WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 minutes ago, Einstein said: You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers. That’s because having an undertaker in your club seats brings everyone down. Time for them to go and be replaced with Casino people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 9 minutes ago, Einstein said: You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers. Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc). ….and if there’s anyone that knows about “soft assets”, it’s @Einstein 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc). These sponsorship deals exist at the current stadium as well, not to mention every stadium in existence. No, this does not mean the team wants to lose 25% of its season ticket base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 26 minutes ago, Einstein said: You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers. You don’t give up ever do you 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBF81 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 minutes ago, mrags said: You don’t give up ever do you Not when i’m correct. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Einstein said: Not when i’m correct. You’re Humble and not stubborn at all either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 7 minutes ago, Einstein said: These sponsorship deals exist at the current stadium as well, not to mention every stadium in existence. No, this does not mean the team wants to lose 25% of its season ticket base. They don’t want to lose 25% of their season ticket base. Of course they don’t!! Who said that they do? What was said is that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium, in the most expensive areas, is not predictive of anything. The Bills may want those 500 seats (or whatever we are calling it) to leverage for way more. I think that the Senecas get 1,000 tickets per game and 100 to every Super Bowl (or something like that). The Bills can get all kinds of extra money creating other assets to attach to those. They’ll create their own scarcity. Those sponsorship deals will ALL be redone in the new stadium. You’re correct in saying that they exist now. You’re incorrect if you believe that the Bills are just going to roll forward their tickets without getting new assets sold. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Kirby Jackson said: They don’t want to lose 25% of their season ticket base. Exactly right. Just now, Kirby Jackson said: What was said is that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium, in the most expensive areas, is not predictive of anything. You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive. The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Einstein said: Exactly right. You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive. The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval. But there are two entirely different populations of customers - one eats those tiny hot dogs on sticks, and the other drinks Genny Cream Ale and sets themselves on fire. It’s not apples and apples. One doesn’t predict the other. What you fail to comprehend is the Bills want to lose the Cyglinski family with 8 seats on the 50 and replace them with casino people. Or Pepsi people. Or Draftkings people. Those families taking up prime $$ seats need to go and be replaced by revenue generators. The only thing that can be predicted so far is that you will lock onto an obscure, irrelevant aspect of the discussion to draw people away from the fact you don’t know anything about this PSL business. I guarantee the Legends people are reading all the whining and threats to opt out on Facebook and saying “Good riddance! Now we can bring in revenue generators and make some $$ on our best assets.” Edited April 3 by WotAGuy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 8 minutes ago, mrags said: You’re Humble and not stubborn at all either. We are alike in many ways. It’s likely why we butt heads sometimes 😉. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Einstein said: That’s right Wot! Good job! What you’re knocking on the door of is price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. But it’s actually the other way around from how you are imagining. 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. Most club buyers can afford to purchase the seats. For them it comes down to willingness and opportunity cost. For less price seat buys, many of them may have the willingness, but without the ability. What will undoubtedly happen next is that the Bills will leverage their media connections to push false scarcity. Dude, you are just rephrasing points that others made 10 pages ago. Do you have an original thought to contribute or not? Wait, that was you making these points 10 pages ago. Still irrelevant to the fact the Bills hired Legends to get rid of the fat, old fannies in the best seats and get the fannies in there that will spend big $$. I mean, even you can figure that out, no? Edit: guess not. We tried! Edited April 3 by WotAGuy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said: Dude, you are just rephrasing points that others made 10 pages ago. Do you have an original thought to contribute or not? I contradicted your hypothesis of the existence of two different customer types negating predictive potential. But it appears to have gone over your head. Unless you mean that someone else also corrected you on that point 10 pages ago. If so, you probably should have heeded that posters advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, Einstein said: I contradicted your hypothesis of the existence of two different customer types negating predictive potential. But it appears to have gone over your head. Unless you mean that someone else also corrected you on that point 10 pages ago. If so, you probably should have heeded that posters advice. Guess that’s a no. You would rather argue your obtuse, unrelated points than what the Bills true strategy is. Given your lack of knowledge about sports marketing, it’s ok. We forgive you. Gimme a laugh emoji if you agree you’re wrong. Damn, you deleted it. 😝 Edited April 3 by WotAGuy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 On 3/25/2024 at 11:55 AM, Poleshifter said: Has there been a new NFL stadium built that did NOT requires PSLs to be purchased? I hated the PSL idea when I first heard it decades ago. It still sucks. When Texas Stadium opened in 1972 they had PSLs. It's not new. But I agree, it sucks. Seattle has them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, Einstein said: Exactly right. You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive. The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval. I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong and if you are truly a CEO/upper level leader - you should be ashamed. The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium. Therefore trying to use bull**** numbers as concrete values means very little. You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable. So for example if they stay at a 75% renewal rate in this section - which is predictive. Going to the next area to sell - they now have 125% of the fans to offer tickets to rather than 100% and the 25% that declined earlier are now getting a price closer to their current cost. So if the predictive value of 75% holds - that would leave 25% of section 2 unsold and about 25% of the initial buyers to purchase those seats. So now group 2 sells closer to 90-95% sold or more. Now you move to the third tier of pricing and you have the 100% of current holders, the 25% from the section 2 and all remaining people from the club seats vying for this section. So again if they get 75% of the initial group - you now have 30% vying for 25% of available seats. And this will continue and each subsequent area will have an abundance of current season ticket holders trying to pick up tickets because saying no to your current area does not lock you out. Finally in the end if there are open seats - which will be limited - there are 10,000 people on a waiting list to begin to fill in the different sections. so what you end up with is limited open seats in the most expensive area - which as @Kirby Jackson said can be packaged to other clients for advertising or offered to businesses that had suites, but with fewer suites are priced out or even certain ticket vendors to have a supply on the secondary market, but as they move out of the club seats - more and more seats will be filled by current season ticket holders and people on the waiting list. The predictive nature of your math begins to immediately fall apart because of the assumption built into it because a non renewal does not mean they can’t get tickets later - something a good CEO and leader would understand and something Kirby has tried to explain to you. You have no idea what the expectations were for renewal on this first set. They know that many of the “No’s” in the first pass become people happy to get a seat in a different section closer to their current rates and people from subsequent sections will also downgrade and thus the Bills decreased the capacity to cover that eventuality as some fans may be priced out or opt out. Additionally- it would be very, very bad for the Bills - if they had 100% of people renewing because the new stadium is 16% smaller than the current stadium and if 100% tried to renew they would be overcapacity. They need about 25% renewal failure in each section to allow people to drop sections to different areas and not have a percentage of people that could not be moved due to all seats being sold. Basic math says they are probably right on their goal so far, but you be you and come up with a different formula that is just used in the wrong context. 🤦♂️ Edited April 3 by Rochesterfan 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said: I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong It’s not. But I do want to commend you for posting. It’s nice to see your name pop up next to a post, rather than just reacting to others thoughts. I’m sure you have a lot to offer the forum so I encourage you to post more often. 1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said: The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium. If your argument is that there is data that is not included in a model, then yes, i’d agree. But for the data we have, the margin of error and confidence level provide measures of how much the sample results can vary from the true population parameter. In our calculations, even when accounting for a 95% confidence level, the sample size of 420 account holders exceeded the necessary size to achieve a margin of error of 5%. This means the estimate of 75% buying under the new pricing, even with variability in PSL costs and sections, is statistically reliable within the predefined margin of error. Another problem is that you, like Kirby, assume a higher sales rate with lower priced tickets. I wouldn’t assume that. As I mentioned prior, price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. 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. 1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said: You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable 🤦♂️ You’re comparing unlike items here. Predictive values are just that. Predictive of future failure at the same clip. But that has nothing to do with whether that 25% end up purchasing elsewhere in the stadium. Apples and oranges. The model predicts a future sales rate of 75%. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less. If a portion of the 25% from another tier end up purchasing at a later time in a cheaper tier, that doesn’t change the idea that approximately 25% of the current season ticket holders in that tier are choosing not to purchase. For what it’s worth, I think the argument that a portion of the 25% purchase elsewhere is a good hypothesis to make. There is no evidence to back it up at this point - it’s pure conjecture - but it is reasonable. That being said, it has nothing to do with predictive values. It’s an outside factor completely unrelated to the model. If you are concerned that i’m arguing that the stadium will not be full, fear not. That is not my argument at all. That’s ridiculous. Now if you want a more interesting hypothesis with also absolutely no evidence - It’s very possible that the Bills are inflating the renewal number to 75% with corporate tickets. What piqued my interest is the Bills usage of “account holders” for renewal rates, rather than seats or tickets. That is a term I would use if I wanted to obfuscate data. But that’s an entirely different topic. Edited April 3 by Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locomark Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 PSLs are as good as stocks when the team is winning. In some future date, when you sell your seats, you will recoup the PSL from that buyer plus a premium. The modern NFL charges these everywhere including in the other blue collar towns. I think people forget that a season ticket for the Sabres 100 level is $8000+ per ticket so when the cheaper PSLs $s come out around or lower than that, it’s relatively cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 hours ago, Einstein said: That is a term I would use if I wanted to obfuscate data. But that’s an entirely different topic. Obfuscate…..now we’re getting into your area of expertise! 1 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.