendance. They have to find that sweet spot where they get more revenue from higher prices, but don't lose revenue because attendance drops significantly. At what price point would attendance go down significantly? They're going to have to be real careful about pricing - especially in San Diego! Hence the survey. Let's see where it goes.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 25, 2016 9:17:44 GMT -8
Well, for a lot of people it isn't about, "Saving your bucks," it's about having bucks to spend on increased ticket prices. A lot of people in this economy won't be able to pay anything more than they pay now, so significantly increased ticket prices will negatively impact attendance. They have to find that sweet spot where they get more revenue from higher prices, but don't lose revenue because attendance drops significantly. At what price point would attendance go down significantly? They're going to have to be real careful about pricing - especially in San Diego! This is the dilemma of every business (substitute sales for attendance). The one thing I can say as someone who ran a retail business is that we made more profit when we lowered prices (total number of sales increased significantly, so even though the profit margin was less we made more profit dollars overall thanks to the increased number of sales). Attendance is the same way. The premium prices should only be from the 30 to the 30 in the best seats. Holding the line with the pricing for the rest of the seating will result in better attendance as people want to check out the new stadium. Keeping those people coming to games is the job of the AD and Coaching Staff (put a winner on the field and people will keep coming to the games).
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 25, 2016 9:19:48 GMT -8
Well, for a lot of people it isn't about, "Saving your bucks," it's about having bucks to spend on increased ticket prices. A lot of people in this economy won't be able to pay anything more than they pay now, so significantly increased ticket prices will negatively impact attendance. They have to find that sweet spot where they get more revenue from higher prices, but don't lose revenue because attendance drops significantly. At what price point would attendance go down significantly? They're going to have to be real careful about pricing - especially in San Diego! Hence the survey. Let's see where it goes. My point is you don't just want to set pricing based on what the die hard portion of your fanbase says. Most of those people have greater financial resources than the average San Diegan has. The profit comes from the people who are on the fence about going to games. Price them out and they just won't (or can't) buy tickets.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2016 9:26:23 GMT -8
Hence the survey. Let's see where it goes. My point is you don't just want to set pricing based on what the die hard portion of your fanbase says. Most of those people have greater financial resources than the average San Diegan has. The profit comes from the people who are on the fence about going to games. Price them out and they just won't (or can't) buy tickets. This is not their first rodeo, they have response models developed from other projects that will help optimize the price. They will first understand the elasticity of this population based on this survey and go from there. These firms know what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 25, 2016 9:30:55 GMT -8
My point is you don't just want to set pricing based on what the die hard portion of your fanbase says. Most of those people have greater financial resources than the average San Diegan has. The profit comes from the people who are on the fence about going to games. Price them out and they just won't (or can't) buy tickets. This is not their first rodeo, they have response models developed from other projects that will help optimize the price. They will first understand the elasticity of this population based on this survey and go from there. These firms know what they are doing. But they're not surveying the casual fans. Those are the people who will make or break attendance. Only surveying season ticket holders gives a skewed result. They've got to find a way to get responses from people who don't have the money to buy season tickets to see how much they can afford - and whether or not they'll buy tickets at all if they're stuck (due to finances) in crappy end zone seats.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2016 9:38:27 GMT -8
This is not their first rodeo, they have response models developed from other projects that will help optimize the price. They will first understand the elasticity of this population based on this survey and go from there. These firms know what they are doing. But they're not surveying the casual fans. Those are the people who will make or break attendance. Only surveying season ticket holders gives a skewed result. They've got to find a way to get responses from people who don't have the money to buy season tickets to see how much they can afford - and whether or not they'll buy tickets at all if they're stuck (due to finances) in crappy end zone seats. ey wi Ya, that's because they have segmented the population and know that the season ticket base are the ones that will pay for the PSL's. The most important piece of the puzzle, from there they can arrive at what they believe the ticket prices should be for other parts and programs. These firms understand the relationships between the segments within the population.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 25, 2016 9:46:06 GMT -8
But they're not surveying the casual fans. Those are the people who will make or break attendance. Only surveying season ticket holders gives a skewed result. They've got to find a way to get responses from people who don't have the money to buy season tickets to see how much they can afford - and whether or not they'll buy tickets at all if they're stuck (due to finances) in crappy end zone seats. ey wi Ya, that's because they have segmented the population and know that the season ticket base are the ones that will pay for the PSL's. The most important piece of the puzzle, from there they can arrive at what they believe the ticket prices should be for other parts and programs. These firms understand the relationships between the segments within the population. Except that San Diego is unlike any other market due to the huge number of transplants living here who are indifferent to Aztec football. Hell, most of the locals here are indifferent to Aztec football because it was so bad for so long. In most other markets most of the locals are from the area and are emotionally invested in the programs. Hopefully they do take that into consideration. It's a hard thing to quantify, though, which is why I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 25, 2016 9:48:55 GMT -8
Welcome to football in 2016. If you want to stay competitive you have to pay. All but a few sections SHOULD require seat back fees.
There will always be affordable seats in every stadium, but look around. If WSU, BSU and CSU fans are willing to pay this amount and then some for premium seating, we should as well.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2016 9:57:08 GMT -8
ey wi Ya, that's because they have segmented the population and know that the season ticket base are the ones that will pay for the PSL's. The most important piece of the puzzle, from there they can arrive at what they believe the ticket prices should be for other parts and programs. These firms understand the relationships between the segments within the population. Except that San Diego is unlike any other market due to the huge number of transplants living here who are indifferent to Aztec football. Hell, most of the locals here are indifferent to Aztec football because it was so bad for so long. In most other markets most of the locals are from the area and are emotionally invested in the programs. Hopefully they do take that into consideration. It's a hard thing to quantify, though, which is why I'm concerned. I guess you just want to argue, but just let say this. The Data Scientists that work these projects are fully aware of the variables needed, the relationships between the segments, and potential biases in the data. They are professionals and this price optimization market is probably a billion dollar market place (All Industries). This is not some dude with a computer in a trailer figuring out based on what he thinks is going to work. But you don't outlay this capital and don't expect to recoup in some fashion. That means higher prices in some form. You don't trade in your 85 durango for which you don't have a payment on for a new Denali and expect to pay nothing or what your payment was on the durango 10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Sept 25, 2016 10:21:03 GMT -8
This is the dilemma of every business (substitute sales for attendance). The one thing I can say as someone who ran a retail business is that we made more profit when we lowered prices (total number of sales increased significantly, so even though the profit margin was less we made more profit dollars overall thanks to the increased number of sales). Attendance is the same way. The premium prices should only be from the 30 to the 30 in the best seats. Holding the line with the pricing for the rest of the seating will result in better attendance as people want to check out the new stadium. Keeping those people coming to games is the job of the AD and Coaching Staff (put a winner on the field and people will keep coming to the games). So, if you'd given your product away free you could have built us a new stadium out of petty cash? Of course not. If your prices were too high to start with you'd increase sales by raising prices. But, if your prices were too low to start with you could have increased income by raising prices. I once had a business that provided services to other businesses and individuals. There was an especially busy time of year where I worked 20 hours a week 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months. Looking back I'm sure I could have doubled my prices and not lost half of my clients. I would have made more and worked much less. Aztec basketball tickets are much much higher priced than when we were at the Sports Arena. But our income is much greater now. Yes, that came because of a better facility and a much better product. Considering the current state of affairs I doubt the Aztecs would increase their football revenue much, if any, by lowering prices right now. More likely they could increase revenues with a moderate price increase. To raise prices substantially, like basketball, will require an upgraded facility and continuing the current success on the field. Just glad I'm not the one having to make those decisions. There is no fixed rule as to which increases income, raising prices or lowering prices. That's a delicate balance that every business is trying to find.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Sept 25, 2016 10:37:40 GMT -8
One of the many mistakes we make in arguing points is to put ourselves at the center of the universe and assume all or most others are in our same situation. Thus, my need erroneously becomes the community's need. You see that here in response to some of the solid points about how surveys work.
The people creating these surveys (almost certainly) know better.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Sept 26, 2016 8:57:17 GMT -8
This is not their first rodeo, they have response models developed from other projects that will help optimize the price. They will first understand the elasticity of this population based on this survey and go from there. These firms know what they are doing. But they're not surveying the casual fans. Those are the people who will make or break attendance. Only surveying season ticket holders gives a skewed result. They've got to find a way to get responses from people who don't have the money to buy season tickets to see how much they can afford - and whether or not they'll buy tickets at all if they're stuck (due to finances) in crappy end zone seats. They sent the invites to over 18,000 people, who may well be responsible for over 40,000 ticket purchases since many bought/have season tickets for 2-4+. That's MUCH more than the "hardcore" or "rich" fan base. They are definitely including the "casual fan". They have a very good idea as to their sampling frame, the margin of error as a result (pending response rates), and its not their first rodeo. It's also just one piece of the analysis. This happens at every new stadium. It's sports in the 21st century. It not only allows them to determine the optimum price point, but the optimum size of the stadium. There's a good reason 35k is being bounced around. Which is more profitable - a 35k stadium where the average ticket price of $100 at 85% average capacity or a 50k stadium where the average price is $50 with 80% average capacity? The former gets you nearly 50% more revenue.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 26, 2016 9:13:00 GMT -8
Welcome to football in 2016. If you want to stay competitive you have to pay. All but a few sections SHOULD require seat back fees. There will always be affordable seats in every stadium, but look around. If WSU, BSU and CSU fans are willing to pay this amount and then some for premium seating, we should as well. Exactly! I posted Boise State, Stanford and Houston season ticket charts above. SDSU should be similar to those schools in a new 35K-45K stadium. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS!
|
|