Revisiting Fan Interest, Loyalty, and Market Size

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

All well and good, except teams from the same market--Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels--do not have the 'same' market size in reality.

They do, from an economic perspective. That one of the clubs is not able to capitalize on the market as well as the other is a reflection of the operation of that club, and perhaps fan interest and/or fan loyalty.

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

So I think there is much more to a market than simple population and income. Market size is created by a team's marketing campaign, both positively and negatively. You can also get a feel for this in some cities by comparing franchises in the different sports.

I would assign those factors to fan interest and fan loyalty rather than market size. Leaving market size as a purely economic rating makes it easier, from a realism perspective, to placing clubs in cities, and ranking cities as potential homes for clubs of whatever classification level.

[ThePretender]

I think we're missing an underrated part of the finances in this discussion - media revenue. It never changes. You would think after 15-20 years of averaging 100 wins and multiple WS wins that there would be even slight changes in media revenue, but it never changes. You'd think at a certain point the media contract would increase.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

I would like the ability to lock market size and owner characteristics in a sim so that I don't have to constantly tinker with these issues to keep teams competitive.

I've been asking for the option to lock market sizes for years now.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

They do, from an economic perspective. That one of the clubs is not able to capitalize on the market as well as the other is a reflection of the operation of that club, and perhaps fan interest and/or fan loyalty.

I would assign those factors to fan interest and fan loyalty rather than market size. Leaving market size as a purely economic rating makes it easier, from a realism perspective, to placing clubs in cities, and ranking cities as potential homes for clubs of whatever classification level.

No, the economic fan base of the Yankees and Dodgers is quite different from the Angels and Mets. My observations over the decades is that Yankee and Dodger fans have a much higher median level of wealth than the Mets/Angels fans. And, if anything, Met and Angel fans have more loyalty than Yankee and Dodger fans because they HAVE TO in order to exist at all. Interest, for me, is the front-runner syndrome and the better teams gain that type of fan quite easily. I do not think OOTP models this behavior accurately at all. The casual fan switches teams with ease, particularly in NY and LA where there are far more of them.

[NoOne]

you'd have to factor in CoL differences to those differences in pay.

you may make a lot less in SC, but can actually live at a higher standard, and even retire earlier in many contexts. those salaries in CA sound awesome, until you realize a 1200sq ft home is going to cost you $1M dollars. your electricty is going to be 3x higher etc etc...

differences in spendable income would be key to milking the customer properly and whether there's any true advantage over another region. there defintiely are winners and losers in this context, but not neccessarily what they eye might think. (the obvious.. chicago, la, ny all have an advantage, unless they are the red-headed stepchild team of that area -- even those have a huge advantage over some fly-over state team, of which my hometown team is included)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

No, the economic fan base of the Yankees and Dodgers is quite different from the Angels and Mets. My observations over the decades is that Yankee and Dodger fans have a much higher median level of wealth than the Mets/Angels fans.

We're still talking about the same city, and thus, the same economic locale, the same economic market: the New York City metropolitan area. That the Yankees have tapped into that area more effectively than have the Mets (or the Giants or Dodgers, if you go further back) is a reflection on its organizational abilities.

Unless, that is, you wish to subdivide the New York City metropolitan area into smaller, discrete economic markets. (And there may be justification in doing so.)

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

And, if anything, Met and Angel fans have more loyalty than Yankee and Dodger fans because they HAVE TO in order to exist at all. Interest, for me, is the front-runner syndrome and the better teams gain that type of fan quite easily. I do not think OOTP models this behavior accurately at all. The casual fan switches teams with ease, particularly in NY and LA where there are far more of them.

Regardless of the discussion around fan interest and loyalty (my thoughts on these are not carved in stone, and I am happy to hear other viewpoints on the subjects), the point remains that the economic capacity of the locale has a huge impact on the financial well-being on the the club residing in that locale.

If the Yankees moved to Topeka, Kansas, it is highly unlikely the club would continue generating hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue from ticket sales, club seats and luxury suites, concessions, advertising, and local broadcasting since the Topeka area has only a fraction of the population and per capita income of the New York City metropolitan area.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you'd have to factor in CoL differences to those differences in pay.

Ideally, perhaps, but I'm not sure such differences are large enough to matter insofar as ticket sales and the like are concerned. Even if you disagree with that, there is a practical consideration: is there any source for historical cost-of-living adjustment lists for cities across the United States? I am not aware of any offhand.

There is, however, ample data on town, city, and county population totals from each U.S. census. There is also per capita income by county going back to about the mid-20th century. (For years before that, one would have to extrapolate from other data.)

A county-based system seems to me to be a good method for defining economic locales in the United States, as county borders changed little from the early 1900s on, meaning their geographic areas are consistent, and county-level census data is widely available, and metropolitan areas are defined by the counties that comprise them.

[HonusWagner]

I just assumed the market et al numbers were aesthetic based on my observation on the movements involving fan loyalty/interest and local player popularity.

What one would expect as reasonable is a team with a half dozen popular -> very popular > extreme (ly popular) players would at least have corresponding levels of fan interest.

I didn[t see any.

I have seen teams with players highly popular locally and with 70-something in fan interest. And other teams with one player ranked as "fair" in local popularity and the others ranked "insignificant" score around the same - 70-something - in fan interest.

I concluded the numbers and colored bars were for fun.

[battists]

You know, every time I think *I* have too much time on my hands, I come to the forums and find some people who also clearly do.

(Seriously tho, very interesting conversation. And part of why this capability in OOTP is as basic as it is is probably exactly this complexity.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stiffy]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

We're still talking about the same city, and thus, the same economic locale, the same economic market: the New York City metropolitan area. That the Yankees have tapped into that area more effectively than have the Mets (or the Giants or Dodgers, if you go further back) is a reflection on its organizational abilities.

Unless, that is, you wish to subdivide the New York City metropolitan area into smaller, discrete economic markets. (And there may be justification in doing so.)

Regardless of the discussion around fan interest and loyalty (my thoughts on these are not carved in stone, and I am happy to hear other viewpoints on the subjects), the point remains that the economic capacity of the locale has a huge impact on the financial well-being on the the club residing in that locale.

If the Yankees moved to Topeka, Kansas, it is highly unlikely the club would continue generating hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue from ticket sales, club seats and luxury suites, concessions, advertising, and local broadcasting since the Topeka area has only a fraction of the population and per capita income of the New York City metropolitan area.

To further your point, the MLB even calculates those teams as having the same market score for CBA purposes (found on page 253 of this PDF):

CLUB  SCORE
NYY    235
NYM    235
LAD    178
LAA    178
CHI    124
CWS    124
TOR    119
WSH    113
PHI    111
OAK    108
SF     108
BOS    101
TEX    101
ATL     96
HOU     93
SEA     81
MIN     76
DET     74
ARI     72
TB      72
BAL     70
COL     70
MIA     69
CLE     64
SD      60
STL     57
PIT     56
KC      53
MIL     52
CIN     51

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by stiffy

To further your point, the MLB even calculates those teams as having the same market score for CBA purposes (found on page 253 of this PDF):

Yeah, I've posted those numbers before. What's interesting is to compare the market rankings from the most recent CBA to the prior one—several cities changed position.

To reiterate, my thought is the market size is the economic rating of a locale that sets the theoretical ability of that area to financially support a club, which would then be modified by fan interest and fan loyalty. (One could also add the quality of the ballpark to the equation as well, as older parks are generally not as fan-friendly as more recently constructed parks.)

I'm sure Miami and Tampa seemed like good baseball markets on paper to MLB; it didn't work out in practice, however (at least, not beyond the first few seasons).

[Juggernt]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I'm sure Miami and Tampa seemed like good baseball markets on paper to MLB; it didn't work out in practice, however (at least, not beyond the first few seasons).

Tampa is, in fact, the worst ballpark I've ever been to--and I went to several of the 70's Astroturf cookie cutter monstrosities. It's in a lousy spot in relation to where most of the metropolitan community lives, and is even lousier inside.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I've been asking for the option to lock market sizes for years now.

I second this, Joe. I was reminded by this to go and do my "annual" inspection of market sizes to ensure that they are all still "Average." (I also have National Media Contract set for "same contract for every team" but I understand market size may influence attendance as well.)

My reasoning is this: Even though I am playing historical MLB, it's semi-fictional in that I don't want New York, Chicago, and L.A. to dominate the league with an unfair market revenue advantage. I want to see teams dominate by picking the best players and coaches and, for my own team and as field manager, playing better tactical baseball.

If I were playing strictly historical MLB, then I would be worried about the correct market sizes. In my universe, market size is neutral and therefore I, too, would appreciate an option to lock market sizes rather than needing to keep them from creeping around year after year.

[Mat]

Agreed. Ability to lock market size would be a nice feature.

[NoOne]

unless they start random population changes i'd agree with an option to lock market sizes. if that was also going on in background, i'd like it to be tied to those forces. (populations, median income bla blah blah -- whatver factors at least have some studies done and some basics could be inferred for a video game, but that starts to get outside of 'baseball', but still relevant for enviroment)

when you create a new game does it even care about population? i think it mostly just creates a somewhat predefined stratification... poor, middle, rich etc. not too many of the extremes, fat in the middle.

relative to how it works i the game,now, i'd think tying how large of a stadium can be filled to population and/or market size would be a good thing. if i'm not mistaken, you could build a 56k stadium in a '1' market and theoretically fill it with good loyalty and interest. although, i guess NFL teams fill large stadiums in desolate areas, but 1/8 games is different than 1/81 too.