Membership Prices

[Jeffers1984]

Bloody hell! Ours are going up too much to afford - looks like we won't be renewing At least I'll be able to wear my '10 years' pin watching the games on tele

Our seats at the SCG are Platinum. We were moved into them two years ago after they demolished what would have been 'gold' seats for the new scoreboard. Our crappy seats at Homebush are gold. I'm not paying nearly $500 for them. I can't afford that much money right now My folks won't be renewing either by the sound of it, so that means my niece and nephew are gone too

I was looking forward to escaping from two babies once a fortnight next year too. Maybe I'll make it to the odd game if I can find somebody who will go with me.

I'm very unhappy with the price hike. I was expecting $20 or so, but this is too much.

How about moving your SCG seats to Bronze? I know it ain't no platinum but it's hell of alot cheaper, and you won't have to stay at home to watch the games?

[undy]

Also, that would not have been the first final in 1996 if Plugger kicked a point.

It was either week 1 against Hawthorn (which featured the Daryn Cresswell mark and goal from the square), or week 3 against Essendon.

As per an earlier post of mine, there's only a smallish number of people who are complaining:

1) People who now sit in premium stand
2) People who now sit in gold concourse
3) People who used to have season tickets

As their prices have gone up - in the case of season ticket holders, by quite a substantial amount! However in their case, they are also getting access to finals tickets, voting rights and access to functions. Whether or not that is worth the price hike.... is another question.

I don't see a lot of people who are complaining that the same seats they had last year are now suddenly a few dollars cheaper.

However in introducing different levels of seating, that was always inevitable. If you lower some prices, you will have to raise others in order to maintain the same level of revenue. What we don't know yet - is what effect it will have on membership numbers in the groups above.

I think you are understating the changes.

(1) & (2) Covers the whole of the O'Reilly and the Brewongle stands according to the SCG map, so its maybe 30% of the seats. I'm not sure how many people are in category (3).

In the case of (1) as well as (3) the prices have gone up dramatically and there is no added value for platinum members.

Because of the various rebuilding efforts and the previous flat-pricing model, the way that people have obtained their current seats is effectively random.

This means that (a) the Swans have little idea of the price-sensitivity of their members and
(b) some members will have crappy seats at ANZ (as Mel says).
Despite Annie's assurances earlier in this thread, the club themselves have been unable to answer a query on whether they will be able to reseat groups of members at ANZ (or reduce the membership price accordingly).

A better way of doing it:
Explain the new seating ideas and introduce it over a three year period for existing members, while selling new seats at the elevated prices. Losing members is very costly.

[AnnieH]

My price rise was only about $55.00 on last year (including premmie club).
My reserved seat is classed as "premium" seating at the SCG and ANZ - always has been.

The upper Brewongle/O'Rielly (and East/West ANZ lower) stands are premium seating. They always have been.

If I couldn't afford premium seating, I'd ask to be moved to cheaper seats. If you're going to do that, my advice is to get in early so you don't miss out. I reckon there are going to be a lot of people downgrading.

[Missy]

And you know what happens then...all the members are in seating that would usually go to GA, and becasue walk-ins can't buy the cheap seats anymore because all the members are in them, they don't buy them at all. They stop coming to games and the club once again limits their opportunity of growing their supporter/member base.

Bad decisions all around with the new seating and pricing structures.

[liz]

I

This means that (a) the Swans have little idea of the price-sensitivity of their members and

At this stage, it means that the Swans' perception of the price-sensitivity of their members is different to some RWOers' perception of the price-sensitvity, based on a small sample.

It is entirely possible that they are quite confident they have a handle on it, and are prepared to lose a few members (or alternatively offer those members a shift to cheaper seats) because they believe most in the platinum seats will renew, whether happily or not, will generate more revenue in the process, and that they will be better able to offer premium packages to potential members who want to sit in the vacated premium seats.

Who knows whose perception is right. The club will, no doubt, find out in due course.

[givekidsakick]

Also, that would not have been the first final in 1996 if Plugger kicked a point.

It was either week 1 against Hawthorn (which featured the Daryn Cresswell mark and goal from the square), or week 3 against Essendon.

As per an earlier post of mine, there's only a smallish number of people who are complaining:

1) People who now sit in premium stand
2) People who now sit in gold concourse
3) People who used to have season tickets

As their prices have gone up - in the case of season ticket holders, by quite a substantial amount! However in their case, they are also getting access to finals tickets, voting rights and access to functions. Whether or not that is worth the price hike.... is another question.

I don't see a lot of people who are complaining that the same seats they had last year are now suddenly a few dollars cheaper.

However in introducing different levels of seating, that was always inevitable. If you lower some prices, you will have to raise others in order to maintain the same level of revenue. What we don't know yet - is what effect it will have on membership numbers in the groups above.

I think I was in error and it probably was Round 22 in 1996. I dont have the history but we were excluded from the O'Reilly for that game.....great night.

[iigrover]

It is entirely possible that they ...are prepared to lose a few members (or alternatively offer those members a shift to cheaper seats) because they believe most in the platinum seats will renew, whether happily or not, will generate more revenue in the process...

Interesting point liz.

However, the only problem for the club in taking this stand, is that supporters are not consumers that you churn and burn. Lose them once and they take a long, long time to return.

That is, there is a huge difference between maximising the number of paying supporters (which is the spin Myles tried put on the price hike) and maximising the amount a falling number of supporters pay (which is what he actually did).

The first is a long term strategy for financial success and the other is short term gain for long term pain.

In supporting Myles' pricing strategy, the club got it wrong on this one. They should fix the problem now rather than waiting for the damage to occur (perhaps by capping price increrases to CPI) and Myles should be let go.

[liz]

Interesting point liz.

However, the only problem for the club in taking this stand, is that supporters are not consumers that you churn and burn. Lose them once and they take a long, long time to return.

That is, there is a huge difference between maximising the number of paying supporters (which is the spin Myles tried put on the price hike) and maximising the amount a falling number of supporters pay (which is what he actually did).

The first is a long term strategy for financial success and the other is short term gain for long term pain.

In supporting Myles' pricing strategy, the club got it wrong on this one. They should fix the problem now rather than waiting for the damage to occur (perhaps by capping price increrases to CPI) and Myles should be let go.

I agree there's a difference between maximising members and maximising revenue but it's an equation the club has to balance. And if they weren't making any money out of some categories of membership (eg season tickets) it is possible it makes sense to let those go, if that is the price. Of course this is guesswork - none of us knows the ins and outs of price and profitability without access to detailed financial information.

Why are you attributing the pricing strategy to Myles personally? Do you really think it is all his conception and that he's instigated it independently of the board. If you have issues with the pricing strategy, I don't see the point at directing them at one individual whose role in the process you have no knowledge of.

And finally, the club may have got it wrong. Or they may have got it right. Just because you don't like the changes doesn't mean they've got it wrong. They'll find out in due course when the membership renewals either arrive or they don't.

[Bear]

Interesting point liz.
Lose them once and they take a long, long time to return.

Not sure what evidence you base this on. Demand for a product in which you have an emotional loyalty to is more elastic than (say) a brand of milk.

[Primmy]

I think I was in error and it probably was Round 22 in 1996. I dont have the history but we were excluded from the O'Reilly for that game.....great night.

Nah, it can't have been that night, it was the night of the big RAIN, WIND, SQUARLS, the first Syyydddnnneeyy chant going up, drowning while trying to breath, and there was lots of room. I know. I think the horror night for Swans members V SCG members was at the EF against Essendon.

[Primmy]

Another thought, perhaps the club is trying to shift everyone down closer to the ground into cheaper seats and making the SCG look more full than when everyone is sittting up in the stands on high. Yes? No?

[iigrover]

Do you really think it is all his conception and that he's instigated it independently of the board.

Yes. Because Myles is the head of "managment" (that runs the operations including pricing strategy) and the Board is "governance". A huge difference in responsibilities!

And finally, the club may have got it wrong. Or they may have got it right...They'll find out in due course when the membership renewals either arrive or they don't.

Im not meaning to have a go at you liz. I actually think you have a really good argument and view on the matter.

I'd just prefer that the club's management not make a mistake which will cost the team and set back the club.

Im just really concerned that some of the price hikes are quite substantial, at a time when most of the community is being forced to tighten their belts. The fact that this has caused huge concern for many off-season forum visitors, who by their nature are die-hard supporters, should give us cause for concern as to the reaction of the vast majority of Swans ticketholders who are not as fanatical as us.

[AnnieH]

As far as I care, I just hope the 19K who booed a roo at the final last year sign up as "vocal" members.

[desredandwhite]

The fact that this has caused huge concern for many off-season forum visitors, who by their nature are die-hard supporters, should give us cause for concern as to the reaction of the vast majority of Swans ticketholders who are not as fanatical as us.

Is it though?

We all know that there is a tendency to be vocal when you have something to complain about and stay silent when everything is all good.

I think we can safely assume that the following people are going to be silently content because their prices have gone down.

Gold Stand
Silver Stand
Silver Concourse
Bronze Concourse
Red Zone

What I would be interested in is the opinions of the following groups (who have been the vocal posters on this thread)

Platinum Stand
Gold Concourse
Season Ticket

as to the following options:

1) I'm keeping my old seats and paying a higher price
2) I'm downgrading to get a lower price (n/a for season ticket)
3) I'm not joining up

I'm going to invent some numbers out of thin air - say about 1/3 of members are in the affected categories. And say 2/3 of Platinum Stand and Gold Concourse are either renewing or downgrading, and 1/3 of season ticket holders are renewing.. They would lose a number of season ticket holders (who they may not have been making much profit on) and a smaller number of reserved full club members (who they may have been making more profit on)

This may be offset by the number of EXTRA people who might be tempted to come on board as a result of the SCG-only memberships.

In short, I honestly cannot see a problem with what the club is doing from a money point of view. It sucks if you are in a category that is getting stung for extra, but I reckon half or more of them will simply suck it up and renew.

[liz]

Yes. Because Myles is the head of "managment" (that runs the operations including pricing strategy) and the Board is "governance". A huge difference in responsibilities!

You might be right - though my guess is that a matter like this would have had quite vigorous discussion at both management and board level. As you have pointed out, it is important that they get all this stuff "right" and identify the risks of various different strategies.

Either way, it's good to have a robust discussion on the matter without things getting personal.