Jump to content
Neal

Attendances

Recommended Posts

I was saying it 47er and it’s true.

2,700 walk ons is good for us,  but it is still a low figure. Lots of other clubs have a much smaller gap between walk on and season ticket sales.

Therefore season ticket sales were very disappointing as they make up 80% of our attendance. Though of course we should be lowering match prices, I mean over £30 in the Jack Walker yesterday if you trapped  after 1.30pm, crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, if you used to have a season ticket and you no longer have one, you won't necessarily want to go straight back to having one. You'll want to feel your way back in. So making walk ons harder to do than they need to be and charging people who make up their minds about attending late on extra makes no sense. Stop surcharges. Make tickets a little cheaper - not a lot but a couple of pounds say perhaps 25 instead of 30 - and see if it has an effect. You could do it as a pre Christmas offer knowing that many people are short of cash in the run up to Christmas.  Would help a lot I think.

Edited by gumboots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through the home fixtures not on sale yet up to Christmas, I’d say only Sheff Wed would be expected to bring a good following - I.e. Category A prices. So there’s a big opportunity for some creative offers and pricing.

But there won’t be any.

Edited by Mattyblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rovers' late entry surcharge is similar to the rail franchises who raise prices massively for walk-on rail fares. In both cases they deter people who through force of circumstance or preference make late decisions and instead force people to seek alternatives - in Rovers case not attend the match and in the case of rail travel by alternative means. 

Both mean the club and the railway lose out on valuable business and both aren''t fair to supporters and passengers.  

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yesterday game prove that Rovers are attracting walk on's fans but people are choosing their games due to family and work circumstances plus other factors like being paid that week or so before the game does help. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We always attract 2-3 thousand walk on fans at a weekend - just like yesterday. Of  course, a few price promotions chucked in throughout a season can only help.

We want crowds to substantially rise - sell substantially more season tickets. Simple as that. Hopefully Waggott has learned his lesson for next summer.

Edited by Mattyblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must've been a few more paying walk on's yesterday which is good, end of month, great day, decent opposition.  Was there actually c2700 though ?  Does the attendance figure not include complimentary , corporate etc as well which might have been boosted by the likes of Forest on a Sat aft ?

Riverside looked a bit busier which is good, probably won't be on Weds though 😯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gumboots said:

Yes but how many more might they get if they didn't add £3 to the cost of tickets for those who realise late on that they'd quite like to go?

Does 3 pounds really make much difference tho? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Does 3 pounds really make much difference tho? 

You are not going to Bolton away partially due to the high ticket price. If it was £27 would you have the same complaint?

And if it makes no difference, spin it round, why charge it in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You are not going to Bolton away partially due to the high ticket price. If it was £27 would you have the same complaint?

And if it makes no difference, spin it round, why charge it in the first place?

Its due to lack of trains. We would have prefer to stop off in Chorley and Blackburn for pub crawl before game then back to Preston for the night out. 

The price isnt a proper factor. 

Edited by chaddyrovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To some people £3 makes a huge difference. In terms of the cash, to me it isn't a huge factor, other than that I resent the idea of being charged extra to decide to do something at the last minute. Doesn't happen at the cinema or the theatre. In fact quite often at the theatre you get offers if they're not selling well so it's cheaper sometimes to wait. And if they fill up they need to pull in extra staff so on a smaller scale it's the same thing. Yet they'd rather sell out at a lower cost to provide atmosphere for the performers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase '20 is plenty' certainly applies to us but to be honest I think we'd have to go cheaper than that. Start at £20 and next ticket gets knocked down £2 each time you purchase one for the following game, lowest price £10, miss a game it goes back to £20.

Edited by Neal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Neal said:

The phrase '20 is plenty' certainly applies to us but to be honest I think we'd have to go cheaper than that. Start at £20 and next ticket gets knocks down £2 each time you purchase one for the following game, lowest price £10, miss a game it goes back to £20.

A very interesting idea. Sadly Rovers not up for them atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 47er said:

Its less harmful than smoking certainly but it is not harmless. Vaping means taking in nicotine which is addictive. It increases the heart rate, in other words it makes the heart work harder, meaning potential heart problems down the track.

As a way of getting off tobacco and not inhaling the likes of furniture polish and tar direct into your lungs, vaping is a better thing to do. However the vaper is still an addict.

The longterm effects of vaping are still unknown for obvious reasons.

 

Nicotine is addictive just like caffeine, any calls to ban coffee?

13 hours ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/e-cigs-and-second-hand-vaping/

You form your own opinion...nobody is talking rubbish.

I digress.

An aged article promoted by the tobacco companies in America against vaping (wonder why) isn’t very good evidence. I suggest you keep looking, even the NHS are promoting vaping now. Like I said, you described vaping as harmful and you haven’t provided substantiation to that statement so as I said your talking rubbish. Please try harder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gumboots said:

To some people £3 makes a huge difference. In terms of the cash, to me it isn't a huge factor, other than that I resent the idea of being charged extra to decide to do something at the last minute. Doesn't happen at the cinema or the theatre. In fact quite often at the theatre you get offers if they're not selling well so it's cheaper sometimes to wait. And if they fill up they need to pull in extra staff so on a smaller scale it's the same thing. Yet they'd rather sell out at a lower cost to provide atmosphere for the performers

I'm only picking out your posts because they include what I feel are common misconceptions which regularly pop up here.

You're right some of us are fortunate enough for £3 not to make a financial difference. However in an area like Blackburn I'd suggest £3 is irrelevant. This is a low wage town with many facing financial hardships. Its not a question of £27 or £30 but can one afford it or not - for many households that £27/30 represents a significant chunk of income, even £10 is a big number.

As for the surcharge I agree it's irritating but is now part of life. Your cinema/theatre examples are selective. From my experience London theatre sells cheaper tickets on the day but prices are already far higher than watching Rovers. Most cinemas have offers at quiet periods not peak times. I don't think we've ever had a cheap offer from The Lowry, Octagon or Exchange theatres to consider some local quality ones.

Trains, planes, hotels, virtually all ticket agencies apply surcharges, theatres and cinenas do so online, car parks are cheaper booked in advance. It's how the market economy works these days and is primarily about getting people to commit early and upfront to attending. The longer the potential customer wants to make a decision on purchase the less likely they are to do so.

Yesterday I took part in a charity cycle event, entry was £15 online or £20 on the day. Last May we joined a local charity walk £7.50 in advance, £15 on the day. Even charities act this way 

To suggest Rovers are disuadding walk ons through this surcharge ignores what happens in most other retail sectors.

The real issue surrounding attendances is affordability for the local fans and the harsh reality is for many local people £27/30 is out of reach surcharged or not. While I remain to be convinced £10 tickets are the answer, either commercially or in terms of attracting people, I think this is the level at which many need it to be pitched to be seen as within reach for many families.

Edited by Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Neal said:

The phrase '20 is plenty' certainly applies to us but to be honest I think we'd have to go cheaper than that. Start at £20 and next ticket gets knocks down £2 each time you purchase one for the following game, lowest price £10, miss a game it goes back to £20.

I love this idea, it's one of very few imaginative suggestions I've read in years. How it would work in practice or if it's financially viable for the club is up for discussion but it's a great thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, old darwen blue said:

Nicotine is addictive just like caffeine, any calls to ban coffee?

An aged article promoted by the tobacco companies in America against vaping (wonder why) isn’t very good evidence. I suggest you keep looking, even the NHS are promoting vaping now. Like I said, you described vaping as harmful and you haven’t provided substantiation to that statement so as I said your talking rubbish. Please try harder. 

You asked for any evidence that vaping was harmful. I gave you some. You then challenge me to ban coffee!

Its an old tactic used by people who are quite committed to something irrespective of any evidence.

Of course I don't want to ban coffee.I don't want to ban alcohol, I don't even want to ban vaping!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.