It's bad, because it's just a way for them to raise prices for certain games. It's not like they're lowering ticket prices for the bad games, they're just raising them for the premium games. Rip-off to the fans.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
It's bad, because it's just a way for them to raise prices for certain games. It's not like they're lowering ticket prices for the bad games, they're just raising them for the premium games. Rip-off to the fans.
I think it's bad because in the past you were able to just trade a ticket in for another game because, you know, you have the tickets. Now, you can trade them in, but that doesn't mean you won't have to pay extra. If I'm already paying for my season ticket, why should they be able to charge me more for something I already own? That's what doesn't make sense about it to me.
Actually, by not changing your total expense, they are lowering some tickets by the same amount they’re raising others
The problem is that if NYCFC lowers midweek games, which many may try to trade out of, then the STH's won't have enough for the more expensive games without maybe packaging maybe 3 weekday games for 2 weekend matches.
This. Plus, this team doesn’t have the luxury to use variable pricing. When you’re bleeding out, first stop the bleeding. They can’t hold STH’s as it is, plus I doubt their single game purchases have been improving or even consistent at current levels.
Right now, you need to get butts in the seats and raising prices for tix for certain games when you can’t sell out your current inventory makes absolutely no sense. I get that the revenue maximizing price may mean a higher price and less people but at that rate they are going, they will never grow the fan base beyond its current level which means their long term revenue potential is capped.
Forgo a bit of the revenue in the short term for these games and you may have a better shot at getting someone to buy tix to a second and third game.
They want to structure their pricing like they are a mature club in an established market. They are not a mature club and this isn’t an established market.
I agree with you guys. Front office truly thinks this is a benefit to is. Did not understand the perspective that it's neutral to slightly negative at best.
It definitely isn’t a benefit, to really anybody but the team. They get to jack up prices to juicy matches while lowering prices to probable snoozers. Makes the snoozers universally a sunk cost to STH that want to trade out/sell as the return doesn’t justify the action.
Before I could not in any way no how trade in to a Red Bull game. Now I can, for an upcharge and the credit from the seats I traded in. If I consider the upcharge too much, I don’t have to do it which leaves me no worse off than I was before in the worst case, and able to trade into a derby game, or decision day, on the plus side.
It is all upside and no downside, and entirely in my control. Y’all are unduly negative and economically irrational.
It is all upside and no downside, and entirely in my control. Y’all are unduly negative and economically irrational.
Haha, but you’re wrong, or maybe I have more pull than you. I have three extra seats for next weeks RB match because I traded out of Vancouver and into RB. Based on that “transaction” alone, policy is now being altered and skewed towards the club.
This.
Trying to price games to match the demand can only be helpful to us - presuming of course that they do so for general admission too.
Yes, they allowed trading into the mid-week RB game this year, but not the weekend one. I don't think you're example of trading a Saturday night game in for a mid-week game (even if it's RB) is a good example.
Yeah, true, but then Mark should have clarified his use of RB as an example - I can only respond to what he posts so I’m not putting words in his mouth
The trade-in and the variable pricing are two separate things.
They have inflated the face value of the games you are likely to attend, which helps them get a little more from single-game ticket buyers. They have deflated the face value of the games you are less likely to attend, which can only serve to put further pressure on the resale prices.
If you go to all the games or sell all the games, it shouldn't make a difference. Anyone who has trouble making midweek games will definitely be negatively impacted as the wise other posters have said.
I don't get this part, the "less likely to attend". I would bet most season ticket holders would attend nearly every game they are able to. Perhaps some of the bigger games, including the derby, STH's are more likely to shift schedules and avoid conflicts to attend then maybe a home game against San Jose, but generally I think it's attend when you can (or maybe I'm speaking for myself).
This year, I've had a crazy schedule and have been unable to attend the first derby, the Vancouver saturday night game, the home game against Atlanta, and the home game against TFC. I'm also going to miss the home game when Rooney comes to town, and the regular season ender. I would bet that those are all or close to all "premium" games that would result in higher single game prices, allowing me to be more likely to sell mine and possibly at a higher price.
This goes both ways.
Every STH doesn't go to every game. I, for example miss most July games because Jr. is at sleepaway camp.
There is so much supply relative to demand that I do not believe this to be true.
I think it's largely neutral (as you implied with "goes both ways") but on the margins I think a lower ticket price puts downward pressure on resale, but a higher one does not raise it.
The resale market seem to be completely disconnected from face value on the downside that lower prices move Ticketmaster closer to the market whereas the higher prices just move them away.
Moving your price away from the market should have no effect.
Pretty much sums it up. There isn’t sufficient demand to support a variable pricing strategy yet and the resale market is geared towards reducing losses. As long as that is the case, raising sticker prices won’t increase the resale value/ reduce the loss to STH. It may actually increase the loss for the most expensive games (While simultaneously reducing losses for less valuable games).
Basically, demand is likely still low enough that equilibrium is less than sticker price for “top” games. You need to build the brand and generate interest and variable pricing doesn’t do much to help.
Last edited:
List of wants for new stadium (other than stadium, but related):
-Family-friendly food/drink prices
-Free tickets for kids under X years old (1/2 per STH, I think Newcastle does this)
-Available seat licenses
-STH discount for Women's/USL/Youth tickets
-Covered seats
-Better beer options (probably will require Yankees selling their share)
-More water stations
-No City Beats
-Family-friendly food/drink prices
-Free tickets for kids under X years old (1/2 per STH, I think Newcastle does this)
-Available seat licenses
-STH discount for Women's/USL/Youth tickets
-Covered seats
-Better beer options (probably will require Yankees selling their share)
-More water stations
-No City Beats
That's surprising, and I just checked and this RB game is not blacked out, presumably because it's a weeknight, and August, when people are away.
My point still stands to an extent but it might not be as valuable because the blackouts do not affect as many games as I thought.
Children under 3’ tall are currently allowed in for free. And they’re lenient with that.
Similar threads
