View Full Version : Excellent article in NYTimes...
10-25-2006, 09:07 AM
About the Braves efforts to draw fans. It's long, so I won't post it all here.
Also included was this graph showing comparative costs of attending games at the various parks.
10-25-2006, 10:04 AM
Interesting chart, but by all accounts I've read (not being an economist), they have their causation wrong. The prices are what they are because that's the price at which a team maximizes it's revenue. It's the top to the attendence/price curve.
Once income streams are somewhat fixed (and thus the pool of money available for player salaries determined), then athletes fight over their slice of the pie. It's not that players went in and demanded twice their salaries over the last decade. Rather, management, trying to secure the best talent, is willing to part with a certain percentage of their revenue to obtain that talent.
If less people were interested in attending & watching baseball games, the ticket prices would go down, as would player salaries. Notice that the bigger markets are at the top, where demand for a limited seat supply is at it's highest. George doesn't spend 200 million bucks and then think, hey, I better bump up those ticket prices. He maximizes his profit and then realizes he can spend 200 million on player salaries and still break even.
That all aside, who the heck buys two game programs and two baseball hats when they go to the games?
10-25-2006, 11:11 AM
The KC Royals: baseball for the Wal-Mart crowd.
10-25-2006, 01:32 PM
WITH the World Series upon us and the football season well under way, Mr. Plant’s efforts to emphasize the diversions at Turner Field are another reminder that American sports is a business — and that the games themselves are just one ring in a multiringed circus. A half-century ago, Bill Veeck, the owner at various times of the Cleveland Indians, St. Louis Browns and Chicago White Sox, was one of the first to push this idea. But in an era when baseball had little competition from football, basketball or television, Mr. Veeck was considered a showman trying to enliven his often-woeful teams.
These days, Mr. Veeck is an icon and the sideshows are front and center.
This article gives the impression that if Veeck were alive today, he would approve of all these "diversions" at the ballpark. But I wonder if he would. No doubt he was a wonderful promoter but he was, at heart, a baseball man and I think he might have a problem with things that took fans' attention away from the game. But maybe he wouldn't.
10-25-2006, 01:59 PM
As a Reds fan I have no complaint about the economics given that you can buy a $5 ticket.
My complaint is with the game "production." I dislike the music between batters and innings which drowns out my ability to talk to my family and friends. I dislike the sound effects, most noticeably the cartoon sounds played every time a foul ball bounces out of play. Nor do I care for the entertainment between innings on the video board. I don't have ADD. I don't need (or want) constant entertainment and stimuli (noise). So, in going after the youth crowd I'd bet that they turn off a large segment of the traditional crowd.
The restaurants and clubs mentioned in the article don't bother me one bit as they don't interfere with the game. If they can make more money having people eat while a game is played in the background, that's fine. It doesn't affect the real fans.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.