: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:27 am  

Is there a formula that simplifies that last Paragraph HKB!! Confused me- Probably not a bad thing Im not in "sales"

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:36 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

:lol:

I knew that double-barrelled name was too ridiculous to be real

He should be at the Union really

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:45 am  

Windy one wrote:

Imagine if We do not get this sorted, the crowd for a Thursday night against a french side. Exactly. Please Quins start switching on.

Oh yeah the garlic munching hordes will fill one half of the East stand on a Thursday night!

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:02 am  

wire-quin wrote:

Is there a formula that simplifies that last Paragraph HKB!! Confused me- Probably not a bad thing Im not in "sales"

Sorry, makes sense to me but what the hell, let's hammer it home in a boring fashion: Let's assume you have a finite amount of cash available, and your definition of "financially sensible" is not to spend any more than that number.

If your medium-term fixed costs exceed your income, you can reduce short-term loses by reducing variable costs, but as you are still not at break-even at that income level you WILL still run out of money eventually (just slower than you otherwise would)

However, if by maintaining or increasing costs you are able to grow income in the medium-term, you MAY have an opportunity to break-even (although if you fail, you will run out of money faster).

The second route offers the POSSIBILITY of success, albeit at the risk of quicker failure, whereas the first route offers CERTAINTY of failure, albeit one which may be delayed.

I would always choose the path that offers a possibility of success, even with greater risk, than one that offers a certaintly of failure. That would be my "financially sensible" route.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:05 am  

Hull Kingston Bronco wrote:

I would always choose the path that offers a possibility of success, even with greater risk, than one that offers a certaintly of failure. That would be my "financially sensible" route.

speculate to accumilate.......something that the club have continued to NOT do over the years.
I'm with HKB on this one. If we are going to fail, we may as well fail trying as against trying to fail

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:20 am  

In light of the above posts-

What option is the club currently taking

And as both offer a "point of failure" when if at all will the club fail?

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:16 pm  

wire-quin wrote:

In light of the above posts-

What option is the club currently taking

And as both offer a "point of failure" when if at all will the club fail?

The Club are trying to forge relationships with "partners" such as Chessington WOA......and I see this as a massive positive. With the appointment of PB I see these reletaionships being developed as an ongoing process. I would personally give the game sponsorship to partner companies who share their customer data with us and I hope to God whomever they managed to sell tonights sponsorship gets a very loud plug from the stadium announcer during the game.This is very much a long term strategy and will take time to deliver tangible results, but is a massive improvement on previous years.

The amount of work that went into the Manly game was incredible and one of the main things learnt from it was that the London Media as a whole don't give a flying one about RL. The only way we will ever get more than a few lines here and there is if we pay for it and current budget restrictions point towards that not happening in the near future.
So, what do the club do? I would attempt to forge a relationship with one of the free papers (just how many are there now). This relationship would involve us paying some money (nowhere near book price) and in return, say, City AM, get boxes, tickets etc.......
As for local media, it is vital that we badger them constantly to get exposure. This may again involve cash changing hands, but we need to raise the profile of the club as a whole.
Also, I would imagine that after the Union season is over, we will look to leverage their community......but this time with a bit more convivction that in previous years.
Lastly, I would imagine that over the next 3 years the club will have set themselves targets and I would hope one of these would be to increase attendance. If I am correct (I had a quick scan earlier), we have pre-sold, including ST's, nearly 3,400 seats for tomorrows game. Of the remaining seats, about 500 are £25 seats and 250 odd really bad jesters (front rows). As has been discussed here, there are many who think that the East Stand isn't working and they would like to see the away fans moved to the North. On reflection, I have to agree with this sentiment, as I fear we may see a few walk away tomorrow when they turn up expecting to get a £15 ticket. The positive of this years East stand arrangement is the pre-sale of tickets. If these people are kept informed by email and encouraged to come back, this will give the club the opportunity to increase ST sales in future years. £199 for 14 games including the free CC game works out at £14 a game..... The club should give people who are coming regularly and pre-booking, the chance to buy a 1/2 year ST at some stage this spring and then immediately follow up at the end of the season with an instalment/DD option from September to Feb (6 payments of £33 is easier than £200 notes.
Oh........and as The Brit Oval sponsor Vauxhall station.......maybe we'll get some exposure at Twickenham station

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:09 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

As has been discussed here, there are many who think that the East Stand isn't working and they would like to see the away fans moved to the North. On reflection, I have to agree with this sentiment, as I fear we may see a few walk away tomorrow when they turn up expecting to get a £15 ticket. The positive of this years East stand arrangement is the pre-sale of tickets. If these people are kept informed by email and encouraged to come back, this will give the club the opportunity to increase ST sales in future years. £199 for 14 games including the free CC game works out at £14 a game..... The club should give people who are coming regularly and pre-booking, the chance to buy a 1/2 year ST at some stage this spring and then immediately follow up at the end of the season with an instalment/DD option from September to Feb (6 payments of £33 is easier than £200 notes.

GF, you're coming around!

I dont have a problem with the East Stand at all. I just beleive that all AWAY support should be put into the North Stand, Quins Fans in the East. If need be open the South if crowd figures push that way.

Yes there will be a lot of dissapointed Fans tomorrow if they are forced to buy £25 tickets, but then again I assume they will be able to sit in the south or the north. Which was my main gripe, if they are going to be open lets put away fans there in the first place and open up far more Jester seats for Quins or Neutrals.

I hope the front office are reading this, and take this up at the appropriate level. Dont say it cant be changed as the season has started, it will not effect any season ticket holders at all only away fans and may even encourage some others to return again.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:31 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

If I am correct (I had a quick scan earlier), we have pre-sold, including ST's, nearly 3,400 seats for tomorrows game. Of the remaining seats, about 500 are £25 seats and 250 odd really bad jesters (front rows).

I think this is the biggest problem. Too wide a range of prices and too many different prices within one stand. I know it's not practical at this stage of the season, but the Premier seats are either priced too high, or some of them need to be recategorised as Club (?) seats. More relatively cheap seats need to be made available.

Long term (i.e. after this season) prices need to remain more stable with no more than three, ideally just two, different price bands within one stand.

Our prices have fluctuated wildly in the four years back at the Stoop (sometimes dropping sharply as well as rising) with different parts of the ground being shut at various times, so people get forced to move or end up having to pay a fair bit more for the same seat and feel ripped off. Keep the East Stand as the main stand for next season but increase the cheaper prices and freeze or reduce the more expensive ones to lessen the disparity, and scrap one of the price categories altogether. Hopefully both ends can be open if crowd figures rise, and leave the Lexus Stand to the union team until we can pretty much fill the other three.

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:04 pm  

Prince of Denmark wrote:

I think this is the biggest problem. Too wide a range of prices and too many different prices within one stand.

You have hit one of the key nails on the head here. Our price discrimination strategy has some structural weaknesses that are limiting seat distribution options - and probably a one factor driving some of the bad decisions being made by the club on this topic.

For example, let's assume we accept 4 things as true:
1. Seats down the side of the pitch are a preferred product, and the closer to half way and further back the seats are, the better the product is still.
2. The LV is preferred, as the view is better.
3. We want to offer home supporters the best experience, as increasing their repeat purchase propensity is THE critical success factor for our business (it drives all revenue streams, from ticketing, to game day food/drink/retail, and on to sponsorship)
4. We want to concentrate supporters together, to ensure customers get the best available atmosphere (and so increase repeat buys).

If you believe that, you would open the sections of the ground that deliver that experience to core customers most effectively. For example, each block is circa 500 seats, so by selling the centre 5 blocks of the LV to home support (the middle 3 mainly pre-sold as ST's) and always opening the middle 4 blocks of the East for away fans and overflow home walk-ups, you have a "capacity" of 4,500 (ie by not opening the end stands, and covering the end blocks of East/LV). If you know you're only going to sell 4,500 of your 12,500 products anyway, and the cost to you is (relatively) equal, then by selling your best 4,500 you make it more likely you get repeat purchases.

Simple eh? However, the current price discrimination strategy makes the club making this decision less likely. Why? Because as all seats are now "good" in the above model, you reduce the marginal difference between a "cheap" seat and an "expensive" seat, or a £99 season ticket and a £300 season ticket... if the £99 season tickets offer a view almost as good as a £300 view, why buy the £300 one?

So, because the club wants to maximise income from loyal and/or wealthier fans whose purchase is in the main non-discretionary, whilst at the same time incentivising new customers with an aggressively priced product, they don't pursue the blindingly obvious seat allocation strategy.

As ever, this is short termist nonsense, and indeed a massive red herring for our business. Most clubs avoid this problem by having far less price bandings. For example, at Hull KR a seat costs X and a standing ticket costs Y. That's it.

Multi-layered price discrimination is a strategy a near-capacity business would employ to maximise sales value per unit - eg it is why Quins RU do it - but it is not a priority tactic for a business at 30% capacity utilisation.

PS: There's loads of research showing that, assuming marketing & promotion volumes are equal, the two primary factors behind sports attendance growth are:
1. The closeness of the result (excitement = retention)
2. The timing of the event (ability to convert buyer interest to action)

In the longer term, price becomes a much weaker factor.