Marketing 101: Attendance

[spotatl]

As I have repeatedly said I am interested in which tickets went up or down in price. His post was the first concrete information we have since I can't find the information for what season tickets cost last season. If you have been able to find that then please lets hear it. But I don't think that the $1 increase would cause people to give up their season tickets when they were given the other benefits. Why does it matter that the cost to the Hawks ownership is less than the benefit that the fans get? From the fans POV thats still a pretty sweet deal compared to last season. The point to me is still that if a season ticket holder didn't renew then it wasn't because of the $1 increase- it was because of other factors. And once again if anyone else has experience with how their season ticket prices went up or down I'm curious to hear.

I wasn't disparaging you by calling you resident capologist. It was on your profile- I figured you liked the name.

Edited December 8, 2010 by spotatl

[evilinkblot]

evilinkblot- thanks for posting that information. Do you mind saying what section your seats are in? It definitely sounds like they made the tickets a better deal.

Sec 115 Row J. I have a full season.

Just found out what sections my Thrasher tickets are in. All lower levels, all low rows. I like hockey and go to a couple games, but I have a lot of hockey loving friends so I'll give/take and it'll be nice.

I just looked and found my Renewal/Playoff Guide for last year. The Ticket Bank ($200 per seat) and comp Thrasher tickets are listed as benefits if I renewed by March 19th.

I don't see anything listed as far as the parking, but I did get CNN Center parking for free.

Last season was my first as a season ticket holder, and this was the first time I'd renewed. I don't know anybody else with tickets so I don't know what their experiences may be.

Just trying to offer some insight. I do think that tickets are fairly cheap, with all the Aaron's Lucky Dog and Chik Fil A packs, the Hawks holiday packs (get the Heat plus 3) that Bob shills. I know from my experience with pro wrestling (don't ask) that when a product is hot, you can price tickets high and they'll sell. When it isn't you can't give them away.

[HawkItus]

Just wanna try a different tack, with a question for the Hawksquawkers.

What benefits (tangible or otherwise) do you feel you gain from going to Philips and seeing the Hawks live, instead of, say, watching the games on TV from the comfort of your living room/den, or at a bar?

Never mind the usual fusses (traffic, prices, downtown atmosphere, blah, blah). I would just like to see what the positive side of the ledger looks like.

~lw3

I've always said that HD and surround sound is a big problem for sports. Same thing happened to the movie industry. Personally, the hassle of going to live games is not worth it to me. I struggle with a knee injury from College, so all the walking of stairs and what not, to attend a game is just not something I look forward to. Throw in the ability to pause the game and make a bathroom or fridge run and I just don't go to games. Someone would say I'm a bad fan, but the TV contracts pay the teams a lot of money. The more people who watch on TV the more the league and in essence my team can get from a contract renewal. Also, I'm a family man and it makes a lot more sense to buy a Pizza and sit down with my sons at home and watch the game than take them away from homework and reasonable bed times to hustle down to a game. One last thing the starting times for most games have found me arriving at least halfway through the 1st quarter by the time I get off can meet up with my family and get into the arena.

[niremetal]

Tickets to the Thrashers? Well, what use does that have towards being a Hawks fan?

Sorry, given your tendency to make arguments stemming from assumptions of cross-elasticity among sports and entertainment options, I had to highlight this. You yourself seem to recognize that Hawks fans would have a greatly diminished interest (and perhaps even no interest) in attending another type of sporting event. You seem to recognize that that's the case even when the hockey tickets are being bundled for free. If "a Hawks fan" would place such a low value on "tickets to the Thrashers," surely that's a strong indication that the cross-elasticity of demand between the products is quite low - and that effect would be even more pronounced when people have to pay for Thrashers tickets instead of getting them bundled for free.

Personally, I know that I have zero interest in actually attending a hockey game (or really any other pro sporting event except men's tennis), even if I were getting the tickets for free (although I might derive utility from the resale value of the tickets). An increase in the price of seeing a Hawks game or a reduction in the price of going to a Thrashers game would not make me one iota more likely to attend a Thrashers game (although the increase in the price of Hawks tickets might move me to buy tickets in a lower section). The same is true for all other types of sporting events that are available for me to attend. And I don't think I'm alone in that mentality.

I don't disagree that increasing ticket prices will, in the absence of other factors, lead to lower attendance. In a Laffer curve-esque way, it might also lead to lower overall ticket revenues (although which side of the elasticity curve the Hawks are on is much more debatable than you make it sound). And I don't dispute that there is some cross-elasticity of demand between attending Hawks games and attending other kinds of sporting and entertainment events, although I would suggest that the product for which there is highest cross-elasticity is watching a Hawks game on TV rather than attending an alternative sports/entertainment event. But the cross-elasticity is likely to be quite low given the availability of multiple tiers of ticket pricing at Hawks games.

I only say all this because you have been breathtakingly condescending towards spotatl in this thread because he made arguments that you disagreed with, but that were perfectly valid from an economic perspective. That was particularly galling in light of this post, where you seemed to assume that correlation implied causation with respect to a 1% ticket price increase and a 15% drop in attendance - it's obvious that you're a smart guy, so you know that correlation does not imply causation, and you probably also realize that there are innumerable other factors (small sample size, quality of opponents, deepening apathy about a team that didn't make big offseason moves, cutbacks in MARTA service, etc) besides ticket prices that affect attendance, which should be especially obvious in light of the fact that attendance is down in all major pro sports this year. The issue of elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand in the sports and entertainment industry is the subject of constant research and debate.

You and spotatl are both smart guys. This is an interesting debate (well, at least to me), and both of you have made good points. That's why I don't get why you've taken such a condescending tone in this thread.

Edited December 8, 2010 by niremetal

[Guest]

Sorry, given your tendency to make arguments stemming from assumptions of cross-elasticity among sports and entertainment options, I had to highlight this. You yourself seem to recognize that Hawks fans would have a greatly diminished interest (and perhaps even no interest) in attending another type of sporting event. You seem to recognize that that's the case even when the hockey tickets are being bundled for free. If "a Hawks fan" would place such a low value on "tickets to the Thrashers," surely that's a strong indication that the cross-elasticity of demand between the products is quite low - and that effect would be even more pronounced when people have to pay for Thrashers tickets instead of getting them bundled for free.

Taking my quote somewhat out of context. I made that claim in reference to measuring the benefits of season tickets for the Atlanta Hawks. Take a hypothetical example. What if the ASG bundled Belkin Wireless Routers with the season tickets. Would you still consider the retail price of the Belkin Wireless Router into the benefits of the season tickets? Well, it seems a little foolish because it is not likely anyone purchases season tickets conditional on there being a Belkin Wireless Router. So then why would the ASG bundle Belkin Wireless Routers? Well, since a member of the ASG owns Belkin they can provide it at low marginal cost. Even aside from that, the ASG may want to take a loss on this situation to induce further consumption of Belkin products from the season ticket holders. I contend adding the Belkin Wireless Router as a benefit would be foolish as its not contributing to a Hawks game. When I buy a magazine, should I consider all of the coupons/offers inside as some sort of a benefit? Only if I bought the magazine with knowledge and intent on using the coupons.

Your cross-elasticity example appears to me that you are focusing on the trees and not the forest. OK so Hawks and Thrashers cross-elasticity of demand is inelastic. Why should that matter? What we need to be focusing on is the own-price elasticity of Hawks tickets and not cross-price. I believe you have missed the point of my arguments with this one. I mention a vast amount of substitutes that contribute to why the Hawks have a highly elastic demand. This is in reference to own-price, as the number of available substitutes increases a given demand curve will become more elastic. You took this to mean I am referring to cross-price, that is not the case at all. In the case of Hawks tickets and Thrashers tickets, I agree that the cross-price is very low. Its damn close to zero, it might be slightly positive but that doesn't matter much. When you measure cross-price and then claim "elastic" or "inelastic" you are referring to how two goods covary. In essence you are talking about substitutability and complementarity. This doesn't have any bearing on having an argument focused on how Hawks tickets elasticity of demand unless you are arguing about how many cross-elasticities with the Hawks are positive. I might be missing your argument in this case, but I don't see much importance in talking about cross-elasticities in this scenario because the price of Hawks tickets can easily be thought of as opportunity cost and not necessarily monetary price. Imagine built in the price of a Hawks ticket is the other options, so if 3D HD TVs come to your local bar and they don't change their menu prices this is reflected as an increase in the price for Hawks tickets because the opportunity cost of attending a Hawks game is now higher.

I only say all this because you have been breathtakingly condescending towards spotatl in this thread because he made arguments that you disagreed with, but that were perfectly valid from an economic perspective. That was particularly galling in light of this post, where you seemed to assume that correlation implied causation with respect to a 1% ticket price increase and a 15% drop in attendance - it's obvious that you're a smart guy, so you know that correlation does not imply causation, and you probably also realize that there are innumerable other factors (small sample size, quality of opponents, deepening apathy about a team that didn't make big offseason moves, cutbacks in MARTA service, etc) besides ticket prices that affect attendance, which should be especially obvious in light of the fact that attendance is down in all major pro sports this year. The issue of elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand in the sports and entertainment industry is the subject of constant research and debate.

His view is fine in an economic vacuum. However, when you claim elastic demand and then look at the data it is overwhelmingly evident that elastic demand is not the case then I do not find it to be a reasonable perspective. I find no use in arguing logical consequences of what happens when you increase prices when faced with an inelastic demand. Its trivial, go look it up in an economic textbook and don't waste my time. But when you see ticket prices increase by a given percent and attendance is affected by close to 15 times more, it is easy to reject the notion that this is elastic demand. Now this is not an issue of correlation v. causation, at least it shouldn't when you take a second to think that over. The issue of correlation v. causation is that just because you have a correlation this doesn't imply the correlation has cause. If I claim the world pole vault record causes GDP growth, its easy for me to find some regression that shows correlation to "prove" it but no sensible person would accept the argument so it should be refuted. In this scenario, I claim changing ticket prices will affect attendance. If you take the stance that I am arguing cause for something I found correlation in then what you are implying is that "ticket prices do not cause changes in attendance". Now think about that, you are telling me that there is no such thing as the law of demand. That a change in price has no affect on quantity demanded. Are you really arguing that?

I do not see a correlation v. causation argument, and if someone does then you are ignoring economics. What I see potentially is an argument for how much of the change is explained by a change in ticket prices. I am arguing for correlation, but I do not have any evidence to back up what the correlation is. How much is explained? If 50% of the change in attendance is explained by ticket prices then we can put a confidence interval around what the elasticity of demand in this scenario is. In order for spotatl's argument to hold water the correlation coefficient between ticket prices and attendance would have to be very low. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this argument. Yes I probably am being condescending, but when you face someone with data that just screams out one thing but they are grasping at air to try and come up with arguments in attempt to explain the opposite I think it is quite reasonable to be condescending.

[HawkItus]

You know one thing the Braves do is run the free shuttles from all over the city. They are sponsored by bars and companies etc. If the Hawks could get something like that going I think people would be more open to going.

[spotatl]

You had one link where without any context it said that prices had increased by 1%. You flat stated this caused a 15% decline in attendance. If you don't see where this is taking a correlation and taking it as causation then I don't know how else to explain it to you. There are a ton of different reasons to explain an attendance drop and for some reason you chose to say it was caused by a 1% price increase without any context for what tickets were actually raised in price. And of course you have many times avoided trying to explain why you think those people are staying home instead of just taking a cheaper ticket.

I have no interest in trying to explain to you how many ridiculous assumptions you are making as you clearly aren't here to have a rational discussion about this topic. Anyone who reads this thread will understand how ridiculous you sound. I even went back to reread the thread to see if I could pick up on what set you off like that- as far as I can tell its just because someone disagreed with you.

Edited December 8, 2010 by spotatl

[Guest]

You had one link where without any context it said that prices had increased by 1%. You flat stated this caused a 15% decline in attendance. If you don't see where this is taking a correlation and implying causation then I don't know how else to explain it to you. There are a ton of different reasons to explain an attendance drop and for some reason you chose to say it was caused by a 1% price increase without any context for what tickets were actually raised in price. And of course you have many times avoided trying to explain why you think those people are staying home instead of just taking a cheaper ticket.

Oh you are referring to the post where I said "Using a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation" meaning a rough estimate. And did you completely miss the post on correlation v. causation? You are telling me that economics is nonsense. I will probably have another warning or something but you are absolutely a dumb mule right now. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall during this discussion. Evidence is put in front of you and you say "well, err....[insert ad hoc response]".

Are there assumptions I am making about aggregation of ticket prices? Yes! But when you sit down and think about the situation, the issues arising from aggregation of tickets would need to constitute an overwhelming cause for what we see in the data. You are completely ignoring facts put in front of you. Its a rough estimation, but even given this rough estimation the results are profound. Are you still claiming inelastic demand?

I have no interest in trying to explain to you how many ridiculous assumptions you are making as you clearly aren't here to have a rational discussion about this topic. Anyone who reads this thread will understand how ridiculous you sound. I even went back to reread the thread to see if I could pick up on what set you off like that- as far as I can tell its just because someone disagreed with you.

Yes its because you disagree with me. If you come up to me and said "data shows GDP per capita is higher in the U.S. than Jamaica, so we should expect higher standard of living in the U.S." and my response is "your data are wrong" then "well GDP isn't the best measure for standard of living" then "you are making too many assumptions" I would imagine you would be ticked off too. Fact is in this case the data are overwhelming, much like the difference in GDP per capita from U.S. and Jamaica. If the data we observed were close to the difference in GDP per capita between the U.S. and Canada then OK we have an argument.

Edited December 8, 2010 by hawksfanatic

[spotatl]

I'm still waiting for the "overwhelming evidence" that increased tickets prices have caused a 15% drop in attendance. First you haven't even said what tickets you think have increased. (though that doesn't stop you from saying that people aren't showing up because of the increased prices... ridiculous) Second you know that the cheapest ticket prices didn't go down at all so everyone who did have their ticket price go up had the option to still go for a cheaper price. But of course you still over and over again have avoided saying why you think that with a 1% increase it caused people to NOT SHOW UP rather than just choosing a cheaper ticket. But once again- you clearly aren't interested in having a discussion about this and would rather just spew wildly to try and derail the conversation. You can just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper...

Sultan- do the braves run those shuttles or do the bars run those shuttles?

Edited December 8, 2010 by spotatl

[spotatl]

I do think its pretty smart for the Hawks to give away thrashers tickets to a season ticket holder. They know they have a rolodex of people with plenty of disposable income, I can see why its 100% in their favor to give season ticket holders a free look at the Thrashers hoping that they will fall in love with the experience (or the wives, kids, or clients will). I think thats pretty smart marketing.

[niremetal]

I'm too tired to address the cross-elasticity point, so I'll just focus on the part of your post on correlation/causation.

Now this is not an issue of correlation v. causation, at least it shouldn't when you take a second to think that over. The issue of correlation v. causation is that just because you have a correlation this doesn't imply the correlation has cause. If I claim the world pole vault record causes GDP growth, its easy for me to find some regression that shows correlation to "prove" it but no sensible person would accept the argument so it should be refuted. In this scenario, I claim changing ticket prices will affect attendance. If you take the stance that I am arguing cause for something I found correlation in then what you are implying is that "ticket prices do not cause changes in attendance". Now think about that, you are telling me that there is no such thing as the law of demand. That a change in price has no affect on quantity demanded. Are you really arguing that?

No. In fact I explicitly said as much in my last post ("I don't disagree that increasing ticket prices will, in the absence of other factors, lead to lower attendance."). My caveat takes into account incentives like the type evilinkblot mentioned, which might make the demand for certain tickets increase despite the price increase because the "pricier" tickets carry more value (ie it's not apples-to-apples). I understand the law of demand quite well, thanks. My argument with respect to this particular point was simply that: 1) the change in price is not the sole cause of the change in the Hawks' home attendance this year; and 2) the prices may well be on the opposite side of the elasticity curve from where you assert they are, such that an increase in some ticket prices might actually lead to increased ticket revenues even though they lead to fewer tickets sold.

I do not see a correlation v. causation argument, and if someone does then you are ignoring economics.

Earlier in the thread, you said this:

Using a rough back of the envelope calculation, Hawks last year had attendance of roughly 16,730 per game through the first 9 home games (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2010_games.html). This year the Hawks average 14,343 per game through the first 9 home games(http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2011_games.html). Thats a change of -15% in attendance using the midpoint formula since you can get different results if you change the direction of calculation. This resulted after the Hawks increased ticket prices by 1.1% (http://teammarketing.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/News/2010%20NBA%20FCI%203.pdf). Thats an elasticity of demand around -13.97 which tells us the Hawks are operating in the elastic portion of the demand curve. In other words, the ASG are morons for increasing price when consumers are sensitive to price changes. Since consumers are sensitive to price changes, they should be lowering price to increase their profits. To claim inelastic demand given this data so far is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, I understand you were doing this roughly, but the underlined portion in particular made it clear that you were attributing 100% of the change in attendance to the change in ticket price. Otherwise, there would be no way you could arrive at an elasticity of demand around -13.97, a number that you presumably arrived at by using the simplest price elasticity formula: % Change in Quantity Demanded divided by % Change in Price. Of course, whenever you use that simple price elasticity formula (rather than the formulas that require calculus and accounting for many more variables, for which we'd need more info than we have available at our fingertips), the assumption is that NOTHING else has changed with respect to the product in question affecting demand for that product. In other words, coming up with your price elasticity of -13.97 meant that you were assuming that the change in price was the one and only driver of change in demand. That is a type of "correlation implies causation" argument. An argument where you say "X caused Y" based solely on information regarding the correlation between X and Y, with no attempt whatsoever to account for external factors, is an argument that correlation implies causation.

I wouldn't even care about that one post if it weren't for the fact that you came down so hard on spotatl for daring to challenge your "rough back of the envelope calculation," and that your later posts seemed to seriously discount the impact of all factors except price on attendance.

Again, you're a smart guy, and you clearly have training in economics. So do I. Quite a bit, actually, although I'd prefer not to "blow my cover" too much here. To be blunt, your arguments in this thread are based on a loooot of assumptions that are used in economics textbooks but that don't hold true in the real world, as the authors of those economics textbooks themselves would admit (and usually do admit upfront). Yes, every economics professor would say that, all other things being equal, an increase in price will cause a drop in attendance. What they will not say is that that law necessarily holds true when all other things are not equal, and they would even grant that even the "law" itself doesn't apply in certain situations (the general rule being that there is an inverse relationship between elasticity and the "uniqueness" of a good/service). Far as I can see, what spotatl has said for the most part is simply that all other things are not equal, and that Hawks tickets are a pretty unique product. I don't think those are unreasonable positions.

The only data that you have cited are prices and attendance. But price is not the only variable that affects attendance, and it is certainly plausible to argue that given the complexity of ticket pricing for Hawks games (there are season/package/single-game tickets; club/courtside/luxury/nosebleed tickets; bundles with parking/food/other amenities/events; etc, etc, etc) and other sports entertainment events, the effect of the Hawks' price changes might not have been as drastic as your posts suggest.

Edited December 8, 2010 by niremetal

[Joker]

+1 for spotatl, niremetal, and hawksfanatic. You guys brought a wealth of knowledge to this thread.

[spotatl]

We can put it another way. If the Hawks increased prices by 1% and you think that it caused attendance to drop 15%, what do you think would have happened if the Hawks lowered prices by 1%? Personally I don't think that a 1% decrease in ticket prices would have increased attendance because the other factors involved would vary by FAR more than 1%. Do you really think that it flies in the face of economics for me to say that I don't think attendance would have increased this season even if prices went down 1%?

[Guest]

I'm still waiting for the "overwhelming evidence" that increased tickets prices have caused a 15% drop in attendance.

No. In fact I explicitly said as much in my last post ("I don't disagree that increasing ticket prices will, in the absence of other factors, lead to lower attendance."). My caveat takes into account incentives like the type evilinkblot mentioned, which might make the demand for certain tickets increase despite the price increase because the "pricier" tickets carry more value (ie it's not apples-to-apples). I understand the law of demand quite well, thanks. My argument with respect to this particular point was simply that: 1) the change in price is not the sole cause of the change in the Hawks' home attendance this year; and 2) the prices may well be on the opposite side of the elasticity curve from where you assert they are, such that an increase in some ticket prices might actually lead to increased ticket revenues even though they lead to fewer tickets sold.

Economics. If I put a claim on a correlation coefficient then maybe there is a case. As is, I haven't. Yall are arguing that ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance if you take the "correlation v. causation". OK, thats clearly false unless you think economics is hogwash. Are there assumptions built in? Yes! But those can be accounted for at a first approximation by throwing in a correlation coefficient. What yall are doing is actually arguing that there is no correlation or actually a positive correlation (which would tell us as ticket prices go up, so does attendance. WTF?). Again, this is not a correlation v. causation argument, this is an argument on what the correlation coefficient is. If yall make it out to be correlation v. causation then yall clearly are missing the issue.

When you don't have a statistics background this makes what I am telling yall very difficult to understand. People hear this phrase "correlation v. causation" to be an easy way to argue against some statistic. Not the case here, if you are claiming correlation is not causation then you are actually arguing against economics. When I claim back of the envelope I am saying its a rough estimation. However given the large magnitude of elasticity, testing this would certainly imply the null hypothesis that the coefficient of correlation between ticket prices and attendance would be greater than -0.05. If we fail to reject the correlation is greater than -0.05 then the data slides to the interpretation of yall. But then think about that, that tells you there is almost no relationship between ticket prices and attendance. This would say that less than 2.5% of variation in attendance is explained by ticket prices. I don't see how a reasonable person could conclude such a low value.

Of course, whenever you use that simple price elasticity formula (rather than the formulas that require calculus and accounting for many more variables, for which we'd need more info than we have available at our fingertips), the assumption is that NOTHING else has changed with respect to the product in question affecting demand for that product.

Actually no that is a separate issue. Using a midpoint formula instead of calculus isn't a ceteris paribus assumption, its a linear assumption on the demand curve. I am taking a secant to approximate a demand curve. If the demand is linear, nothing wrong with that. However if along the section of the demand curve I am estimating changes greatly, then a linear approximation is a bad idea. It is not the case that this is distorted by omitted variable bias, thats a completely separate issue that I would be thrilled to discuss.

Again, you're a smart guy, and you clearly have training in economics. So do I. Quite a bit, actually, although I'd prefer not to "blow my cover" too much here.

This isn't a pissing contest. If there is assumption yall find I am misusing then put it out there. The assumption of price being the only variable changing is absorbed in correlation coefficient. If yall want to attack that then yall are claiming less than 2.5% of the variance in attendance is explained by ticket prices. If yall don't like the elasticity I put out there, then yall are attacking linearity of the demand curve which should result in a very pedantic argument. If yall don't like that other variables are changing as well and an omitted variable bias is present, well then that would be great to discuss and I am all for it but at first glance that will probably not be that big of an issue.

We can put it another way. If the Hawks increased prices by 1% and you think that it caused attendance to drop 15%, what do you think would have happened if the Hawks lowered prices by 1%? Personally I don't think that a 1% decrease in ticket prices would have increased attendance because the other factors involved would vary by FAR more than 1%. Do you really think that it flies in the face of economics for me to say that I don't think attendance would have increased this season even if prices went down 1%?

If you understood statistics you could see the issue. Its not correlation v. causation, its an issue how what the correlation coefficient is.

*It should also be noted that I have never claimed a 1% change in ticket prices leads to a 15% change in attendance. What I have argued is that the ASG are morons for facing the elastic portion the demand curve and increasing prices. My claims are against this foolish notion that the ASG have been operating in the inelastic portion. To say I claim complete correlation is false, I have never done so except posit the Hawks are facing elastic demand.

Edited December 8, 2010 by hawksfanatic

[niremetal]

Alright, I'm done with this. I do have a background in statistics, and I'm quite confident that I can handle whatever you throw at me. My basic point was that you oversimplified the issue with your "back-of-the-envelope" statement, and then talked down to spotatl when he pointed out some of the reasons why it was an oversimplification. You've papered over your prior statements and shifted the argument to more nuanced grounds a little bit more each time you've posted (because backtracking and saying "yeah, ok, I oversimplified the issue at first, and you guys have made some valid points" is apparently something you are not willing to do) and have gone out of your way to personally insult spotatl, which was completely and totally uncalled for. I made my last post before I saw you call him a "dumb mule;" if I'd seen that first, I wouldn't have bothered. It's really beyond me why you've decided to be so condescending in this thread. If you only want to talk to other people who you deem to be your intellectual equals, you're in the wrong place (although to be blunt, I've seen nothing that indicates that you're any smarter than spotatl or me; just more forceful in your opinions). It's frustrating because you clearly are intelligent, and you apparently don't realize or don't care that if you said the type of stuff you've been saying to spotatl in a "real life" public forum, the consequences would not be pretty.

Edited December 9, 2010 by niremetal

[spotatl]

Yall are arguing that ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance

Keep making yourself look foolish. Just because I don't think that a 1% price difference doesn't make a meaningful difference on attendance either way is not the same as saying that "ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance". Keep on digging that hole. Its not worth trying to explain it to you. If you want to think that a 1% price increase as caused a 15% decrease in attendance then by all means do so.

t should also be noted that I have never claimed a 1% change in ticket prices leads to a 15% change in attendance.

I'll let your own words speak for you and then be done with this since you clearly aren't interested in a real discussion here.

Thats a change of -15% in attendance using the midpoint formula since you can get different results if you change the direction of calculation. This resulted after the Hawks increased ticket prices by 1.1%. Thats an elasticity of demand around -13.97

[evilinkblot]

I do think its pretty smart for the Hawks to give away thrashers tickets to a season ticket holder. They know they have a rolodex of people with plenty of disposable income, I can see why its 100% in their favor to give season ticket holders a free look at the Thrashers hoping that they will fall in love with the experience (or the wives, kids, or clients will). I think thats pretty smart marketing.

If those tickets weren't sold anyway, it gets people in the seats........it's an added perk........can make $ at concessions...........it's an easy call.

[evilinkblot]

I think much of what is being said here.........(not to be a jerk)........doesn't matter.

This isn't a Hawks only deal with attendance. Look at the successful history of the Braves. You don't even need to bring the Thrashers into it (one playoff series sweep), the Braves have a great stadium downtown with lots of visibility and advertising.

A lot of what you're saying is missing the point. Enough Atlantan's don't care about the Hawks, Braves or Thrashers. That's it. That's the point to discuss. The Hawks were briefly brought up in Carmelo discussions. I don't think we have a shot. But lets say that we got him, he's a star. Would he help attendance significantly? Would Lebron?

I'm not feeling well today or I'd bring up some pro wrestling attendance talk........maybe I will later. Ticket prices don't matter as much as you think.

[Guest]

Keep making yourself look foolish. Just because I don't think that a 1% price difference doesn't make a meaningful difference on attendance either way is not the same as saying that "ticket prices do not have an affect on attendance". Keep on digging that hole. Its not worth trying to explain it to you. If you want to think that a 1% price increase as caused a 15% decrease in attendance then by all means do so.

I'll let your own words speak for you and then be done with this since you clearly aren't interested in a real discussion here.

Why don't you reread my post on the "back-of-the-envelope" calculation. Thats a rough estimate. I attached an estimate onto that but I didn't attach a correlation coefficient. IF you understood statistics (you clearly do not) you would be able to see what I am saying. As is, you are wrong in interpretation of what I have been saying. There is no digging of a hole in this scenario by me, the issue is still you claiming inelastic demand while the data show overwhelming you thats wrong.

Is there any point in arguing about statistical techniques when you don't understand statistics? No, so you should probably stop arguing about this.

[spotatl]

I agree with you evilinkblot. I don't know how to make people care more about the Hawks in absence of them either having a superstar or them being considered championship contenders. (and those things of course tie into each other) People here didn't grow up with the Hawks to make them feel like they are missing out if they don't see them live as a matter of habit.