LONG Preliminary study on attendance, ticket prices, and fan loyalty

[sporr]

With the recent discussion on ticket prices, I thought that I would do a study on various effects on attendance from these prices and other factors.

Here is how I performed the tests. In a solo league of mine, I took the two World Series teams and created a week-long schedule where one team was home for 7 games. I simmed the 1st 7 games 10 times noting the attendance totals for the 7 games while changing various team ratings.

The first thing that I will note are two things that will not be factored into these tests: stadium capacity and team market size. Market size was kept at Average and stadium capacity was kept at 50,000. In my test, I found that Market Size has absolutely NO effect on attendance. Stadium capacity, on the other hand, directly impacts attendance. I found that in cases where the 50,000 capacity stadium would sell out, so would a stadium of 200,000 capacity! This is the first surprising thing that I noticed - attendance is not calculate by raw numbers, but by some percentage of the stadium capacity. All other things equal, the higher capacity stadium will always have higher attendance than one of lesser capacity no matter what.

The two factors that affect attendance that I will discuss are ticket price and fan loyalty.

ALL GROUPS HAVE AVERAGE MARKET SIZE.
ALL STADIUMS HAVE 50,000 CAPACITY
70 GAME AVERAGE SHOWN

CONTROL GROUP:
Ticket price: $7
Fan Loyalty: Average
Average attendance: 35,011
Attendance revenue per game: $245,077

HIGH TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $9
Fan Loyalty: Average
Average attendance: 24,435
Attendance revenue per game: $219,915

LOW TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $5
Fan Loyalty: Average
Average attendance: 42,727
Attendance revenue per game: $213,635

HIGH FAN LOYALTY:
Ticket price: $7
Fan Loyalty: Very Good
Average attendance: 43,859
Attendance revenue per game: $307,013

LOW FAN LOYALTY:
Ticket price: $7
Fan Loyalty: Poor
Average attendance: 19,751
Attendance revenue per game: $138,257

HIGH LOYALTY/ LOW TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $5
Fan Loyalty: Very Good
Average attendance: 50,000
Attendance revenue per game: $250,000

HIGH LOYALTY/ HIGH TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $9
Fan Loyalty: Very Good
Average attendance: 31,318
Attendance revenue per game: $281,862

LOW LOYALTY/ LOW TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $5
Fan Loyalty: Poor
Average attendance: 25,286
Attendance revenue per game: $126,430

LOW LOYALTY/ HIGH TICKET PRICE:
Ticket price: $9
Fan Loyalty: Poor
Average attendance: 14,068
Attendance revenue per game: $126,612


I always assumed that $7 ticket prices would yield the best profit regardless of other factors, but in beginning tests of a Very Good fan loyalty rating, I've found a slight edge to a ticket price of $8. I plan to test the other fan loyalty ratings to see if they affect the prime ticket price. If so, I should be able to tell the best price to charge at various fan loyalty levels. In most cases, it IS still $7. Another interesting note is that a team with poor fan loyalty actually makes more money when charging $9 for tickets than $5. I'll publish the rest of my study as I complete it.

[Steve Kuffrey]

Good job, just to let you know this has been totally reworked and I'm currently checking it out for v4.

[sporr]

[quote]Originally posted by OOTP1:
<strong>Good job, just to let you know this has been totally reworked and I'm currently checking it out for v4.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks. It's so hard to program this so that it seems natural and realistic without there being ways for a player to take advantage of it unfairly. In my mind, market size should affect attendance while stadium capacity should not affect attendance at all (unless a team is selling out in which case stadium capacity could limit their attendance). Supply and demand says that a larger market size means more people will be available to purchase tickets.

[Becks910]

[quote]Originally posted by sporr:
<strong>market size should affect attendance while stadium capacity should not affect attendance at all (unless a team is selling out in which case stadium capacity could limit their attendance). Supply and demand says that a larger market size means more people will be available to purchase tickets.</strong><hr></blockquote>


well said

[Pip]

Is the market size going to change more quickly in OOTP4 when you're team is a "big time" team? eg. In my league I run the Pirates- I'm at the stage now where I have made the playoffs for the past four years, one a championship, and won 100+ games three years in a row - my market size is average. With success shouldn't we see an increase in market size? Shouldn't my merchandise and broadcasting revenue go up?

[Squall]

Market size probably shouldn't change, except in slow glacial-type changes over decades. No matter how well the baseball team does, it is unlikely the "market size" of, say, Detroit or Cincinatti, will change. The only way I can see it change, is, for example, if a team sharing a market with another team leaves.

For example: If the Cubs leave Chicago, the White Sox have a potentially larger market because of the lost competition from the Cubs within the market.

In historical leagues, I generally try to adjust "Market size" so it's true to life. NY is huge, Montreal is small.

I just cannot see, short of a Simcity type model, how Market size can be simulated by the baseball algorithm. Unless... well, I see two ways.

1) Have all the baseball markets act as a closed system. Market changes are a zero-sum game, perhaps changing slower than fan loyalty. For example, LA has losing seasons for about a decade, and results in a smaller market. At the same time, San Diego has been doing well, and it expands slightly. These can been seen as the shifting of merchandising and media revenue, etc. rather than wholesale population shifts.

2) A type of model that simulates market shifts for say the top 100 cities. So, though there are baseball teams in 10 markets, there are 90 other potential spots. Their market size shifts dependant on some abstract factors. Thus...the small market in Montreal sees potential in Dubuque, which is slightly larger and available. So, perhaps with a small cash infusion the franchise can move. With good management, they can increase their size.

Of course, these are all rather strange additions to a financial model in simulation for baseball. But, maybe they could make market size a meaningful variable.

[JML]

I don't really have an opinion at the moment about how market size should change, but I want to throw out the situation with the Twins.

Last year's attendance was up something like 70% from the year before. I would not say that fan loyalty changed at all. In fact, it seems that the people here have NO loyalty, and they just started showing up when the team was winning. I WOULD say that this translates into a temporary increase in market size. Not in that the population of the region grew, but the amount of people who would be considered part of the market grew. In fact, I'm sure merchandising revenue went up, since I saw people wearing twins caps and jerseys last season who I would have NEVER seen wearing any baseball paraphernalia, much less twins paraphernalia.

PS: I think Selig's reasoning about folding the twins is that the public has, time and again, refused to help build a stadium. But last season showed that a quality Twins team can draw fans. If dear Mr. Pohlad would sell the team to someone who cares about baseball, I see no reason the Twins couldn't turn it around. Plus, it seems a lot of the reason why people refuse to help build a new stadium is that most of them hate Pohlad, the multi-billionare who puts the least money possible into the team, and pockets the rest.

[Kevin]

Market size should not be affected by anything in the game itself if it's going to be a representation of real life. Face it, would you move to a city just because it had a good ball team? Winning, both long and short term, should have its own effect on attendance regardless of market size. Market size should have a lesser effect on atendance than on broadcasting and merchandise. Market size shouldn't change more than once in any ten year period. There should also be a random chance of decrease. Right now, I'm only seeing increases.

[Squall]

To the Twins example:

I still don't think that last year's events would have any effect on market size. But, it could be used to show the flaws of the "fan loyalty" rating. The description of the fickle Minnesota fans suggest that their overall loyalty is low (not to suggest there are no loyal Minnesota fans). It does highlight the weakness of OOTP model, where loyalty only changes at a season's end. What happened in Minnesota last year suggests that perhaps in the OOTP model things like fan attendance and revenue should react to a winning record. (This has been suggested before, as well as attendance spikes with popular players, etc.).

But, I contend, fan loyalty should not change so radically so quickly. Rather, perhaps attendance and revenue could be impacted by a winning record, but if the loyalty is low, the second the team starts losing, the revenue goes away. I imagine that those rabid fans on the Northside of Chicago and in Boston go no matter what the record. That is loyalty. The stadium fills and the merchandise sells irregardless of the record. In Minnesota that is clearly not the case.

So, perhaps a modification to the model is in order. The markets size acts as a hard cap that is the ultimate limit on revenue and attendance; it also changes the slowest, if at all. Fan loyalty is a middling factor, changing occasionally, but only in response to on the field play. Much like it operates now in the OOTP simulation.

Underneath this could be another factor, something that responds to the day-to-day happenings of the team and is directly tied to the baseball simulation. Popular visiting players could spike attendance but not merchandising revenue. A winning record for a team with disloyal fans could spark attendance, but that success would be short term if the success is not sustained because the loyalty factor would not change.

Again, these are all just suggestions to the financial model, not the baseball simulation. I'm not sure what the new model is in OOTP4, but it is being reworked. I do find it interesting, though, in light of recent events, that people are interested in trying to recapture this financial system, when in reality the system is in such disarray.

FYI: in my leagues, I have the financial system off. It is too inconsistent and illogical. Also, my computer is a little slow so I try to fine-tune the program best I can.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Squall ]</p>

[hellfrozeover]

That is a very good idea, I like it a lot. In the current system, the fan loyalty and market size ratings just don't cut it as far as a financial system is concerned.