Coyle says U has to get very creative & innovative to get season ticket sales up

Pete smith

Active member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
671
Reaction score
29
Points
28
Re: Coyle. To be fair, we don't know how much leeway Coyle has to make changes. You may have the greatest ideas in the world, but if the big boss says "No," there isn't a lot you can do.

I do get the sense that Coyle is not a maverick or a boat-rocker. He's not going to do anything "new" or "innovative" without someone above him on the food chain signing off on it.

So, it could be that Coyle wants to make changes, but he can't get them approved. Or, it may be that a lot of things are in a holding pattern because Kaler is on his way out, and the new Prexy (hi, wren) hasn't taken over yet.

Sid has been saying for years that the reason Gopher teams are not more successful has a lot to do with the administration. he might actually be right.
Couldn’t n agree more with shorty. I’ m not a Coyle lackey but I honestly think he is the right man(person) for this time and place. I give him credit for his hires, completing the village as well as other miscellaneous items. It still comes down to ticket price or tv revenue. Universities need to decide.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
7,635
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Couldn’t n agree more with shorty. I’ m not a Coyle lackey but I honestly think he is the right man(person) for this time and place. I give him credit for his hires, completing the village as well as other miscellaneous items. It still comes down to ticket price or tv revenue. Universities need to decide.
Why is it an either or scenario?
Why can't the UMN lower ticket prices to make game day an attractive experience while still getting the same TV revenue?
 

bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
54
Points
48
Also.... (and I hate to keep bringing up the Twins because I'm sure it's the 100th time I've mentioned it...) but considering how bad the Twins have been the last 10 years, they've kept a pretty decent season ticket holder base (myself included). Guess what? They haven't increased my season ticket price in the 7 years I've had tickets - in fact last year they even lowered the price. The Twins also have some perks for season ticket holders. So despite the bad baseball, my ticket partner and I have hung on to our tickets because we still feel it's a good value. Get people to sign up and then do what you can to keep them.
It's almost as though by sacrificing some short term revenue and creating a value better proposition, they have in the long run benefittes by creating a more loyal customer base. Crazy.
 

Hates Monikers

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
10
Points
38
If short-term earnings is all you care about, your math is correct. If they are also concerned about building up a long-term and loyal customer (fan) base they should also consider taking a short term loss of earnings. It may pay off in the long run.
This is right on. The brain wizards are only looking at the next quarter when they should be planning for the next five or 10 years. Season ticket holders tend to keep their seats for years, so you're not constantly marketing to new fans every year (or even ever week). In many cases, season ticket holders bring their children, and when they're old enough they buy tickets on their own (like my now adult children).

Of course they've done the math and know they're making more money with higher prices. It's just not a very smart long-term outlook.
 

rockford

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
966
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I, like everyone else, would love to see a packed house every game day. But for those who are confused about why donation seats are not drastically reduced in order increase season ticket sales are likely not the doing math.

So I'll throw out some numbers. After the strong finish, lets say the season ticket holder base for next season remains the same as last season at ~22,000 at the current price. I'll put current season ticket cost at an average of $600 per ticket. That results in season ticket revenue of $13.2 million.

Now let's say they reduce the average cost by $150 per season ticket for next year. At 22,000 tickets, that would result in revenue of $9.9 million. That means they would have to generate 7,333 new season ticket holders at that price, just to break even from what they would stand to make if everything remains the same. It's highly unlikely that lowering the cost would result in that many new season ticket holders, meaning they would lose money.

I think they will tweak some of the prices, but that's why we likely won't see large changes to the donation seating prices.
Your math may be correct, but your estimate of revenue doesn't jibe with what the U actually reports. Here's football ticket revenue for the last several years:

2017: $9.989 million
2016: $12.474 million
2015: $10.512 million
2014: $14.024 million
2013: $11.475 million
2012: $11.238 million

I'm guessing the number for 2018 will be much closer to $9 million than $10 million.

JTG
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
1,128
Points
113
Coyle says U has to get very creative & innovative to get season ticket sales up

I, like everyone else, would love to see a packed house every game day. But for those who are confused about why donation seats are not drastically reduced in order increase season ticket sales are likely not the doing math.

So I'll throw out some numbers. After the strong finish, lets say the season ticket holder base for next season remains the same as last season at ~22,000 at the current price. I'll put current season ticket cost at an average of $600 per ticket. That results in season ticket revenue of $13.2 million.

Now let's say they reduce the average cost by $150 per season ticket for next year. At 22,000 tickets, that would result in revenue of $9.9 million. <b>That means they would have to generate 7,333 new season ticket holders at that price, just to break even </b>from what they would stand to make if everything remains the same. It's highly unlikely that lowering the cost would result in that many new season ticket holders, meaning they would lose money.

I think they will tweak some of the prices, but that's why we likely won't see large changes to the donation seating prices.
Your math only works assuming that none of the new ticket holders pay for parking, food, or souvenirs. Income from ticket holders goes beyond just the price of the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
It still comes down to ticket price or tv revenue. Universities need to decide.
It comes down to revenue, plain and simple, and universities have made their decision, some years ago: if you're a big enough booster of the school and team, then you'll pay dearly just for the right to then pay dearly for season tickets, tailgating spots, etc.

OR if you're just a regular guy, then you can watch on TV.


That's the choice. It ain't going back. They will NOT be lowing prices, much if at all. Empty seats mean people who are watching on TV and boosting viewership, which can then command more from TV. Then for people who want in the stadium badly enough, they'll pay for it. That's how they maximize revenue.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
8,837
Reaction score
353
Points
83
There are 2 groups on this topic:
1. Those that understand supply/demand
2. Those that want to feel better about their decision to pay the U for ST


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm in group 3. Understand supply and demand; completely comfortable purchasing season tickets.
 

HoustonTXGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
152
Points
63
Your math only works assuming that none of the new ticket holders pay for parking, food, or souvenirs. Income from ticket holders goes beyond just the price of the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Curious, does the athletic department receive the parking revenues for all the sporting events on campus our are the parking lots run separately and thus a different department might benefit from game day parking?
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Your math only works assuming that none of the new ticket holders pay for parking, food, or souvenirs. Income from ticket holders goes beyond just the price of the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure but you don't have to pay for those things if you don't want to. You have to buy a ticket to get into the game, and I was only looking at ticket revenue.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Your math may be correct, but your estimate of revenue doesn't jibe with what the U actually reports. Here's football ticket revenue for the last several years:

2017: $9.989 million
2016: $12.474 million
2015: $10.512 million
2014: $14.024 million
2013: $11.475 million
2012: $11.238 million

I'm guessing the number for 2018 will be much closer to $9 million than $10 million.

JTG
My estimate was likely high then, but the point still stands. If they drastically cut ticket prices, they are going to have to sell a lot more season tickets just to break even next year, and I don't think that type of demand is there yet.

Looking long term, ticket prices may hold where they currently are for the next several years. If Fleck turns the Gophers into a perennial B1G West contender, the demand will slowly increase even with prices remaining the same. It's not shortsighted to minimize short term revenue loss for long term gain.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
1,128
Points
113
Sure but you don't have to pay for those things if you don't want to. You have to buy a ticket to get into the game, and I was only looking at ticket revenue.
Sure, and I don’t know what the average spend is at a game, but it isn’t $0. Likely not close. My point was on the part I bolded in your post - you wouldn’t need to sell 7,333 (can’t remember exact #) more tix to break even.... likely far less than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Sure, and I don’t know what the average spend is at a game, but it isn’t $0. Likely not close. My point was on the part I bolded in your post - you wouldn’t need to sell 7,333 (can’t remember exact #) more tix to break even.... likely far less than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, I was only looking at ticket revenue, not revenue from other things. Rockford's numbers were also based solely on ticket revenue.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
1,128
Points
113
Again, I was only looking at ticket revenue, not revenue from other things. Rockford's numbers were also based solely on ticket revenue.
I my point is that looking at only ticket revenue is a far too simplistic, and inaccurate, way to look at this equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
569
Points
113
I my point is that looking at only ticket revenue is a far too simplistic, and inaccurate, way to look at this equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it’s not. It’s the only apples to apples comparison you can make, and the only thing required to attend a game.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
5,937
Reaction score
639
Points
113
No it’s not. It’s the only apples to apples comparison you can make, and the only thing required to attend a game.
We were talking about athletic department revenue based on attending a football game, so wouldn't it make sense to look at all things related to athletic department revenue?
 

rockford

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
966
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Again, I was only looking at ticket revenue, not revenue from other things. Rockford's numbers were also based solely on ticket revenue.
The thing is, the U reports nearly 0 income from concessions and parking. Ticket sales (and TV revenue) are really the only things that count.

I'm not arguing with your assertion that if you cut prices, you have to sell more tickets to equalize revenue. That's a given. I'm just saying that the number of additional tickets you would need to sell is not as insurmountable as you first suggested.

My take:

1. Ticket sales are inconsequential compared to TV revenue.
2. A half-empty stadium looks bad on TV.
3. Limiting access to events to the financially elite is a really ****ty look for a public university. (Especially one that's seeking more public funding.)

Therefore, anything other than very affordable ticket prices is ultimately self-defeating.

JTG
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,943
Reaction score
234
Points
63
The thing is, the U reports nearly 0 income from concessions and parking. Ticket sales (and TV revenue) are really the only things that count.

I'm not arguing with your assertion that if you cut prices, you have to sell more tickets to equalize revenue. That's a given. I'm just saying that the number of additional tickets you would need to sell is not as insurmountable as you first suggested.

My take:

1. Ticket sales are inconsequential compared to TV revenue.
2. A half-empty stadium looks bad on TV.
3. Limiting access to events to the financially elite is a really ****ty look for a public university. (Especially one that's seeking more public funding.)

Therefore, anything other than very affordable ticket prices is ultimately self-defeating.
This conversation just gets more and more absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that you can get into almost any game very cheaply through StubHub or other secondary markets - a season ticket cost of $249 ($35.57 per game) is not for the "financially elite" only. Seriously, give me a break.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
13,952
Reaction score
1,275
Points
113
The thing is, the U reports nearly 0 income from concessions and parking. Ticket sales (and TV revenue) are really the only things that count.

I'm not arguing with your assertion that if you cut prices, you have to sell more tickets to equalize revenue. That's a given. I'm just saying that the number of additional tickets you would need to sell is not as insurmountable as you first suggested.

My take:

1. Ticket sales are inconsequential compared to TV revenue.
2. A half-empty stadium looks bad on TV.
3. Limiting access to events to the financially elite is a really ****ty look for a public university. (Especially one that's seeking more public funding.)

Therefore, anything other than very affordable ticket prices is ultimately self-defeating.

JTG
I'm pretty sympathetic to a lot of class and wadge inequalities out there but .... man this an't that.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
The thing is, the U reports nearly 0 income from concessions and parking. Ticket sales (and TV revenue) are really the only things that count.

I'm not arguing with your assertion that if you cut prices, you have to sell more tickets to equalize revenue. That's a given. I'm just saying that the number of additional tickets you would need to sell is not as insurmountable as you first suggested.

My take:

1. Ticket sales are inconsequential compared to TV revenue.
2. A half-empty stadium looks bad on TV.
3. Limiting access to events to the financially elite is a really ****ty look for a public university. (Especially one that's seeking more public funding.)

Therefore, anything other than very affordable ticket prices is ultimately self-defeating.

JTG
I made this point in another thread some time ago ... but it is absolutely false to assert that the U is making zero dollars per year on concessions and parking from football games.

This is what I think is happening: accounting games. I think the U farms out the operations of parking and concession to third party vendors, who each pay $X after winning the bids for the respective contracts, and the U files that revenue under some other line item that isn't associated with football gameday revenue. It's probably part of some "third party vendor contracts" revenue line item. Would guess likely the same with gameday merch sales.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
This conversation just gets more and more absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that you can get into almost any game very cheaply through StubHub or other secondary markets - a season ticket cost of $249 ($35.57 per game) is not for the "financially elite" only. Seriously, give me a break.
Don't you have to make a donation to the U in order to be eligible to purchase season tickets, though?
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
5,937
Reaction score
639
Points
113
Don't you have to make a donation to the U in order to be eligible to purchase season tickets, though?
Not for all the tickets. There are some cheaper seats on the bleachers, in the corner/upper deck, that don't require it.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Not for all the tickets. There are some cheaper seats on the bleachers, in the corner/upper deck, that don't require it.
So in other words, unless you're buying cheap seats ..... ie, if you're going to spend the coin to get season tickets, you actually want to have decent seats .... then yes, it is just for people who can afford that cost, plus the cost of the donation.

dpo was trying to make it sound like any joe can walk off the street and be sitting lower deck 50 yard line in 2019 all season for $250 total.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
5,937
Reaction score
639
Points
113
So in other words, unless you're buying cheap seats ..... ie, if you're going to spend the coin to get season tickets, you actually want to have decent seats .... then yes, it is just for people who can afford that cost, plus the cost of the donation.

dpo was trying to make it sound like any joe can walk off the street and be sitting lower deck 50 yard line in 2019 all season for $250 total.
I don't think he said anything about the lower deck 50 yard line.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
I don't think he said anything about the lower deck 50 yard line.
When I read rockford's post, his point #3 did not strike me as talking about nosebleed seats exclusively. And that post is what dpo was replying to with his $250 comment.


When the discussion is about the U ticket prices being too high, and someone replies that is absurd because you can get nosebleed season tickets without a donation and for $250 total, that is not a valid counter-argument, IMO.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,943
Reaction score
234
Points
63
I don't think he said anything about the lower deck 50 yard line.
Well, when you're a moron, you read the phrase "access to events" as "lower deck 50 yard line." I guess getting tickets into the stadium isn't "access to [the] event."
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
8,837
Reaction score
353
Points
83
So in other words, unless you're buying cheap seats ..... ie, if you're going to spend the coin to get season tickets, you actually want to have decent seats .... then yes, it is just for people who can afford that cost, plus the cost of the donation.

dpo was trying to make it sound like any joe can walk off the street and be sitting lower deck 50 yard line in 2019 all season for $250 total.
You should probably familiarize yourself with the seat chart and donation levels. I have fantastic seats on one corner, row 8. I pay the donation but it ends with my row.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
569
Points
113
We were talking about athletic department revenue based on attending a football game, so wouldn't it make sense to look at all things related to athletic department revenue?
I was responding to the OP, which specifically mentions season ticket sales.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
1,128
Points
113
This conversation just gets more and more absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that you can get into almost any game very cheaply through StubHub or other secondary markets - a season ticket cost of $249 ($35.57 per game) is not for the "financially elite" only. Seriously, give me a break.
DPO...
IMG_3405.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

t-docious

MAKE GOPHERS GREAT AGAIN!
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
0
Points
36
As a former employee of the Dept. of Transportation services (parking), I can confirm that the Athletic dept receives $0000000.00 from parking. DTS was and I believe still is its own separate entity within the university adn they hoard all that cash.

I am less sure on concessions, but I am almost positive Aramark has a bid to service the stadium with concessions and they get whatever profit or loss, so again the U doesnt see that money.

And to DPODOLL's point, if $250 for nosebleeds is not moving the needle for people to snatch up all of those tickets than yes, it is too high. Simple economics really. You dont get to arbitrarily set the price for people and judge what may be considered too low or high. That's what voting with the wallet is for.
 
Top Bottom