mrags Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 3 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said: Wait til the new law takes affect. I'm sure once the new stadium opens they will crack down on those who re sell the majority of their tickets. Can’t crack down if I “gift” them to someone not on Ticketmaster, after they “gifted” me $1k 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: 1.6% of 62,000 is 1,000 seats (992 to be exact). Again, with all due respect, you’re trying to educate the wrong guy on how this works. 75% of 992 is 744. That’s what they are saying here. It may be time to bow out of this conversation. A change in screen name is probably in order as well. Lol, this has been going on WAY longer than that. This isn’t new 😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 9 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said: MASSIVE DEMAND at current prices and without PSLs. The Bills aren't moving but I think you will see more buy tickets for 1-2 games on the secondary market opposed to buying seasons and PSLs. That’s the info that we have. We have massive demand currently. You are anticipating that changing based on gut feeling. The data that we have says massive demand for the Bills. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: 1.6% of 62,000 is 1,000 seats (992 to be exact). That's not the right maths... It's 1.6% of account holders. NOT seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, Einstein said: That's not the right maths... It's 1.6% of account holders. NOT seats. The average account holder is like 2.3 seats (at least it was). The point remains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 28 minutes ago, papazoid said: Only 1.6% of season-ticket account holders (all of whom have premium club-seat locations at the current stadium) have been invited to the Stadium Experience in Amherst Among the people who have been invited, 96% have visited the Stadium Experience or scheduled a visit, and 75% of the account holders who have visited have signed PSL agreements for club seats. https://buffalonews.com/sports/professional/nfl/bills/buffalo-bills-new-stadium-personal-seat-license-ryan-ohalloran-column/article_0fdb8c78-edc3-11ee-8861-b3348dac0c5b.html (of the 25% who didn't agree to new club level seats immediately on first offer....i bet more than half of them get seats in a less expensive area on their second chance meeting. so that initial 75% will likely go to 85-90%) The 25% represents those that didn’t accept the first offer. I wonder if that does or does not include people like @Mr Info, who declined to purchase the day of his presentation but ended up buying some time after? Also, with the survey, I would think the Bills had an idea what the decline rate would be, since the sharp increase in cost would scare off a fair number of non-corporate and small corporate STHs for the new clubs. Like Kirby alluded to, it could be the Bills have new corporate clients lined up to take the declined seats. I could see some companies thinking the new stadium and upgraded amenities make it more attractive to bring in new clients, as opposed to your undertakers, etc. So, to take the 25% and run with it like it’s a sign of failure (looking at you @Einstein) may be missing the mark. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 48 minutes ago, papazoid said: "season-ticket ACCOUNT HOLDERS".......safe to assume most account holders have at least two tix, some more. i myself have 6 tix Right. So let's figure out how many the Bills need to attempt to sell to before we have a predictive value. Meaning, how many people before we know the % of sales is a good predictor of future outcomes. - Let's say we want a confidence level of 90% and a Z-score of 1.65 (technically 1.645). - Let's assume 60,000 season tickets at 2.5 tickets per account holder. - A 5% margin of error. - We know 75% of those shown the new ticket pricing have agreed to buy, so we have p = 0.75 and q= 1 − p (so 0.25) So we have: The answer is 203. With a 90% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the Bills need to offer PSL's to at least 203 account holders. We know they have presented to 1.6% of account holders. If each account holder averages 2.5 tickets, that means they have presented to 403 account holders. Which is significantly more than they need to see predictive value. in other words, the 75% sale figure is predictive. . Edited April 2 by Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 3 minutes ago, Einstein said: Right. So let's figure out how many the Bills need to attempt to sell to before we have a predictive value. Meaning, how many people before we know the % of sales is a good predictor of future outcomes. - Let's say we want a confidence level of 90% and a Z-score of 1.65 (technically 1.645). - Let's assume 60,000 season ticket holders - A 5% margin of error. - We know 75% of those shown the new ticket pricing have agreed to buy, so we have p = 0.75 and q= 1 − p (so 0.25) So we have: The answer is 203. With a 90% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the Bills need to offer PSL's to at least 203 account holders. We know they have presented to 1.6% of account holders. If each account holder averages 2.5 tickets, that means they have presented to 403 account holders. Which is significantly more than they need to see predictive value. in other words, the 75% sale figure is predictive. There are not 60,000 season ticket holders if they each hold 2.5 seats. Ipsofatso your analysis is flawed from the start. Let’s look at it with a different Z value: Einstein = not smart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 26 minutes ago, WotAGuy said: So, to take the 25% and run with it like it’s a sign of failure "Failure" isnt the right way of looking at it. It's just the reality of the numbers. Neither good nor bad. 1 minute ago, WotAGuy said: There are not 60,000 season ticket holders if they each hold 2.5 seats. Ipsofatso your analysis is flawed from the start. The 60k isnt used in the equation at all so doesnt mattter. I just cut the end of my sentence off. It was meant to say 60,000 tickets at 2.5 ticket per account holder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Einstein said: "Failure" isnt the right way of looking at it. It's just the reality of the numbers. Neither good nor bad. The 60k isnt used in the equation at all so doesnt mattter. I just cut the end of my sentence off. It was meant to say 60,000 tickets at 2.5 ticket per account holder It’s always “I meant to say”. The refrain of the wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 The numbers that we have on the new stadium, at this point, don’t tell us anything. The numbers that we have at the current stadium, on the road, and on the secondary market say that the demand is off the charts. People can keep digging in to not be wrong but that’s reality. The Bills have ZERO concerns at this point. They almost certainly have a target that they want to hold back. We don’t know that number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: The numbers that we have on the new stadium, at this point, don’t tell us anything. They pass 95% confidence level. How does that not tell us anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Einstein said: "Failure" isnt the right way of looking at it. It's just the reality of the numbers. Neither good nor bad. Nine hours ago you wrote: 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. Are you feeling ok Einstein? After this edible, I was gonna have sex with my wife, but maybe I should stick around and help you out? 2 minutes ago, Einstein said: They pass 95% confidence level. How does that not tell us anything? Sample size? Bah! Edited April 2 by WotAGuy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 minutes ago, Einstein said: They pass 95% confidence level. How does that not tell us anything? Because we have no idea what the Bills want out of that part (for starters). They may have wanted less than that. They also, almost certainly know, how many of those seats that they could sell new if they had the inventory. The % of the stadium is way too small to tell anything. Again, I’m not trying to be that guy but I’ve done this at that level. I have a master’s degree in sports management. I’m not trying to be condescending. I’m trying to tell you the reality of the situation and why sports business is different than other business. I work in insurance now. People aren’t emotionally attached to their insurance policies. Sports numbers do not trend like other businesses for that reason. They also have different objectives than to sell every seat as soon as you can. There’s strategy and leverage at play that is being disregarded (or ignorance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, WotAGuy said: Sample size? Bah! I think you misunderstood. What the formula does is tell you what sample size you need for the sample to be predictive. That's the entire point. We need at least 203 account holders to be offered PSL's at a 90% confidence level, to have the sample be predictive. The Bills have shown over 400. 2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: Because we have no idea what the Bills want out of that part (for starters). They may have wanted less than that. This is just absurd. "Hear me out boss. Let's spend millions of dollars to hire salespeople who sell people on $40k PSL's, all day every day, and get this... we are going to WANT lots of people to say NO and waste our time/money". They want 100% sales. Unless you have information that they are breaking disparate impact by selling the same seats for more money to corporate buyers (which they aren't). 2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: They also, almost certainly know, how many of those seats that they could sell new if they had the inventor They likely dont. Which is why they are selling clubs first. They are using it as a benchmark. Edited April 3 by Einstein 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Einstein said: You've mentioned this about half a dozen times. I have about 50 of you below me on the org chart. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 25 minutes ago, Einstein said: I think you misunderstood. What the formula does is tell you what sample size you need for the sample to be predictive. That's the entire point. We need at least 203 account holders to be offered PSL's at a 90% confidence level, to have the sample be predictive. The Bills have shown over 400. This is just absurd. "Hear me out boss. Let's spend millions of dollars to hire salespeople who sell people on $40k PSL's, all day every day, and get this... we are going to WANT lots of people to say NO and waste our time/money". They want 100% sales. Unless you have information that they are breaking disparate impact by selling the same seats for more money to corporate buyers (which they aren't). They likely dont. Which is why they are selling clubs first. They are using it as a benchmark. You've mentioned this about half a dozen times. I fear that it doesn't give you the credibility that you think it does. Especially when you state that the sample size isn't large enough yet surpassed 95% confidence. How did you do this for a living but dont understand predictive portioning? Quite frankly I have about 50 of you below me on the org chart. Masters, Ph'd's, etc. No executives. It’s PhD brainiac, and there no apostrophe. Apparently there are no English majors under you on the Chick-fil-A org chart. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 48 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Because we have no idea what the Bills want out of that part (for starters). They may have wanted less than that. They also, almost certainly know, how many of those seats that they could sell new if they had the inventory. The % of the stadium is way too small to tell anything. Again, I’m not trying to be that guy but I’ve done this at that level. I have a master’s degree in sports management. I’m not trying to be condescending. I’m trying to tell you the reality of the situation and why sports business is different than other business. I work in insurance now. People aren’t emotionally attached to their insurance policies. Sports numbers do not trend like other businesses for that reason. They also have different objectives than to sell every seat as soon as you can. There’s strategy and leverage at play that is being disregarded (or ignorance). You can just stop bud. People are blindly arguing without actually knowing any factual evidence of any numbers anyway. Time will tell. At the end of the day I 100% agree with you. The bills are not going to be worried about selling a single ticket imo. They will 100% sell out to as many STH as they have tickets for them (they have to save some for visiting teams and non STHs I believe per the NFL). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Einstein said: I think you misunderstood. What the formula does is tell you what sample size you need for the sample to be predictive. That's the entire point. We need at least 203 account holders to be offered PSL's at a 90% confidence level, to have the sample be predictive. The Bills have shown over 400. This is just absurd. "Hear me out boss. Let's spend millions of dollars to hire salespeople who sell people on $40k PSL's, all day every day, and get this... we are going to WANT lots of people to say NO and waste our time/money". They want 100% sales. Unless you have information that they are breaking disparate impact by selling the same seats for more money to corporate buyers (which they aren't). They likely dont. Which is why they are selling clubs first. They are using it as a benchmark. You've mentioned this about half a dozen times. I fear that it doesn't give you the credibility that you think it does. Especially when you state that the sample size isn't large enough yet surpassed 95% confidence. How did you do this for a living but dont understand predictive portioning? Quite frankly I have about 50 of you below me on the org chart. Masters, Ph'd's, etc. No executives. Again, I don’t have anything to prove here. I feel an obligation to educate and stop misinformation. If I didn’t receive PMs and texts asking me to comment on the subject, I would’ve bowed out a long time ago and just let the hand-wringing continue. There’s a long track record on here of things that I said would happen, happening. Sometimes we get people that think that they know and understand WAY more than they actually do. They come in these threads spreading 1/2 truths without any real idea of the scope of the objectives. They take minimal information and form conclusions that aren’t accurate or without base. They then double down and triple down instead of quietly walking away. It’s okay to not understand. It’s not okay to parlay that lack of understanding into fearmongering. It’ll all play out in due time. At that point, you can come back here and tell everyone that “you were wrong” and that “you’ll do better next time.” Edited April 3 by Kirby Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 7 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: They come in these threads spreading 1/2 truths without any real idea of the scope of the objectives. They take minimal information and form conclusions that aren’t accurate or without base. They then double down and triple down instead of quietly walking away. It’s okay to not understand. Yes, I agree, there is definitely someone in this thread doing this… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Einstein said: Yes, I agree, there is definitely someone in this thread doing this… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.