From: seth@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (peter.r.clark..jr)
Subject: Re: Ticket prices again (Was: Calder: Lindros & more)ex
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:39:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.225131.1041@mala.bc.ca>, ballm@mala.bc.ca writes:
> >>This gave me quite a chuckle. Have you ever heard the term "Supply and Demand"?
> >>If the owners were charging $100 per seat for the worst seats in the house,
> >>and they were filled every night, do you honestly believe that doubling
> >>the TV money they brought in would for a second make them think to themselves
> >>"Gee, our ticket prices are awful high, and even though the stupid masses
> >>keep paying those prices, let's drop them a bit so that poor people can
> >>afford it too"
> > Obviously, if teams could charge $100 for bad seats they would, but they
> > *can't*.  Going down the list of teams with more than a thousand seats
> > empty would include Vancouver, Minnesota, Edmonton, Winnipeg, NJ, NYI,
> > Hartford, etc.  So the supply is there, but the demand at the current
> > ticket prices isn't.  There is an equillibrium point where supply and
> > demand are equal and profits are maximized.  If TV revenue brought
> > in enough money to compensate for 2000 tickets, do you not think
> > that most of the teams would lower there ticket prices enough to draw
> > in more fans considering the elasticity of demand?

Look at the teams you've listed. NYI and Hartford are lousy teams. Minnesota
was a lousy team that pulled things together for a Cup run, but they went
right back to mediocrity. Winnipeg and Edmonton are lousy to mediocre. 
Vancouver hasn't been a serious contender for enough years to build a large
fan base. Ditto the Devils, probably the one team, based on local population
size, that SHOULD be drawing well of the teams you've listed. It doesn't
matter how low the prices are if the team is not very good. Did the Pens
have an attendance drop this year from higher prices? What about Detroit,
Chicago, LAK, etc.  The teams that are perennial contenders the last few
years. A winning team will fill the arena, a losing team won't. Right now
ticket prices around the league are not the cause for low attendance.

> >>This is a capitalist society we live in. And we're damn proud of it too.
> >>But part of the basis for a capitalist economic system is that everybody
> >>who has something to sell tries to get as much $$$ for their product as
> >>they can. And if people are filling arenas night after night paying these
> >>prices, the owners have every right to keep raising prices until people
> >>stop showing up. And despite the fact that we're in quite bad economic times
> >>here in the northeast, I still haven't seen more than 200 or so empty seats
> >>for a FLYERS game. Any Rangers fans wanna post the ticket prices for the
> >>garden and what the attendance levels are like? I know there's some pretty
> >>high priced seats there...
> >>
> >>pete clark - rsh FLYERS contact
> > 
> > It's great that people in the NE are filling up to see the games, but
> > I'd venture a guess that this 200 empty seats is not true for half the
> > teams.  Although the Flyers have had good fan support throughout, how
> > about the other teams such as NJ, NYI who routinely get about 12 000
> > fans.  Teams like the Blues and Penguins were strugling before their
> > superstars arrived and they will have their work cut out
> > for them when Lemieux and Hull retire.  (No flames from the long time fans
> > of those two teams please).

But again, those empty seats are due to the quality of the product, not
the cost. And one superstar isn't enough.

> > The ticket price increases hae been directly caused by the escalating
> > player salaries, not due to increased demand.  If the demand hasn't
> > changed put the prices have then that must mean the prices charged are too
> > high.
> > As a further note, the Canucks budgeted for a slight loss of income with
> > 15000 fans, instead they are getting 14000.  This is following our best
> > season ever and two award winners.
> > 
> > Just my thoughts,
> > Tony

I have no problem with your reasoning on why they went up, but the fact of
the matter is that they could probably go higher without hurting the fan
base. The original poster claimed that if TV revenues went up, ticket prices
would go down, and my point is that that assertion is a crock. I'll give
you Vancouver, they should probably be drawing more fans. BUT as a whole,
the ticket prices are not a cause for attendance problems. It's the quality
of the teams. The FLYERS are an anomaly as well. Hell, they haven't made
the playoffs in three years, but they're still drawing people. And they've
raised ticket prices significantly over the last few years. Unfortunately
I think they could raise them more and get away with it if they wanted to.

> I agree with Tony if there was such a high demand for tickets pushing prices up
> then how do you explain lower crowds in Edmonton where prices have gone up,

Have you checked Edmonton's record lately? After the way they blew a 3
goal lead and had to get a shorthanded goal just to tie last night, I
wouldn't show up for their games either...(well, yes I would, if I was
a fan...I'm going to 30 FLYERS games this year and they ain't exactly
a dynasty these days...)

pete clark jr - rsh FLYERS contact
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey