Re: Players it's YOUR move!
posted at 11/9/2012 10:12 AM EST
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
You certainly could be correct, also, stevegm. I gave up my accounting business to become a dog walker.
It just seems so very illogical that they could have added $1.1B in sales in five years. The buildings weren't close to 33% empty, so it's not all ticket sales. They were on a dog of a network (Outdoor Life!), so it's not as if new fans were being created and buying $150 jerseys all over America.
There has to be some major missing piece that we're just not seeing.
Just did a little research on attendance, and it's really changed my mind about a few things, and validated a few others
Been significant fluctuation in attendance since the last lockout, and that tells a bit of a story. Carolina is up a ton despite regressing competitively. LA, despite winning a cup has been pretty flat since 03. The Bruins are up about 16%. A lot of teams up about that same percentage. Florida and Tampa are more solid than I thought, and both have enjoyed reasonable growth. Nashville is up almost 27%. Buffalo is a good example of a decent hockey market that hasn't seen a huge change in it's on ice product. They're up 21%. The Islanders have been the model of consistency in their terribleness. Virtually flat.
Despite a much better product, Phoenix has nose-dived around 17%. With a pre lockout average of nearly 16,000 fans per game, it now seems more reasonable there may be a "marketing problem" rather than an interest one. Obviously the league isn't doing much of a job running the show down there. Columbus is going in the wrong direction, but if they used to average a very positive 17,300, with a bad team....it should still be possible, all things being equal. I know Ohio was hit harder economically than most states. Could that be an issue?
Colorado is down about 13%. I think that's a pretty solid hockey market, and it's reasonable to assume a big part of that problem is merely the degradation of the product. Dallas surely more fickle, but competitiveness has to be somewhat of an issue there too.
Last season, 21 NHL teams were either totally sold out, oversold, or virtually sold out for every home game they had. 28 of those NHL teams had attendance figures as good or better than the Bruins ever had before the Fleet Center came along, and the Bruins have never been "have nots".
In any business comprised of 30 different products, there are always a few duds. Always. that's why overall health, is the only reasonable thing to measure.
Based on attendance figures though, the top to bottom strength of the NHL is more balanced than I originally thought, and it all branches out from there.
Our Bruins are considered one of the richest franchises in the sport, yet they're not even currently in the top 50% in attendance. That speaks volumes as to the potential of the other 29 franchises.
Finally, we know attendance is up, but that doesn't equate equally in dollars. Every team has their own economic model, and their own pricing structure.
Originally, I thought there were a few teams in the league that had no business being there. I'm not as sure of that now. Is it impossible for the Islanders and Phoenix to merely replicate what they've already done? It's not like they have to re-invent the wheel here. Is it impossible for either of those teams to have a profitable business, when others have done so with the same number of customers?
Maybe expansion is the best thing for the sport.
Food for thought.