2009 Membership

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: 2009 Membership

Last I checked this footy club finished third last season and with some straighter kicking may have found themselves on the big stage. They are currently sitting third again, without even getting to the level they can, and whilst they are sitting a fair deal off the two front runners, are certainly well placed to have a reasonable crack.

SO why are there 6,500 members (roughly 1/5th of last years figure) who have not resigned from last year. It would be quick and easy (and reasonable) to suspect that financial pressures have contributed to that figure somewhat. However we had similar problems with retention the year before when the world wasn't going all 'Grapes of Wrath'.

So if it isn't financial, what is it?

My concern is that if we struggle to retain members nevermind grow when we are one of the competitions frontrunners, what is going to happen when we, god forbid, experience our turn back down the bottom?

[Bornadog]

Re: 2009 Membership

Does anyone have an update? The WB website hasnot updated the figures for some 3/4 weeks. There is only a few weeks left for membership and I am doubting we will even make 30,000 full members.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2009 Membership

Does anyone have an update? The WB website hasnot updated the figures for some 3/4 weeks. There is only a few weeks left for membership and I am doubting we will even make 30,000 full members.

I am doubting we will make 28,000.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2009 Membership

26,981 is the current membership total. Appalling.

The Dogs have only 26,981 members, still short of last year's total of 28,306, and are unlikely to reach the 2008 club record of 28,725.

There are 6300 from last season still to sign up and the club believes its churn rate of nearly 25 per cent is unacceptably high.

[G-Mo77]

Re: 2009 Membership

Yeah it is really disappointing. There are a few people at work who I have hounded about signing up, I've also sat next to a lot of supporters at the games who are not members and urged them to sign up, managed to get a few that way (I think). I don't think a lot of people understand how important a membership is, a lot of people still believe that turning up on the day and paying for a ticket helps.

If we are struggling to find members when we are having success on the field what chance do we have if we bottom out. It's going to get pretty dire.

[Bornadog]

Re: 2009 Membership

Yeah it is really disappointing. There are a few people at work who I have hounded about signing up, I've also sat next to a lot of supporters at the games who are not members and urged them to sign up, managed to get a few that way (I think). I don't think a lot of people understand how important a membership is, a lot of people still believe that turning up on the day and paying for a ticket helps.

If we are struggling to find members when we are having success on the field what chance do we have if we bottom out. It's going to get pretty dire.

As Campbell Rose says the culture is against us and how to change that is the difficult bit.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2009 Membership

As Campbell Rose says the culture is against us and how to change that is the difficult bit.

As a business, it is the responsbility of the club to create a product that will be appealing to its prospective customers. Currently, we have a generic 'membership' package (with some minor variation in detail) that all clubs use regardless of the demographic of their fanbase -- so you have independently wealthy Hawthorn members living in Kew offered the same (or very similar) packages to a working class family living in (insert suburb here, don't want to inadvertantly offend anybody).

That's not good business.

While I am a member, I just don't see how following a football team, which is supposed to be competing on the same level with such 'entertainment' sources as movies and hospitality, can possibly be competitive if priced and structured on the same level as car or medical insurance, which is what a $300+ annual commitment is on the level of.

---

Now, let's assume that 20,000 is the baseline that will sign up regardless of what the product is (seems about right as the churn rate averages around 25% annually).

Campbell seems to suggest that the Dogs as a team are the product -- they're exciting, relatively successful etc. etc.

That's fair enough, except that people evaluate the membership based on its cost-benefit, not on how pretty the Dogs look on-field, and currently it's an outlay of $300+ for a schedule that people may not be able to commit to that far in advance (thus the preference for buying their tickets closer to the date of the game), which (as evidenced by the churn rate) is not something many people find unsustainable. The MEMBERSHIP PACKAGES are the product, not the Dogs.

Also (anecdotally anyway), the bulk of our future support will come from the growing corridors in Melbourne's west. These are made up of relocating families from other parts of Australia, as well as new migrants. This potential customer base will NOT commit to 11 or 17 game packages, especially if they are new to the sport.

--

I think that there is far more that can be done in terms of flexible membership packages, and I don't think the ones that we have currently go anywhere near far enough, despite what Campbell says has been done. I see that there have been moves towards 3 and 5 game packages, which is a step in the right direction.

I know that the AFL and the clubs don't count this towards their membership numbers, and this is a significant problem that has to be addressed -- if this becomes a key part of the business model, 20,000 people on 3 or 5 game memberships are a significant number of people not to be counted (equivalent to essentially 7,000 11-game members).

Also, there needs to be better 'starter' packages -- discounted seating, 'trial' memberships where if you pay for two, three or five games, you get to later upgrade to a 'full' membership minus the cost of your trial membership. The 'credit' from these trial memberships could also be valid over two or three years if they decide to go for a 17-game membership.

Also, as we are seeing a good representation in Auskick, there should be an Auskick membership product tied into game attendances -- families can't commit to that many games a year, so something like a heavily discounted Auskick 3-game son/daughter + 1 (mom/dad) ticket would go some way to bringing those who otherwise wouldn't attend a game through the gates.

---

Finally, I just think that the 'membership' model is a particularly bad business model for a growth industry, and completely unsustainable in a fluctuating and constantly changing market: cinemas don't expect you to pay for twenty movies upfront (although you get a discount if you do), and restaurants don't get you to pay for ten meals for the year. The reality is that 'pay as you go' is the most viable model for all types of businesses, and gate receipts should be the only indicator of commercial success -- the problem then is the stadium deal, where the profits from the patrons don't come back to the club, and this is hardly the fault of Bulldogs supporters.

If the club can wrest back control of ticket sales from Ticketmaster and Ticketek and sell their own tickets so that they can track the profits accordingly, it would make a huge difference (despite missing out on the footprint of those ticketing outlets, which isn't that large anyway).

These are not short-term solutions, but I have little sympathy for the club as it continues to complain about the churn rate year after year and blaming supporters, without really making any radical changes to its business plan (membership wise -- it has made huge strides in other areas). The changes have all been tinkering at the edges, and it's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[Bornadog]

Re: 2009 Membership

As a business, it is the responsbility of the club to create a product that will be appealing to its prospective customers. Currently, we have a generic 'membership' package (with some minor variation in detail) that all clubs use regardless of the demographic of their fanbase -- so you have independently wealthy Hawthorn members living in Kew offered the same (or very similar) packages to a working class family living in (insert suburb here, don't want to inadvertantly offend anybody).

That's not good business.

While I am a member, I just don't see how following a football team, which is supposed to be competing on the same level with such 'entertainment' sources as movies and hospitality, can possibly be competitive if priced and structured on the same level as car or medical insurance, which is what a $300+ annual commitment is on the level of.

---

Now, let's assume that 20,000 is the baseline that will sign up regardless of what the product is (seems about right as the churn rate averages around 25% annually).

Campbell seems to suggest that the Dogs as a team are the product -- they're exciting, relatively successful etc. etc.

That's fair enough, except that people evaluate the membership based on its cost-benefit, not on how pretty the Dogs look on-field, and currently it's an outlay of $300+ for a schedule that people may not be able to commit to that far in advance (thus the preference for buying their tickets closer to the date of the game), which (as evidenced by the churn rate) is not something many people find unsustainable. The MEMBERSHIP PACKAGES are the product, not the Dogs.

Also (anecdotally anyway), the bulk of our future support will come from the growing corridors in Melbourne's west. These are made up of relocating families from other parts of Australia, as well as new migrants. This potential customer base will NOT commit to 11 or 17 game packages, especially if they are new to the sport.

--

I think that there is far more that can be done in terms of flexible membership packages, and I don't think the ones that we have currently go anywhere near far enough, despite what Campbell says has been done. I see that there have been moves towards 3 and 5 game packages, which is a step in the right direction.

I know that the AFL and the clubs don't count this towards their membership numbers, and this is a significant problem that has to be addressed -- if this becomes a key part of the business model, 20,000 people on 3 or 5 game memberships are a significant number of people not to be counted (equivalent to essentially 7,000 11-game members).

Also, there needs to be better 'starter' packages -- discounted seating, 'trial' memberships where if you pay for two, three or five games, you get to later upgrade to a 'full' membership minus the cost of your trial membership. The 'credit' from these trial memberships could also be valid over two or three years if they decide to go for a 17-game membership.

Also, as we are seeing a good representation in Auskick, there should be an Auskick membership product tied into game attendances -- families can't commit to that many games a year, so something like a heavily discounted Auskick 3-game son/daughter + 1 (mom/dad) ticket would go some way to bringing those who otherwise wouldn't attend a game through the gates.

---

Finally, I just think that the 'membership' model is a particularly bad business model for a growth industry, and completely unsustainable in a fluctuating and constantly changing market: cinemas don't expect you to pay for twenty movies upfront (although you get a discount if you do), and restaurants don't get you to pay for ten meals for the year. The reality is that 'pay as you go' is the most viable model for all types of businesses, and gate receipts should be the only indicator of commercial success -- the problem then is the stadium deal, where the profits from the patrons don't come back to the club, and this is hardly the fault of Bulldogs supporters.

If the club can wrest back control of ticket sales from Ticketmaster and Ticketek and sell their own tickets so that they can track the profits accordingly, it would make a huge difference (despite missing out on the footprint of those ticketing outlets, which isn't that large anyway).

These are not short-term solutions, but I have little sympathy for the club as it continues to complain about the churn rate year after year and blaming supporters, without really making any radical changes to its business plan (membership wise -- it has made huge strides in other areas). The changes have all been tinkering at the edges, and it's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Whilst I agree with most of your post there area couple of things the Bulldogs have done and have been the first to do so, in order to accommodate potential members that you should consider. The club was first to introduce the monthly payment plan and now have a weekly payment plan. This equates to around $4 per week, which is cheaper than a loaf of bread, cheaper than a stubby and not much more than a latte. When you break down the figures like this, it comes down to the fact, that money isnot the issue.

There is something else that is stopping regular footy goers from committing to 11 games, which baffles the Club. We have had great support at our games this year, averaging around 40,000 at the Dome and Canberra was a sea of red, white and blue.

Maybe the Club does need to look at its business plan and re-look at the way it promotes membership. I have always thought that a membership ticket should be more than a ticket to a game, but should incorporate other benefits, or be linked to other community activity in some way. Membership should make you feel proud you are supporting the club financially, and each member should be recognized for that support in some way. eg, The Hawks introduced the scarf with - member since printed on it. So many Hawks supporters are proud to say they have supported the club for eg 20 years etc. Maybe there should be a loyalty scheme of some sort, earning points, and getting discounted membership. There are lots of things the club can do.

As you say, the way its done now, is the generic way the AFL has operated for a long time, and for the dogs, its not working.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2009 Membership

I've always liked the idea of linking access to Grand Final tickets to the number of consecutive years membership.

If you let your membership lapse when times are bad, then you miss out when the going is good.

[Mofra]

Re: 2009 Membership

I've always liked the idea of linking access to Grand Final tickets to the number of consecutive years membership.

If you let your membership lapse when times are bad, then you miss out when the going is good.

That's interesting thinking, because an incentive scheme is something a few clubs have considered and is worth looking at.
Hawthorn have the years of consecutive membership printed on scarves which I think is a good idea, as you wouldn't want to reset to zero for missing a year if you had clocked a few up.

[Missing Dog]

Re: 2009 Membership

While I am a member, I just don't see how following a football team, which is supposed to be competing on the same level with such 'entertainment' sources as movies and hospitality, can possibly be competitive if priced and structured on the same level as car or medical insurance, which is what a $300+ annual commitment is on the level of.

A membership cost $160. It is not an annual payment, it can be spread over 12 monthly payments.

You go to 10 movies over a 6 month period and you will pay $150

Now, let's assume that 20,000 is the baseline that will sign up regardless of what the product is (seems about right as the churn rate averages around 25% annually).

Campbell seems to suggest that the Dogs as a team are the product -- they're exciting, relatively successful etc. etc.

That's fair enough, except that people evaluate the membership based on its cost-benefit, not on how pretty the Dogs look on-field, and currently it's an outlay of $300+ for a schedule that people may not be able to commit to that far in advance (thus the preference for buying their tickets closer to the date of the game), which (as evidenced by the churn rate) is not something many people find unsustainable. The MEMBERSHIP PACKAGES are the product, not the Dogs.

Also (anecdotally anyway), the bulk of our future support will come from the growing corridors in Melbourne's west. These are made up of relocating families from other parts of Australia, as well as new migrants. This potential customer base will NOT commit to 11 or 17 game packages, especially if they are new to the sport.

It is not a $300 committment. It is only $300 if you want a seat. $160 or $13 a month is not over the top.

Also, the club introduced 3 game memberships this year to cater for your new migrant members example.

Also, as we are seeing a good representation in Auskick, there should be an Auskick membership product tied into game attendances -- families can't commit to that many games a year, so something like a heavily discounted Auskick 3-game son/daughter + 1 (mom/dad) ticket would go some way to bringing those who otherwise wouldn't attend a game through the gates.

Auskick attendees are given 4 free tickets to an AFL match every year.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2009 Membership

I like the idea of putting the membership number of years on the scarves, but considering the way the membership department have stuffed up so many memberships this year - I could imagine that adding another item that could potentially be stuffed up would not help.

A couple of years ago, Hawthorn had the best bumper sticker I have ever seen "Proud, Passionate and Paid up" it was brilliant. A lot better than "Through and Through:"eek: I think the reality is that until we win another premiership we will struggle to get members.

[Missing Dog]

Re: 2009 Membership

Finally, I just think that the 'membership' model is a particularly bad business model for a growth industry, and completely unsustainable in a fluctuating and constantly changing market: cinemas don't expect you to pay for twenty movies upfront (although you get a discount if you do), and restaurants don't get you to pay for ten meals for the year. The reality is that 'pay as you go' is the most viable model for all types of businesses, and gate receipts should be the only indicator of commercial success -- the problem then is the stadium deal, where the profits from the patrons don't come back to the club, and this is hardly the fault of Bulldogs supporters.

Pay as you go will never work. The Dogs are 0-6, how many people do you think will pay the next 4 months of their membership.

The club offers the next best thing, payments spread over 12 months.

If the club can wrest back control of ticket sales from Ticketmaster and Ticketek and sell their own tickets so that they can track the profits accordingly, it would make a huge difference (despite missing out on the footprint of those ticketing outlets, which isn't that large anyway).

These are not short-term solutions, but I have little sympathy for the club as it continues to complain about the churn rate year after year and blaming supporters, without really making any radical changes to its business plan (membership wise -- it has made huge strides in other areas). The changes have all been tinkering at the edges, and it's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

What are you saying, Ticketmaster & Ticketek fudge the figures they give the club.

They are just a 3rd party, with expertise in selling tickets (some would argue otherwise) that the club uses to sell their tickets. I don't see how that has any effect on membership or club profits.

These are not short-term solutions, but I have little sympathy for the club as it continues to complain about the churn rate year after year and blaming supporters, without really making any radical changes to its business plan (membership wise -- it has made huge strides in other areas). The changes have all been tinkering at the edges, and it's the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

The club has introduced the bulldog friendly business program as well as the opportunity for members to see the view from their seats before they committ to that seat.

Yes, they could improve things a bit, but I think the club does a good job in most areas, but if you look back over membership numbers for the last 25 years, when all clubs were doing exactly the same thing in relation to memberhsip, Footscray/Western Bulldogs have been at the bottom of the list.

The one stat that I would like to see is the number of bulldog members as a % of our supporters. I think it would be up there with the best of clubs

[hujsh]

Re: 2009 Membership

A couple of years ago, Hawthorn had the best bumper sticker I have ever seen "Proud, Passionate and Paid up" it was brilliant. A lot better than "Through and Through:"eek: I think the reality is that until we win another premiership we will struggle to get members.

Throughandthrough may need to have a word with you

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2009 Membership

A membership cost $160. It is not an annual payment, it can be spread over 12 monthly payments.

You go to 10 movies over a 6 month period and you will pay $150.

Hi aker39.

But an installment plan is still a commitment -- it's a bit like a mobile phone plan where you're 'locked in', and while many are happy to do that, pre-paid phones still do a roaring trade as some people just like to have control over their long-term spend. Memberships don't allow for this.

And it doesn't address the issue of not knowing your schedule 6 months in advance. I'm sure most of us here have missed games that we've already pre-paid for. If you do your sums, every game we miss in effect substantially knocks up the price of the other games that we go to.

I've already had to miss two home games this year, and will be missing another three due to future commitments. A non die-hard unlike myself would be hard-pressed to justify paying a full-price membership if they know they'll be missing five-plus games.

It is not a $300 committment. It is only $300 if you want a seat. $160 or $13 a month is not over the top.

Also, the club introduced 3 game memberships this year to cater for your new migrant members example..

The 3 game memberships are a great idea, as I've already mentioned.

I would also argue that the only value for money is a reserved seat membership, as there is no other way to guarantee a good seat.

A general membership doesn't have the benefit of a guaranteed good seat, and is not much cheaper than buying your tickets on the go, and you don't have to pay for the games you don't go to.

The only thing making people buy general memberships are supposed club 'loyalty', and that's terrible business.

Auskick attendees are given 4 free tickets to an AFL match every year.

I was not aware of this (not having kids of my own, although I have four nephews playing in Auskick). Thanks for the info.. very good initiative. Perhaps the Dogs can build on this by offering Auskickers who are Bulldogs fans extra perks on top of your average Auskick kid.

My suggestions are just off the top of my head without any real research, but it doesn't take a genius to know that somewhere out there is a revolutionary business model for club profitability that is yet to be invented, and it is low-membership clubs like the Dogs that have the greatest incentive to invent it.