Membership numbers

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Membership numbers

The actual number of members isn't as important as the revenue we gain so these 2 points should mean that we aren't too far away from last years figures.

Hmmmm
Members are not as important as their money??
That could be a rather a short term view.

Not all who are on the base membership will always be lacking money.
Someday they may come into money, and up their membership / get more involved.
The club needs to value all its supporters big and small and hang on to them.

IMO The number of members IS important because it's a club and the social aspect of sport means the more the merrier. Clubs and their players benefit greatly from bodies turning up to the ground, become involved in events and use their voice. According to the above, a few 'white knights' would be just as good as a greater number of lesser supporters. Not sure about that.

By the way, anyone see the vision of Port trying to cover up the gaping holes in their crowd with plastic banners? not a good look. North and Port have failed to appeal to a wider audience and are paying the price. Small fish and big fish make for a healthy 'ecosystem' IMO.

[Mantis]

Re: Membership numbers

By the way, anyone see the vision of Port trying to cover up the gaping holes in their crowd with plastic banners? not a good look. North and Port have failed to appeal to a wider audience and are paying the price. Small fish and big fish make for a healthy 'ecosystem' IMO.

Port introduced these banners at the beginning of the 2010 season.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Membership numbers

By the way, anyone see the vision of Port trying to cover up the gaping holes in their crowd with plastic banners? not a good look. North and Port have failed to appeal to a wider audience and are paying the price. Small fish and big fish make for a healthy 'ecosystem' IMO.

Yep, as mentioned, they did it last year. IIRC, some SANFL teams also do it. I understand the logic, but to me, it draws even more attention to the fact that people aren't watching the games.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Membership numbers

Hmmmm
Members are not as important as their money??


IMO The number of members IS important

I'm with Mantis on this.

Membership numbers seem to be banged on about in the press/websites etc... as though they are the be all & end all.

At the end of the day it's net yield that is more important.

Say one team had 30,000 members made up of 15,000 adults, 5,000 concession & 10,000 children as opposed to another teams 28,000 members made up if 19,000 adults, 3,000 concession & 6,000 children.

The club with less members will actually generate more dollars due to the mix, then you have to factor in add ons such as seating, social club, coteries etc...

A club like Hawthorn might just have 45,000 members (consisting of 110,000 legs!).

[LostDoggy]

Re: Membership numbers

I'm with Mantis on this.

Membership numbers seem to be banged on about in the press/websites etc... as though they are the be all & end all.

At the end of the day it's net yield that is more important.

Say one team had 30,000 members made up of 15,000 adults, 5,000 concession & 10,000 children as opposed to another teams 28,000 members made up if 19,000 adults, 3,000 concession & 6,000 children.

The club with less members will actually generate more dollars due to the mix, then you have to factor in add ons such as seating, social club, coteries etc...

A club like Hawthorn might just have 45,000 members (consisting of 110,000 legs!).

But you still want to be improving the membership figure each year to keep attracting new people. I'd like to think we're always signing up more juniors. I'd rather have the 30,000 in your example. More of a chance to prosper when you have more juniors and concession memberships!

[LostDoggy]

Re: Membership numbers

That's why for all kids birthdays of friends and family I get them a junior membership pack

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Membership numbers

That's why for all kids birthdays of friends and family I get them a junior membership pack

That is a great idea.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Membership numbers

I never understood the economics of membership and the club's messaging on the matter -- is revenue or volume that they're after? If it's revenue, then by all means go after the high-value memberships and expensive add-ons, but stop moaning about numbers, because there is clearly an equilibrium point between 28,000 and 32,000 members at the pricepoints charged.

However, if membership numbers are the real game here (and I think it is, for a variety of reasons*), then it's a simple matter of price elasticity, revenue be damned (for a while anyway) -- the economist in me just says if your aim is 35,000 members, drop the price of membership, and keep dropping it until you hit your aim and find your price/demand equilibrium point.

Sure this tends towards a loss leader type model, but I can't imagine that the marginal utility of an empty seat is going to outweigh any hits you may take on revenue if you increase your numbers by dropping prices. You still have to pay for the stadium if 10,000 people or 50,000 people show up, you may as well have far smaller margins on 50,000 than large margins on 10,000. Heck, if your aim is volume, forget profit for a while, cut the membership price to the bone (or even below cost!**) and just absorb the costs as an investment towards the future.

Also, the Social Club membership proved to be very popular last year, not because anyone actually gives a crap about the Social Club (before anyone attacks me, I'm a Social Club member who actually used to enjoy spending time there pre/post game), but because they guaranteed GF tickets. There are only so many GF tickets you CAN promise, thus the capping of the numbers, but there is a strong clue in there as to where demand really lies -- in finals tickets guarantee schemes.

--

* maximising revenue is a short-term game with little upside. Stretching pockets also isn't sustainable -- high costs will always mean a larger percentage of members right on the edge of affordability who will drop off every year while others take their place, so it creates a rotating door type model, which seems to be what is happening -- how many didn't renew this year? Sure maximising revenue is important for the running of the club, but the real game here is volume -- for one thing, it's what the papers report, so yes, it's superficial, but it's also crucial to the external branding/image of the club, ie. high membership numbers give the impression of a successful club, which is self-perpetuating: more people will be attracted to a successful club, increasing numbers etc. I know some will compare our prices with other clubs, but that should be irrelevant, our business is our business (we have different demographics, different starting points, different goals, different balance sheets etc.) and needs to be customised as such.

** I know we're trying to 'bust the debt' as well, so taking losses/reducing margins may not be the best thing at this time, but we seem to be trying to do a whole lot of things at once (fair enough) and the membership numbers have been stuck for a while now. Aren't we screwed by the stadium deal anyway? So there's no point trying to recoup it through membership fees (which put downward pressure on numbers), but just rely/push for/wait till a better stadium deal eventuates, but keep building numbers in the meantime.

--

p.s. Before anyone jumps down my throat about stating the obvious, I should point out that I think that the administration of the club has done a MAGNIFICENT job in the large scheme of things. It's simply in this area where we have been stagnant for a while, have had the same problems from year to year (low retention etc.), and mixed/confused messaging from the club regarding their real goals with regards to membership, such that I'm not sure if we've done our best thinking, especially if there has been an over-reliance on simply following conventional/consensus wisdom when it comes to designing an 'AFL club membership model'.

[ledge]

Re: Membership numbers

Doesnt the AFL set the membership price?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Membership numbers

Doesnt the AFL set the membership price?

If this were true it would be a ludicrous situation for a whole range of reasons. I can imagine that they may want to have some sign-off on any business plan to ensure no gross mismanagement, especially with our reliance on the equalisation fund (which really is compensation for the horrible stadium deal), but how can they set prices without deep insight into or day-to-day accountability for the financial management of the club? The 18 clubs are essentially 18 unique businesses with very different markets, competitive landscapes etc. Maybe the World Bank should set the price of Coke too? Believe me, I'm no free market evangelist, but AFL HQ setting our prices for us is just old-world Soviet style centralised planning gone mad.

[Axe Man]

Re: Membership numbers

Some interesting points in there Lantern, but I could have done without the nightmarish flashbacks to my uni economics classes - marginal utility, price elasticity, it's all coming back to me now, argh!

[Daughter of the West]

Re: Membership numbers

Some interesting points in there Lantern, but I could have done without the nightmarish flashbacks to my uni economics classes - marginal utility, price elasticity, it's all coming back to me now, argh!

Me too! The words were familiar, but their meaning....umm....no idea

I did choose to do an Economics in Sport as part of my degree though, talking about free agency, player salaries, memberships etc. It was pretty interesting, but the only problem was the text was Amercian, so most of the examples were about American Football and Baseball (which I don't have any great knowledge of).

[ledge]

Re: Membership numbers

If this were true it would be a ludicrous situation for a whole range of reasons. I can imagine that they may want to have some sign-off on any business plan to ensure no gross mismanagement, especially with our reliance on the equalisation fund (which really is compensation for the horrible stadium deal), but how can they set prices without deep insight into or day-to-day accountability for the financial management of the club? The 18 clubs are essentially 18 unique businesses with very different markets, competitive landscapes etc. Maybe the World Bank should set the price of Coke too? Believe me, I'm no free market evangelist, but AFL HQ setting our prices for us is just old-world Soviet style centralised planning gone mad.

=AFL if its to do with revenue for them

[LostDoggy]

Re: Membership numbers

I'm with Mantis on this.

Membership numbers seem to be banged on about in the press/websites etc... as though they are the be all & end all.

At the end of the day it's net yield that is more important.

Say one team had 30,000 members made up of 15,000 adults, 5,000 concession & 10,000 children as opposed to another teams 28,000 members made up if 19,000 adults, 3,000 concession & 6,000 children.

The club with less members will actually generate more dollars due to the mix, then you have to factor in add ons such as seating, social club, coteries etc...

A club like Hawthorn might just have 45,000 members (consisting of 110,000 legs!).

TCD you make a good point for example, The Hawks family membership is 2 Adults and 4 Children, i think every other club is 2 and 2, there for for a family membership the Hawks add 2 extra to there total. If we did the same it would probably have 3000 extra to our numbers?

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Membership numbers

TCD you make a good point for example, The Hawks family membership is 2 Adults and 4 Children, i think every other club is 2 and 2, there for for a family membership the Hawks add 2 extra to there total. If we did the same it would probably have 3000 extra to our numbers?

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant, referring to the high number of 'Pet Memberships' at Hawthorn.