Einstein

Yes, and the Bills are nearly 25 basis points lower than their own numbers from the past few years. Yes, but this is typically offset due to the fact that club ticket holders are more often than not economically advantaged in comparison to fans in other section. Ie: Fans earning $130k per year paying $10k per year in seasons is equivalent to fans earning $50k per year paying close to $4k per year for seasons. This would be highly unusual and very uncharacteristic of everything we know about price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. Which is to say that lower income fans that often make up the less pricier areas of the stadium are generally more price-sensitive, meaning their demand for tickets is more elastic. This elasticity is due to their inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to purchase tickets with even a small increase in price, as the cost represents a larger portion of their discretionary spending. This is exactly why the Bills are selling the club tickets first. They are obtaining a benchmark for sales with fans who have higher discretionary income and are likely adjusting their pricing for fans in other sections of the stadium based off of this data. When prices increase across the board, the demand among these fans might drop more sharply than among higher-income fans, who are less sensitive to price changes. The way most businesses get around this is by increasing the amount of available quantity at lower prices, thereby offsetting any reduced demand (on a percentage basis). What is interesting about the Bills situation is that they have reduced quantity available for lower priced seats, as the club seats now take up a much larger portion of the stadium AND they already reduced the stadium by close to 10k seats. Which again, is exactly why they doing clubs first. They’re going to use clubs as a benchmark to adjust the less pricier areas.

Keep in mind, according to the Bills, 1 in 4 aren't renewing. That's pretty bad for most businesses to lose a quarter of your customers. And if I had to guess, those numbers are a bit fudged. They likely include those who say they will renew, but at a lower package. Meaning, they have to be called back in in a few months. Will they *actually* renew at that lower package? hmm, maybe not. The real number, with non-fudged numbers, could be 1 in 3 fans not renewing for all we know. Even using the Bills numbers, they are down over 20 basis points from last year in renewals.

Impressive seniority. His Bills fan career will now span 3 home stadiums..

You really should get that reading comprehension problem checked out. Im not upset or angry about any of this. Nor have I ever claimed to be. I do think it’s incredibly stupid and nonsensical the way they are going about this. But i’m not upset about it. I just laugh at their stupidity. 1) Never trust non-regulated numbers that come directly from the benefiting party. 2) 75% is successful? Yikes. I wish my board thought losing 1 out of every 4 customers is successful. We would be smashing KPI records with those low standards.

This circles back to missteps in PR strategy by the Bills management regarding the new stadium. The team's decision to keep the stadium's drawings, virtual reality walkthroughs, and detailed plans under wraps, opting instead for presenting them through timeshare-like meetings in a nondescript location in Williamsville, far from the stadium, effectively deflated any excitement that could have been generated. A better approach would have harnessed the initial enthusiasm with a community-focused event designed to amplify stadium anticipation. For instance, a strategic move could have involved: 1) Hosting a grand unveiling event open to the media, season ticket holders, and fans, ideally timed around the NFL draft. This would allow fans to experience the draft in a unique way, intertwined with the excitement of the stadium reveal. Featuring appearances by Bills legends from various eras, such as Josh Allen, Jim Kelly, Fred Jackson, and Kyle Williams, alongside performances by bands, offering 50/50raffles, and giveaways, etc, to enrich the experience. 2) Broadcast the event both online and in-person to display the stadium’s architecture, amenities, and technological features through detailed presentations, testimonials from the designers, endorsements by players, and exclusive behind-the-scenes content. 3) Gifting attendees miniature replicas of the stadium upon departure, akin to the distribution of bobbleheads. This would leave a lasting, tangible memory of the event. 4) I would have avoided any discussion of pricing at the event to focus purely on building excitement and allowing guests to marvel at the stadium’s offerings without the immediate concern of cost. Such an event would far surpass the current approach of individual appointments in a locale far removed from the stadium. This concept would undoubtedly generate buzz—in workplaces, online, and during family gatherings like Easter, which would have laid the groundwork for widespread anticipation. After allowing the excitement to reach its peak over a few weeks, the team could then introduce the pricing details. And yes, this idea of mine is completely off the cuff and likely has a few holes. That's how all good ideas start. You come up with something then you refine it, fix it, and make it great. But as it stands, the current strategy has arguably been the least effective approach possible.

This is the #1 mistake the Bills have made. Treating this like a timeshare sale, rather than simply releasing the pricing for the entire stadium, is amateur hour.

I dont see it as 'good' or 'bad'. Just is what it is. Just like I classify most rocks as 'hard'.

I mean... people typically are good to their own people. So it doesn't surprise me that a retreat of billionaires and close-to-billionaires results in mostly good behavior with each other. Put them in a retreat with plumbers, bricklayers and homeless, then let me know how they act.

A bunch of PSE employees spoke out a few years back. Let me see if I can find the article again. Edit: Found it. It’s a couple years old so my recollection isnt perfect, but here it is:

Yeah that was an odd post by Royale. He clearly does not know many wealthy people. The billionaire Pegula’s even implied to PSE employees making likely $60k per year that they would be fired (to save money) before the Pegula’s would let their family life (vacations, etc) be hampered.

This is exactly why fans get poked in the eye regardless of whether they purchase a PSL or not.

Not really... And definitely not if you live in Western NY. 1) You are being taxed for the stadium against your will. 2) Even if you only go to a few games per year (do not buy season tix), the resale tickets will be inflated proportionally to the PSL value. This is a function of the owner. Some owners will pay for the stadium themselves AND not charge a PSL. See New England.

If someone tells you that they are going to poke you in the eye of March 22nd at 4:32pm, i'm sure you will be upset. Will you be any less upset when the eye poke happens, having known that it was comming?

They can, but most people won't want to, because humans are reluctant to abandon something they've already put resources into, even when doing so would be the rational decision based on current circumstances. It's then sunk cost fallacy. "I just paid $40k for two PSL's in the club section five years ago. How could I possibly justify letting them go? I must suck it up and pay the ever-increasing season ticket prices, because if I don't, that $40k was a waste." Yes, which is part of why it sucks so much. And it can be calculated 10 ways to Sunday and all the results would be a dismal picture. Consider the time value of money, for one. Take a $20k PSL (club section pricing I've seen) as an example. What is the NPV? Well, NPV is a function of time and discount rate. Let's use a simplified NPV due to no cash inflows, replacing with price. From what we have seen, $20,000 per PSL is what the Bills are asking for club seats. And we know they have a 30 year lifespan, so let's look at the NPV for 5 years from purchase date. Assuming only a 5% discount rate, we get a dismal future outlook The NPV of a $20,000 PSL at 5 year onset is $5,906.67. And this is only a discount rate at 5%. The opportunity cost of capital for any of us could be the average market return at the moment. 2023 was over 20%. You don't want to see the calculations at 20+% discount rate. If they WIN a Super Bowl, it will spike for a year or two. Are you willing to sell your PSL in that time to realize the gain (or lack of loss)? Or will you be so excited about the Championship that you decide to keep it? Which then creates a situation where if the team does not repeat (regresses), your value goes down. We saw this with Giants PSL's after their Super Bowl. Wild peak, then off a cliff.

It’s like a super power and truth is their kryptonite.

The Jets situation is exactly what people who purchase PSL’s right now are going to, unfortunately be in in a few years. PSL’s that are worth approximately half of what they paid and ever increasing season ticket costs. You see, once you buy (especially in the more expensive sections), they know they have you. They can double season ticket prices and you’ll be stuck. It’s a sunk cost and most people will not be willing to give up on their $5k-$10k PSL’s, so they will feel justified to pay the ever increasing season ticket rate.

This is common in debate tactic. A final or semi-final dismissive phrase that lacks substance because the person can’t offer a meaningful rebuttal anymore. When it’s pointed out, that person typically responds with something that straddles the lines of ad hominem, such as “I just can’t continue to get it through your thick head” or “Not much to say when you won’t understand”. It’s an attempt to dismiss the conversation by feigning intellectual exhaustion as they have no true counterpoint.

I never said they were obligatory. You are falling into the same trap that Kirby did, moving the goalposts of the conversation. I simply stated that they are not common in other business. It’s a racket that is found nearly exclusively in sports (and timeshares). It is a fee - considering a fee is just a payment made in return for something - never said it wasn’t. But it’s not the same as a ticket fee. - PSL fees go to the originator (who also benefit from the ticket price AND the taxpayer money). - Ticket fees go to a third party (unaffiliated with the originator) and that is the only revenue they collect. They do not receive the ticket price or the taxpayer money. Two completely and fundamentally different items. For any similar comparison to be made they must contain all three components: Taxpayer funded, taxpayer double dipped (PSL), then taxpayer purchases for tickets. They could. But that would remove a very large portion of the PSL money. Why only single dip when you can double dip and get those taxpayers to pay for your stadium twice? Well, duh. That was the entire point. Did that really go over your head?

What deflection? I directly refuted what you wrote. How is the reality different? Do you mean your comments on how fans are only paying for 70% of the stadium instead of 100%? Or do you mean your comment on how some fans see PSL’s as an investment.

@BADOLBILZ, now THIS post above is semantics. Correcting a (clearly figurative) depiction of the situation with minor or insignificant sentence changes. Writing things such as “a PSL will not get you through the door. Only a game ticket will get you through the door” … lol. I think everyone outside of WOT understand I was speaking figuratively when saying ‘through the door’. Semantics vs fundamental difference. The Ticket Fee comparison doesn’t work. I explained this before so i’ll just copy/paste. PSL’s and Ticket Fees are completely different. There is a reason why Ticketmaster and Stubhub don’t label their ticket fees as PSL’s. 1) PSL’s originate from the organization producing the product (Buffalo Bills, for example). The originating organization receives all 3 parts of the equation (taxpayer money, PSL, and ticket cost). Ticket fees originate from a completely separate entity (a third party) that uses stub fees as their business model and this model does not benefit the originating organization. They ONLY receive the fee, not the taxpayer money or the ticket cost. 2) Taxpayers did not subsidize the building of Ticketmaster and Stubhub. Therefore there is no “double taxation” so to speak. 3) PSLs come with perceived value. Conversely, ticket service fees offer no such value proposition; they are akin to a delivery charge, which increases the cost of the product without enhancing its value. They simply aren’t the same at all. Though they’re both crappy.

It’s not important for me at all. I made a factual statement, Kirby wrongly classified my statement as false, I defended it. Thats the entirety. Businesses may attempt to gouge as much as they can in each sector, but the vast majority of businesses were not given over $800 million dollars by those same taxpayers they are gouging. That is rare. It has happened, but it’s the far outlier ran than the rule. I’ve said it before, but for any comparison to be valid, it must contain ALL three items. 1) Taxpayers paid for the business/product/venue to be created. 2) AND the business/product/venue then gouges those same taxpayers with a large fee before they can utilize or enjoy the business they just built for them. 3) AND they then charge the actual price/fee for what is consumed. Fulfilling all 3 of those is rare for any business. It happens in sports, on a percentage basis, far more often than any other sector. Thats not semantics. Its a fundamental difference.

Yes. So much information being skimmed and disregarded in order to move the conversation into a territory it was never originated to be in. This thread is a microcosm of the world. Person A: Tomatoes are a fruit. Person B: Ugh, but Apples are a red fruit and they don’t taste like tomatoes. Person A: Okay? But we aren’t talking about Apples, we are talking about Tomatoes. Person B: So you don’t like Tomatoes Person A: I never said that. I just said they’re a fruit. Person B: I’m a botanist, I have a degree in seeds, why are you so angry? Person A: I’m not angry. I’m just telling you that Tomatoes are a fruit. Person B: What is your issue with tomatoes!?!? Person A: Huh!? (this is where I am now)

They are different. You are attempting to equate two different charges as the same. As I’ve said before, to make a comparison to a PSL in the Bills situation, you must use a comparable product that: 1) Is taxpayer funded for the benefit of the originating organization. 2) AND an extra fee is charged that goes into the coffers of the originating organization. 3) AND the originating organization pockets the ticket money. Ticket fees meet only ONE of those three items. Let’s not get into a genitalia measuring contest. It’s not gentlemenly and no-one wants to read that type of discussion. Besides, one of us is Google’able. Only one of us has articles written about them on Yahoo Finance and Business Insider. The other is you (wink). As I’ve said before, to make a comparison to a PSL in the Bills situation, you must use a product that: 1) The venue was paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of the originating organization. 2) AND an extra fee was charged that goes into the coffers of the originating organization. 3) AND the originating organization pockets the ticket money. Ticket fees meet only ONE of those three items. I’m not angry at all. There is no outrage. I’m not upset at all. I’m simply explaining that PSL’s are not common in business (outside of sports). You continuously try to divert this conversation into an arena it was never intended to be in.

Did you buy when I told you to? If you did, you’re up over 40%! Im not arguing for or against PSL’s. Im not telling anyone not to buy them. Im not sure how to say this more clearly… Im simply arguing that PSL’s are not the “norm” in business.

I’ve explained this already but I have a feeling that you’re just skimming my posts in haste to reply rather than reading and comprehending. Put simply, PSL’s and Ticket Fees are completely different. There is a reason why Ticketmaster and Stubhub don’t label their ticket fees as PSL’s. 1) PSL’s originate from the organization producing the product (Buffalo Bills, for example). The originating organization receives all 3 parts of the equation (taxpayer money, PSL, and ticket cost). Ticket fees originate from a completely separate entity (a third party) that uses stub fees as their business model and this model does not benefit the originating organization. They ONLY receive the fee, not the taxpayer money or the ticket cost. 2) Taxpayers did not subsidize the building of Ticketmaster and Stubhub. Therefore there is no “double taxation” so to speak. 3) PSLs come with perceived value. Conversely, ticket service fees offer no such value proposition; they are akin to a delivery charge, which increases the cost of the product without enhancing its value. They simply aren’t the same at all. Though they’re both crappy. In the example you’re writing, you’re not paying a fee to the party that benefited from taxpayer dollars, and the party who is also benefiting from the sale of the ticket. You’re paying a fee to Ticketmaster and that’s all they get. They don’t get the proceeds of the ticket and the taxpayer money as well. Just the fee. As I said, you need all 3 parts: 1) Taxpayer funded 2) AND PSL 3) AND Ticket cost You can find examples of 1 or 2 of those parts; but finding all 3 is very difficult and results in only extreme outliers. Not the norm. Ok now I know for a fact that you’re not actually reading what i’m writing and simply want to respond and argue rather than have a gentlemanly debate. I know this because in the post you responded to, I wrote: “I agree that people have the right to purchase them. That is not the debate here. The debate here is whether PSL’s are the “norm” in entertainment. They are not. If people want to purchase PSL’s, great. Go for it. But that’s not the conversation.” Put simply, I don’t care at all if people buy PSL’s. That was never the conversation. You have consistently misunderstood the context of this conversation despite me telling you several times. This conversation was about whether this is the “norm” in other businesses (it’s not). The conversation was NEVER about whether I care if people buy PSL’s.