Butts in the Seats
The discussion following my entry from last week wandered into the topic of Wrigley Field attendance, and I want to express a few thoughts about it. While the majority of sports franchises would love to have the Cubs’ attendance “problems,” I think the Cubs brass is concerned about it, and that concern has been a factor in the changes we’ve seen in the off-season.
But first, is the Cubs’ attendance lacking? Well, it’s hard to tell based on the reported attendance numbers, but even they suggest that the numbers are starting to wane. Attendance at Wrigley has been great since the excitement of 1998, and starting in 2003, tickets to a Cubs game have become a precious commodity. Really, this remained true into last season and probably will remain so. Since 2004, the average attendance at Wrigley has been 38,660, 38,272 and 38,558, which appears steady as a rock, and the Cubs came only 100 attendees short of their all-time high average attendance from 2004. That’s remarkable for a team that lost 96 games. But there are other things to consider. First, as others have pointed out, the average attendance numbers do not reflect true turnstile counts. You may remember the midweek series hosting Pittsburgh last September, which featured remarkably small crowds, at least to the eye, despite official attendance figures of 27,000 and more. Second, the Cubs added about 1800 seats to Wrigley Field in 2006. If you look at average attendance for the last three years since 2004 expressed as a percentage of capacity, you get 98.3%, 97.1% and 93.7% for 2006. That’s a significant drop. Finally, you have to consider the fact that across MLB, attendance has been rising steadily since 2003. At the same time, the 2006 White Sox drew nearly 3 million, ~1 million more than they did in 2004.
I’m sure the Cubs have actual turnstile numbers, and I’m sure they’re much worse than the official numbers indicate, if not downright alarming. New Cubs President John McDonough has been behaving like he is very concerned. You may recall the disturbing rumors last fall that he insisted on hiring Lou Piniella because he thought Bruce Bochy would be the less exciting choice. I’m sure the acquisition of Alfonso Soriano was primarily made for baseball reasons, but the 2006 Cubs lacked exciting players having exciting seasons, and I’m sure that was a consideration, as it was in signing Jeff Samardzija.
We’ll see where all of this goes, but my expectation is that the Cubs have warded off a major drop in official 2007 attendance with their aggressive off-season spending. However, if they again field a boring and mediocre ballclub, I think we will see the turnstile counts drop again, and the Cubs can only have so many tricks up their sleeves other than what the White Sox did: you know, actually winning.
Andere Richtingen
Posted: February 02, 2007 at 11:55 AM |
17 comment(s)
Related News:
General,
Chi Cubs
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yes, attendance is up around baseball but not so much for the Cubs -- but that's because the Cubs were already at capacity. What you really want to compare (which we probably don't have the data for) is ticket revenue. Teams with spare capacity increase revenue mainly by bringing in more people. Teams without spare capacity raise their ticket prices. According to this, the Cubs had the second highest ticket prices last year and a 7.2% increase (slightly above league average). In 2005, they were still #2 and had a 12.5% increase, roughly double the league average. The year before that? #2 with a 17.5% increase, about 4.5 times the league average. So while attendance has been stable or maybe even declining as % of capacity, ticket prices were up about 40% since 2003 compared to about 15-16% for the league average.
The capacity argument doesn't fly for me either, in fact, it amplifies any attendance problems. When the Cubs were at 97-98% attendance, which is probably about as close to 100% you can get when you play so many day games, they probably could have hit 3.5 million in attendance if they had the capacity for it. Interest probably had to wane quite a bit to drive it down to 93%.
As for ticket prices, I'm sure it was a factor, but it is a factor of the Cubs's choosing and a force they have to work against.
I mean, as I said in my post, you're right: the Cubs weren't damaged directly by the attendance drop in 2006. But there is reason to think that they have started on a slippery slope. The Cubs are unlikely to see <2.5 million in attendance, but a lack of interest will hurt tv ratings. Maybe they don't have that much to worry about, but I think the Cubs brass thinks they have something to worry about.
The Trib (or any owner) doesn't care about butts in seats, they care about dollars in pockets. The Cubs' attendance declined a few percentage points while ticket prices rose 40% since 2003. That's more money -- and I'm pretty sure it doesn't include the scalping and the rooftops.
The point about capacity is that you compare the Cubs to MLB attendance which has risen while the Cubs' has fallen a bit. But the Cubs attendance couldn't have risen (other than the 1800 seats) because they were already at capacity, so comparing them to a league-wide attendance increase is utterly meaningless.
(And of course, as I pointed out in the previous thread, in terms of official attendance (i.e. basically tickets sold), the 2006 Cubs did better than the 2005 and 2003 teams and only a little worse than the 2004 team).
What can teams at capacity do to increase ticket revenues? They can increase ticket prices which the Cubs did at about 2.5 times the league rate. Even the Red Sox haven't come close to that the last 3 seasons ... and they won a WS. I'm not claiming the ticket hikes decreased demand ... I'm pointing out that the ticket hikes led to a LARGE increase in ticket revenue which is the important factor here, not attendance.
I bet if you looked at changes in ticket revenue and compared the Cubs to the league, you'd find the Cubs' ticket revenue increased as much and probably more than the league average.
Can the Cubs run losing teams out there forever? Well, nobody has claimed such a thing. But of course the Cubs have been running losing teams out there quite regularly for 35+ years and are one of MLB's most valued franchises. Besides, the argument is that the Trib spends enough to build "decent" teams, resigns the stars the Cubs already have, etc. just to be a larger-market version of the Pirates' drive for 75. Nobody's suggesting the Trib has been the equivalent of the D-Rays or the non-WS Marlin years.
Just how long do you think the Sox string of winning is gonna last? And the Sox won the series in 2005, had a fan-friendly offseason (resigning Konerko, picking up Thome) and they still couldn't draw as many fans as the Cubs. And that was with tickets $8 less than the Cubs and only a 2.5% ticket increase from 2005.
What they are concerned about, however, is the fact that fewer fans in the ballpark impacts concessions, etc. The real numbers to which they are paying attention are sales of beer, hot dogs, caps, and the like -- those are the items that took a huge hit last season and represent a real cause for the Cubs concern.
1. The Cubs did actually show a decline in attendance from what I would call maximum capacity levels.
2. I believe, and I think the Cubs brass agrees with me, that there has been an accelerating decay in fan interest over the last couple of years, which is bound to result in a major decline in revenue if allowed to continue. I think the slight lag in official attendance is a significant sign of that.
I'm NOT saying that the Cubs have suffered revenue-wise at all up to this point, nor do I expect them to suffer this season (again, I think what they did this off-season will keep that from happening, at least in terms of pre-season sales). But they only have so many tricks they can pull.
The point about capacity is that you compare the Cubs to MLB attendance which has risen while the Cubs' has fallen a bit. But the Cubs attendance couldn't have risen (other than the 1800 seats) because they were already at capacity, so comparing them to a league-wide attendance increase is utterly meaningless.
I don't believe I made a comparison. I said that the decline occurred in the context of a league-wide increase in attendance. The point is that you can't explain the Cubs' decline in attendance as reflecting a league-wide lapse.
I bet if you looked at changes in ticket revenue and compared the Cubs to the league, you'd find the Cubs' ticket revenue increased as much and probably more than the league average.
I'm sure it did, but IIRC the Cubs' ticket prices were pretty cheap before the recent run of increases. Since 2003 they've been selling pretty much every ticket possible, and so it made sense for them to boost prices to match those of, say, the Red Sox.
Just how long do you think the Sox string of winning is gonna last? And the Sox won the series in 2005, had a fan-friendly offseason (resigning Konerko, picking up Thome) and they still couldn't draw as many fans as the Cubs. And that was with tickets $8 less than the Cubs and only a 2.5% ticket increase from 2005.
I'd say that if the White Sox win and the Cubs lose, and if they are clever about marketing, they could pass the Cubs up this season.
When the Cubs have been bad in recent years, they have had a couple of major things going for them: 1) Wrigley Field and 2) some interesting star players having jaw-dropping seasons. The latter was something of a problem in 2006 for the first time, really, since Sammy Sosa hit 66 home runs.
I've never been to New Comiskey but know that it has undergone a series of renovations and changes over the last few years. It will never be on the North Side in a neighborhood like Wrigley, but I have to wonder how many families with kids are going to choose a trip to see the better team in a place that has all of the peripherals you find in a new ballpark. Going out ten years, I would predict that the Cubs will win more, draw more, and make more money than the White Sox, but I assume that there will be a major change in how things are done in that time, including a change in ownership. If the status quo were maintained, no way.
But I do think that 2006 made the Cubs brass nervous. Sure, they are still doing fine, but it doesn't matter how much money your business is making, a decline in profits is seen as a negative. They have to stay the hottest ticket in town. I doubt they've seen a decline, and don't think they necessarily will, but I think they're concerned.
My guess is that tv ratings trump everything.
As for the Cubs, they are certainly acting like they are concerned about revenue slipping. Is there a cause for concern? Who really knows. I would be willing to bet that they have enjoyed the huge revenues they have witnessed the last few years and realize that this was due in large part to the high expectations set in 2003. As those expectations lapse from a fans perspective there is certainly a significant chance that the sellout crowds would diminish, the tv audiences would fade away, and revenues could plummet. The attendance numbers are really only a very crude approximation for this type of analysis.
Also, as Andere said, the real issue is the TV ratings. That's where the big money is.
Apparently, they favor the 30 flavors of Moesha, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Cubs.
--My guess is that tv ratings trump everything.
Point well taken. Still, my greater point is that I don't think the Cubs brass is (or should be) nearly as concerned about losing ticket sales as they are about the loss of things associated with butts in seats (i.e., beer sales, etc.) and more importantly, lower TV ratings. While significant, losing the sale of 150,000 tickets is a drop in the bucket compared to this.
Also, is there an effect that the years and years of sold out tickets have in wearing down fans from even trying for tickets? To me, I think the difference is that the people that jumped the bandwagon in and after the 2003 playoff run are jumping off.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/02/04/hill_climber_in_chicago/?page=1
For while the Cubs spent zillions this offseason, some in their organization are far more excited about Hill than Alfonso Soriano, Ted Lilly, or any of their other acquisitions.
Could this be a sign that our fears of management sending him back to AAA (if the veteran starters are all healthy) are unfounded? I certainly hope so.
Feel free to post the article as a separate topic if you think it's warranted. Hill discusses his early struggles last year, learning from Greg Maddux, the progress of his changeup, and altering his approach to be successful in the Majors.
Your teams include the Cubs AND Patriots? How? What are your other teams?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main