Halos Heaven

Philly/NY/Beantown being able to raise tix prices

without it affecting sales levels is one thing. Doing so in LA/OC is quite another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Please explain why LA is disadvantaged in raising ticket prices

The LA / Long Beach / Santa Ana metropolitan area is the 2nd largest in the US; NY metro is the largest; Philadelphia metro is the 5th largest. Source:

princeton11loveshalos - December 29, 2010 reply

because we are small market

duh

(note sarcasm)

Can't explain it really.

At least not with the sort of hard data that would be required for me to want to argue the position vehemently.

Yet there’s lots of empirical evidence for the view that the Angels "fans" won’t support significantly higher pricing. It’s part-and-parcel of the classic SoCal sports dilemma. Why do so many SoCal fans arrive late and leave early? Why are so many fans at the stadium representing in visitor’s colors? Why has the country’s second largest media market (not arguing that fact!) not had an NFL franchise for more than 15 years?

The old saw about there being so much else to do in SoCal holds some truth, I believe. Add to that the fact that so many Southern California residents – the pool of available Angels "fans" – are transplants from other parts of the country and the evidence starts to stack. Transplanted fans are rarely, in my experience, as rabid and dedicated as life-long fans that grew-up with a team.

As a kid my buddies and I frequently rode our bikes some 14 miles up the Santa Ana River Trail to see the California Angels play. My dad took us to summer evening double-headers and screamed at Joe Rudi and exalted Rod Carew with us. I was indoctrinated young. Because of this, and because I am fortunate enough to now be in a position to, I would likely still buy my Section 21x season tickets even if they doubled in price.

But outside of this board I think my level of fandom for the Angels is an anomaly in SoCal. In Boston, New York or Philly… Not so much.

I'm with you

I was going to post the same thing. Of course fans on the East Coast would pay more! They’re die hard. Outside Halos Heaven and a couple other (inferior) Angels blogs, how many die hard Angels fans are out there?

Like you said, I can’t back it up with polls or numbers, but I know for a fact that I am considered weird by most of my friends for loving the Angels so much. And I also know for a fact that when I visited Boston, I could duck into any establishment to check the Red Sox score on the t.v., and I could probably find out from almost anyone on the street if they won last night.

Rally Manatee - December 29, 2010 reply

Ticket prices are already too high

Demand was propped up by the all star game. Watch what happens to the season ticket holder numbers this year.

Additionally

I meant to add that one need only look at the price on Stubhub to see the true market value of Angels tickets over the past two years.

Would raising ticket prices really price out that many of the fans who attend games?

I’m not a business or financial major. But my gut tells me that it can’t be that much of a hike in prices.

halofan4life - December 29, 2010 reply

Like I've said before...

I don’t want to reach Yankee Stadium levels of insanity when it comes to ticket prices, but if a modest bump will help the team acquire a much needed free agent when they are stretched financially because of arbitration and current contracts, then why not do it? It would only have to be temporary anyway. After a couple years when say Torii, Abreu and Kazmir are gone, and there are younger players on the team again, you can lower prices to be commensurate with payroll.

I’m going on 5 years of living in San Diego. It takes close to 2 hours to get to Anaheim even on a bright Saturday afternoon. If I happen to be going with my parents or friends from home in Riverside County, it takes about an hour from there. We already put in a ton of effort just to get to every game we do attend. I want to see my effort as a fan rewarded by a team that can kick ass and take names on the field. I am already driving well over 100 miles and devoting most of a day to a single game. If paying another $10-15 for each seat when I’m able to is the difference between a 94 win team with Beltre and a solid pen, and an 85 win team with Wood hitting .190 at 3rd base, then I’ll pay it every single time. Nothing is more frustrating (and kind of embarrassing if you bring non-Angel fans/newcomers like my German buddy last summer) then putting in all that effort to see Dan Haren get beat by Rich F-ing Harden and Vlad because Dan had no run support to speak of.

There are other options that I would think could be pursued as well in conjunction with raising ticket prices a little. Various TV and media deals have been discussed here. You can knock beer and conecessions up a tad as well so that the spike in ticket prices is a bit lower. One that seems like a no-brainer to me would be instituing a tailgate fee for a large section of the parking lot. This option is something that I guarantee you most young-adult fans like myself, and even a fair number of families, would embrace whole-heartedly.

Arte and the FO need to do something. Occasionally bad things happen (Kendry’s ankle) or you may have to make up for a bad contract (GMJ), but I feel like we’re almost being too careful a lot of the time. Over the last decade we’ve developed the image and tradition of a championship team and it seems like the “Free Agent Hurdle” is the last thing holding us back.

+1 and rec'd

“After a couple years when say Torii, Abreu and Kazmir are gone, and there are younger players on the team again, you can lower prices to be commensurate with payroll.”

Has any mlb team in history actually lowered ticket prices?

Angels

Year one under Arte Moreno’s ownership for starters.

Show me proof. From what I remember, he lowered beer prices. I don’t remember an across the board decrease in ticket prices. He may have lowered prices in one or two sections in the stadium for publicity, but those would have purely been for publicity and were negated in the next several years with the constant price increases season ticket holders have seen.

Here it is

Link

You might be right about season ticket holders. I’ve never been one except for the quasi-plan I made last year and I had no problem with the price. The argument I constantly hear against raising prices on anything is “you’re going to lose the family of four (or however many) that wants something cheap, safe, and affordable to do together.” Or it’s “you’re gonna lose the casual fan by raising ticket prices even $5.” That’s what I call BS on. If it’s true that we can fill the house on most nights with an average ticket price below the rest of the AL and contend basically every year, then most people (in terms of random families and casual fans) would probably spend a few more bucks to see a team that can make it to the World Series instead of just getting swept in the ALDS every year. The Phillies would be a prime example of this.

See below

He lowered ticket prices on a few tickets on weeknight games, but there was not an across the board decrease.

There is actually a ton of data on ticket prices. Since the Angels have the ticket exchange and, now, Stubhub, they have all the data they need to maximize ticket revenue. If anything, Stubhub prices show that ticket prices are too high already. Now that the all star game has passed, I suspect that there will be far fewer season ticket holders in the next couple years and the team will be forced to lower prices.

Great

All that proves is 1) he was willing to adapt prices to meet what he saw as a need for the team, and 2) he was willing to spend on Free Agents ($147 million worth in fact) when the team obviously would have benefited from the additions. What was the result? A bunch of playoff appearances and seasons ranking among the best in baseball in terms of attendance. This is almost a decade later and the team still hasn’t even made another World Series and there are now two teams in the division that legitimately stand in the way of further playoff appearances. He should be willing to again to the current climate. There are more ways to raise money than just ticket prices as I indicated in my original comment (which he did, as I said).

I sincerely hope he doesn’t think that the long-term idea of Callaspo or Wood or Mathis, etc and cheap tickets is going to sustain that. As much as I hate the Yankees, there’s a reason their fans are willing to pay triple+ the amount of everyone else: their team usually stands a pretty good chance of winning. It’s the same reason people pay to see a good movie in theaters as opposed to waiting for the DVD to come out: it’s worth the money.

I’m not saying we need to spend like the Yankees, but some smarter contract decisions and the occasional signing (as opposed to just bidding) on a player like Teixiera or Sabbathia, would do a lot for the Angels when the farm can’t meet the team’s needs.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The team likely is maximizing profits on ticket and concession sales. Moreno has been the owner for many years now and they are constantly revising all of these numbers. I’m sure that the top management understands the basics of economics and that there is a point of profit maximization. Let’s give them some credit here.

It’s really sophomoric to think that the equation is just “let’s raise ticket prices to bring in another free agent.” And then you have to qualify that by saying “Well, I’m willing to pay more as long as it is a good free agent and not a bust.” As if the team ever signs a free agent thinking it would be a bust. Every contract has risks and Moreno is the one left holding the bag if a contract goes south. How many fans do you think would be willing to pay extra per ticket if Beltre suffers a career ending injury in the 2nd year of the contract?

Even an idea like instituting a tailgate fee would only bring in pennies and would likely ignite a storm of controversy (you mean I now have to pay extra to get to the game early and eat food that I brought? In this economy? Are you kidding?)

Look, the team had a great base to work from in 2004 and the Vlad signing for cheap made a lot of things possible. The base level team is not as good as it was then AND Moreno is paying way more money for it. Some of that is due to bad contracts and some of that is due to developing players not panning out. THAT’S BASEBALL. We are seeing diminishing marginal returns…the more the team spends, the more they waste.

I am giving them credit

I fully understand that a huge part of the problem is GMJ and some of the other contracts on the books. Down below I admit that they might not be able to change much until after this season. And by the way, I haven’t been qualifying paying more with just adding players for the sake of adding players, I’ve been qualifying it with winning. People will pay more for a winning team.

There’s a difference between free agents that are worth the money and ones that aren’t. GMJ is in the latter category and for some reason, everyone except Bill Stoneman got the memo on that. Would an Angels team that still included Mark Teixeira be worth more on the field and at the gate? You bet. They need to make more decisions along those lines going forward. It’s up to the team to spend the money we give them wisely.

Even an idea like instituting a tailgate fee would only bring in pennies and would likely ignite a storm of controversy (you mean I now have to pay extra to get to the game early and eat food that I brought? In this economy? Are you kidding?)

Every little bit helps, right? I don’t see how you think it’s going to ignite controversey; people tailgate all the time (some even pay) for football games. Some people like showing up early and having a few beers or dogs in the parking lot around other fans. If you’d like to do it, then go ahead. If you don’t want to pay the fee or don’t like tailgating, then don’t. It’s that simple. Nobody would be forced to pay for something they didn’t want to in this scenario.

You’re right about diminishing marginal returns, and again, next year might be the first real opportunity we have to address that. There’s something like $30 mil coming off the books after 2011. I would hope these funds and maybe some price tweaking here and there can bring some serious improvements to the team. If not, then the Angels might start losing attendance not because of prices, but because of poor performance on the field.

I'll let Arte run the team

Sorry, but the whole premise that the team can start charging more for things in order to bring in more revenue is off base. Moreno took a business making $500,000 a year and ended up selling it for $8.3 billion. When it comes to running a business and maximizing revenue (which includes the on-field product), I will leave things in the hands of Mr. Moreno.

Fair enough

So long as more GMJ’s (free agents that are demonstrably not worth big contracts) are not in the future.

Beltran would have been a much much better signing than GMJ but hindsight is 20-20.

Foresight was 20-20 on that one, too.

snowhor - December 30, 2010 reply

Maximizing the revenue does NOT necessarily include maximizing the on-field product.

See Pirates, Pittsburgh.

I never said it did. The on field product is a component of running the business and maximizing revenue. Thankfully, our owner has not made that calculation.

Sorry, that was how I read your text:

“…and maximizing revenue (which includes the on-field product)…”

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/angels/2004-02-24-moreno-angels_x.htm

It IS interesting

That when you float Angels tickets on an open market like Stubhub they tend to return less than face value.

Has anyone here noticed if the same is true for Yankees and Red Sox tickets?

It’s not an ambush question, I’d really like to know the answer – and you can’t tell by looking during the off-season.

LAASurfin - December 30, 2010 reply

Here you go

He emphatically did not lower season ticket prices. The seats in question probably account for less than 1% of tickets sold.

Upon taking over, Moreno expanded the $5 ticket for youths 12 and under to 18 and under. “If I have a stadium 90% full of kids, then I’m a happy guy. Long term, for baseball to exist as I’ve known it, the kids have to come to the park.”

He introduced a $3 ticket on Tuesday nights. He offered a $5 family package Monday-Thursday. He lowered hot dog, popcorn and beer prices.

Easy for hardcore fans to say raise prices

because you probably buy nicer seats to begin with.

The Angels have the payroll they do because they figured out how to get more casual fans and families to spend their money here. Price them out and it probably works backwards.

Let’s assume this billionaire businessman has figured out the proper price point for the market he serves. And let’s also realize that in sports you always cater to the casual fan because the hardcore fan will be there regardless

The nicest seat I've ever bought was Row A in RF MVP (on top of the wall against the railing)

This was like two seasons ago and the cost was something like $35-40 a ticket. My friends and I always buy seats in either RF MVP, RF Pavillion, or the upper deck. We never look at the field and club levels because we’re already priced out of there as is. I can’t speak for everyone, but my friends and I just want to get in the stadium and watch the Angels win.

Arte’s said before that he wants to build a passionate fanbase. He’s got that going right now, but at some point he may have to decide whether ticket prices or the win column is what is going to sustain that. I haven’t looked at stats on this, but it seems to me that even your casual family of fans is less likely to regularly show up for a 2nd or 3rd place team no matter how cheap the tickets are. This is So Cal, people will watch their mediocre sports teams on TV until they give them a reason to show up. Until then, they’ll spend more time at the beach, the mountains, the movies, the theme parks, etc.

I get what you are saying and part of me agrees

I just know that the lifeblood of the Angels and their target market is not people with a lot of money. It’s families and moms who buy the family 4 packs and all the value merchandise. These people do not care if we sign Carl Crawford, they just want somewhere fun and safe to bring their kids.

These people fill the stadium and buy rally monkies and food and parking. This is sustainable. Going all in and taking a huge gamble on $20M+ players means 1.) You have to raise prices and 2.) What if it doesn’t work out and the team is crippled by the contract a la Carlos Lee or Vernon Wells?

The result is you are running the risk of hurting the team’s sustainability.

This is a business. Just because you and I are willing to risk 4 bad years for 1 title doesn’t mean the guy who writes the checks is. He wants to break even or make money every year, not risk blowing it all for a guy who’s never hit 20 home runs before.

I don't disagree with you for the most part

I’m glad we passed on Crawford at that price. I want this team to spend money, but spend it wisely (IE-not GMJ). However, wouldn’t it have been nice and a good investment to have won the bidding on say, Teixiera or CC (the pitcher)? Those are just two players I’m using for examples, but my point is the same. When there is a player out there that is worth a big contract and will significantly help the team, I’m willing to pay more as a fan to get him and the organization sould be too.

I fully agree with just about everything Arte has done since buying the team, it’s just this one area where I don’t quite agree with him. He wants to build a generation of hardcore fans made up of those who are kids right now. If he can’t sustain a winning team, that isn’t going to happen. Remember the 90’s when we sucked consistently? There were maybe 20K passive fans at any given game, and an equal or greater number of Dodger, Yankee, Red Sox etc fans when those teams were in town. Tickets were cheap then too. If Arte’s goal is passive fans who will show up once or twice a year on promo nights, show a little enthusiasim here and there and leave in the 7th inning, then yeah, ticket prices are all he should care about.

If Arte wants to sustain a brand image of a winning franchise with fans who will show up every night, especially for big games, stay the whole time and show outward support for the team, then he’s probably gonna have to raise prices and shell out some more cash from time to time. We probably can’t do much until GMJ and some others come off the books next season, but I’d like to see the latter attitude along with wiser spending of that big money from that point on.

Am I less of a fan because I don’t root for the club in person?

yes, WiHalo, you are

;p

Hey 2quartsofsmartass...

shut up.

happy new year!

2 quarts of smartass?? LMAO!

The answer in the eyes of the organization is 150% YES

Obviously in reality this isn’t the case but people who are in the stadium and dont care about the team are more important than the people who blog and listen to radio and watch all the TV programming but dont spend a penny on the team.

Also anyone who pays attention can figure out our attendance and paid attendance are nowhere near the same figure.

Arte has numerous positive qualities

Starting with operating a very fan friendly entertainment environment. However, I do question his definition of what a “fan friendly environment” includes. It’s more than just low-priced parking and food, and providing really inexpensive ticket deals (season tickets for $830). He’s first and foremost operating a business that is based on providing a superior baseball experience to the fan base. Results matter, and therefore the foundation of his business is a high quality product that produces results (wins).

I do not believe Arte should have a “budget be damned” approach. However, with his apparent budgetary limitations – his margin for error on the players he retains is razor thin. This is why contracts and players such as GMJ, Speier, Kazmir, Wood, Mathis, Rivera, Willits hurt this franchise so much. I’d even throw giving 3-year contracts to 35 year-old relief pitchers, regardless of the TCV of the expenditure, as questionable. Arte must get maximum production (results / on the field performance / wins) from every dollar spent. Some of his expenditures over the years have been reckless.

Arte has not had a good offseason. Some of his comments have been real head-scratchers. I like him and do consider one of the better owners in professional sports. However, he’s lost some credibility over the past several months and the luster of him “doing no wrong” is gone.

Completely agree

Arte has not had a good offseason. Some of his comments have been real head-scratchers. I like him and do consider one of the better owners in professional sports. However, he’s lost some credibility over the past several months and the luster of him "doing no wrong" is gone.

hauldog - December 29, 2010 reply

If I want cheap seats, I go to A-Ball games.

I want the Angels to win championships.

If I want cheap seats I go to Oakland when the Halos are in town.

Quad Fin Rider - December 29, 2010 reply

Funny...

I went to an A-level game last year and paid twice what I normally pay for tickets at the Big A. $15 versus $7.50 (on average buying via craigslist and stubhub).

Downing Rules - December 30, 2010 reply

Hope you've had luck on Craig's list in the past.

But I can’t begin to tell you about all the fraud that occurs on that website, including a recent strong-arm robbery here in our City when the two parties met to complete a deal.

angelslogic - December 30, 2010 reply

are you talking about that guy

who stole some lady’s french bulldog puppy? he just grabbed it and ran.

2pintsofbooze - December 30, 2010 reply

No, an iPad or something similar.

But similar circs – he grabbed it and ran.

angelslogic - December 30, 2010 reply

We’re not affluent like North Philly

We live in dirt poor So Cal where everybody looks like the banjo kid from Deliverance, chewing tobacco is considered a vegetable & rusted-out pickup trucks litter every Newport Beach front yard.

Raise ticket prices & fans will be forced to choose between either attending Halos games or eating their pets.

LOL

If Wood, Mathis and Willits are on the field together

…pets in SoCal should be very afraid

princeton11loveshalos - December 29, 2010 reply

LMAO

Oh Arte. Deep sigh.

With all due respect, how much did you pay for a billboard in 2003 versus how much you charge to rent it today? You are a successful businessman. If your rates for 2003 versus 2010 are not keeping up with those of baseball players it’s not because you didn’t want them to.

Besides, nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to get into this game. I know it ain’t easy, and I know you are doing it for us, but it is what it has been for a very long time and you knew that going in. You chose to take on a public trust and we are trusting you to execute on the goals and objectives of the enterprise appropriately.

http://www.halosheaven.com/2010/12/1/1834524/baseball-economics-201-wealth-does-equal-success-an-essay

Im against raising the ticket prices. The Angels need to invest more in their Scouting System. Look @ teams like Tampa Bay, Texas and Kansas City. Low payroll and future stars in their Farm System. Tampa Bay has keep up with the Yankees and Red Sox because they have Good Scouting. Not all the Big spending teams win all the time.

ramo - December 29, 2010 reply

Perhaps you should read this....

…quality work by Stirrups

That takes a lot of time

You need to be able to spend when necessary to bridge the gaps to your talent in the minors.

Tampa Bay probably isn’t going to the playoffs for a few years now because they couldn’t spend to keep Crawford, Pena, Soriano and will probably shed a few more guys over that time. Texas did well last year and should be competitive for a bit, but they still couldn’t keep Lee and are going to have to hope all of their talent succeeds while guys like Hamilton and Cruz get more expensive. The Roayls…yeah they might be good in a few years, but what are they gonna do if one or two of those guys doesn’t work out. What are they gonna do when they hit free agency?

The Angels have been good because they’ve been able to put together a mostly solid mix of farm talent and good free agents.

What about the Florida Marlins?

They should be on the list too! They won a couple of rings!

marshgr - December 29, 2010 reply

The Marlins and Rays are ultimately farm teams for the big budget franchises

princeton11loveshalos - December 29, 2010 reply

also it wasn't as though some of these big name franchises didn't get some talent from their farm

Look at Cano, Gardner, and Hughes for the yankees. Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkilis, and Lester for the Red Sox. I think they have done a pretty good job raising their youth.

Misguided

The Angels payroll currently sits north of $130 million. Adding a guy like Beltre without subtracting anyone else puts us in Red Sux territory. I’m no economist, but I would imagine raising the price of premium seats would not generate enough revenue to allow the Halos to operate with that kind of payroll. A ticket price increase significant enough to impact payroll would indeed price many fans out of seeing the team in person. I consider myself to be a hardcore, middle-class fan. Even as affordable as Angel games are compared to other sporting events in the area, I can still only afford to attend games once a month or so, after factoring in parking, food, beer, etc. As has been mentioned on HH several times, unless Arte finds a new revenue stream (such as a tv network), it will simply be impossible to hike payroll into the stratosphere of those teams that make money hand over fist.

That said, we still have a top ten payroll, which should be perfectly adequate to field a winning team, as we have for the past decade. The issue with the 2009-2011 edition of the Angels is not cheap tickets or a lack of a private network. I would place the blame on spending $16 million on a number 5 starter and $11 million on a 5th outfielder who is no longer on the roster. One of these decisions was at least defendable at the time, while the other was quite obviously idiotic when the very idea was brought up. These points are all moot, of course, as we are saddled with those contracts through 2011. I don’t think 2011 is a lost cause, but Reagins is going to have to get very creative if he really wants to add impact talent.

dmhead - December 29, 2010 reply

Beltre is no Grienke in Milwakee.

Do it!!

I’ve typically gone to every Wed business man special game for the last 10 yrs, and to at least one game against the chowda heads, yanks, great pitching matchups and division rivals. So about 20-25 games a year. That all stopped last year, I was never one to dog the Angels win or lose, but I must admit after 02 I was spoiled, I want to win every year!! Last year I went to only 5 games due to depressing way they were losing games and if it continues that way, I’ll only be there for opening day/night or bobble head give a ways… If raising prices means more W’s I’m all for it, hell, dare I say, even raise beer prices. I want a winning team, do what you need to do, Arte!!

Angels Angel - December 29, 2010 reply

Somebody from the midwest asking for a so cal ticket price hike.

Smooth.

I understand what you're saying...

but that’s not my point. I’m just as much of a fan as someone living two blocks from the stadium, why doesn’t my opinion count as much? The reason Moreno says he didn’t spend on free agents is because he didn’t want to raise ticket prices. I could care less what a ticket costs…I want a winning team.

I think when someone decides to go to a game they think, “I have $XX to spend, where am I going to sit?”, not “I have $XX to spend, but since I can’t sit where I want, I’m not going”. A person will still spend $XX, they’ll just be sitting somewhere else at the game.

Your logic is so awful it bums me out

Yes you are a great fan and keep interest amongst the faithful with great content here.

But you service the fans, not the Angels. You keep the faithful interested….key word there since these people are interested in the Angels regardless.

Criticizing and suggesting ticket prices you dont have to pay is irresponsible and misguided. You contribute nothing financially to the team but want them to lose money to feed your hobby.

When Arte says he has to raise prices, he doesn’t mean the Diamond Club where an extra 10 bucks is nothing. He means the value packs and group rates and family packages that put 4 butts in the stadium.

He has created a product that serves the community by being accessible to all. He is supposed to price out the mom and dad on a strict budget so we can spend $20M a year on Carl Crawford’s legs?

Or he should lose millions of dollars simply because he’s a billionaire and because we talk about his team on the internet?

Again, ask Blue Jays fans how happy they are that their ownership saddled up for Vernon Wells.

My fandom has nothing to do with Halos Heaven

I spend money on the team. I pay over a hundred dollars a year for MLB.tv. (I know, the Angels don’t get all of that, but they do get part). I buy Angel gear throughout the year.

I probably spend more in a year, than a family of 4 does if they attend 4 or 5 games.

I'm not sure what you are advocating

Is it to put an inferior product on the field so that ticket prices are not increased?

Like I said above

Carl Crawford’s legs? No.

Mark Teixiera’s bat and glove? Yeah, that probably would have been a good idea.

But not so much 2010 Mark Teixeira...

2010 Mark Teixiera

PA – 712 (would have led team)
BA – .256 (fits right in with the 2010 Angels)
HR – 33 (would have led team)
RBI – 108 (would have led team)
OBP – .365 (would have led team)
OPS – .846 (would have led team)
OPS+ – 125 (would have led team)
Gold Glove (subjective, but still, he’s good)

Having him would have made Kendry hurt a lot less. Having him with Kendry and Torii would make other teams hurt a lot more. My point is there are sometimes players that are worth making it rain on. Teixiera was one. In the next couple of years, we will face the same choice with Weaver and Kendry.

Christ nate.

You know i have only 3 criteria to judge a player on … Looks, Race, and Ability To Spell Last Name

I know, that's why I like you

The stats were for other people.

also makes you wonder how much these stats were inflated

by that Yankee Stadium wind tunnel in RF

actually it doesn’t make me wonder at all. His home/away splits are obscene. Maybe Mama Teixiera didn’t raise no dummy after all.

True to an extent

The 54 games he played for us were pretty impressive.

Out of market fans do contribute.

I used to purchase the DirecTV Extra Innings package. Then the team signed mediocre reliever Fernando Rodney to costly multi-year contract. I cancelled the Extra Innings package immediately and plan to repurchase it when I have faith in the front office’s abiltity to judge players.

This year, Jeff Mathis is getting a raise, so that means I will once again not purchase the DirecTV package.

Arte can’t bitch about the cost of the top free agents when he is so quick to overpay for the mediocre ones.

same here. I buy Mlb.tv, but not last year. Radio is good.

and if any 3 of Wood, Mathis, Rodney and Kazmir are on the opening day team, I wont be buying TV time this year either.

What is the meaning of a Winning team to you? Paying Big $$ on Free Agents like we did with GMJ during his Free Agent Class because he was the best available that year. Look @ how it is affecting us now. He is still getting paid for not playing. Look @ the Yankees and Red Sox they Buy most of their talent and they Dont win all the time.

ramo - December 29, 2010 reply

What?

GMJ wasn’t the best available anything. There is a difference between paying too much to a bad player and playing too much to a good player.

ryanfea - December 29, 2010 reply

I'm glad you weren't banned, that's a good point.

Lately the excuse for GMJ is that he’s what was available at the time. BS, the front office thought it was purchasing a productive leadoff hitter with a bit of power. Then, it became, well he was a defensive specialist and decent bat for a number 7 hitter. Now, it’s he didn’t work out but was the best available at the time.

I don't have a problem with higher prices.

But reading this same discussion on other forums, it is apparent to me that many, if not MOST, season ticket holders DO have a very real problem with it. Most Angels ST holders are hardcore fans who budget every year for their season tickets. The corporations that used to buy season tickets don’t seem to be doing it nearly as much as they used to. Many of these diehard fans are already complaining about the prices…largely because it’s probably their entire entertainment budget. I think Arte’s aware of this and sensitive to it.

There are a LOT of ST holders at Angel Stadium. I’m pretty sure we have far more than most teams. And most of them go to most of the games. I think, unless Arte is able to get big name draws and winning teams, he will have big problems replacing the large number of these fans who will be priced out of their seats.

oh and...

Parking IS going up this year to $10. That’s a 20% increase.

er....25%.

Um...no

WiHaloFan wrote:

On a side note, this Moreno quote strikes me odd, “It’s crazy. I paid [$183 million] for the team [in 2003], and now we’re talking $142 million for one player?” And your point is? In 2003 I paid $100,000 for a house (in Wisconsin), and now it costs almost half that amount to buy a mini-van. The estimated value of the Angels franchise is approximately $521 million, or roughly 285% more than Moreno paid for it. If Arte wants to use 2003 dollars to compare the cost of Crawford’s contract reduced by the same rate as his franchises valuation, Crawford would have cost $49.8M over the 7 years (or $7M/season). Sounds like a bargain.

Unfortunately, the growth of the Angel franchise isn’t due to inflation. It is due to the work Moreno put into the company he bought and has built up through his annual investments of players, talent acquisition (draft) and infrastructure.

I don’t have access at the moment to the exact timeline, but when Disney put the Angels on the market in the late ’90s it planned to sell the Angels and Ducks together, at a price tag north of $600M. At one point, it had a bid from a guy in Georgia who turned out to be all hat and no cattle, but his bid was in the mid-$200M range. The two guys who headed Broadcom (Henry Nicholas and Henry Samueli) were said to be buying both franchises, until it turned out their interest was in the “internet rights” to the teams, not the franchises themselves (except that Samueli and his wife ultimately bought the Ducks). There were buying groups which put together syndicates (I think Peter Ueberroth headed one), but Moreno was the ultimate winner with his bid of approximately $180M.

Why so little? Apparently, Disney had done an excellent job of convincing the world that the Angels were a “small-market team” and that sub-2M attendance figures made for a good season at the gates.

So maybe Arte bought a distressed product and benefited from the world realizing the gem he now owned, but we know the reality is he invested from the start with Vlad, Colon, Escobar and Guillen, and added key players through the years, doubling the payroll of the team along the way ($61M in 2002; $121M in 2010).

So while it might be satisfying to ascribe the increased value of the franchise simply to inflation—which has been noticeably absent over the past couple of years, by the way—the increase is due more to money he has pumped into the team since 2004.

I wasn't trying to imply the value of the franchise was due to inflation

just how odd Moreno’s comment was. The cost of the franchise in 2003 has no bearing on the salary requirements of free agents in 2011.

Arte was essentially saying that $142 million is a hell of a lot of money

I didn’t understand Tim Brown’s criticism on this point. It made total sense in a quantitative world. It’s the same order of magnitude as the total worth of a baseball team, unless that team is the Yankees.

It’s hard to believe that a $500-million business in any other industry would take such a beating for hesitating to take on 25% of its total worth in liability with very dubious prospects for long-term benefit. But to fans and sportswriters, Crawford might as well be getting paid in Monopoly money. Obviously the team owner has a different perspective.

Um...no

George Kaplan wrote:

Unfortunately, the growth of the Angel franchise isn’t due to inflation. It is due to the work Moreno put into the company he bought and has built up through his annual investments of players, talent acquisition (draft) and infrastructure.

Lookie here. Based on your approach, the KC Royals did nearly a five fold better job at building up their product from 2009 to 2010 than did Arte because their value jumped 9% compared to the Halos only jumping 2%. Their debt ratio is more than twice as high, their revenues are 20% less, and their operating income is 25% less. Not such good business acumen on the part of the Royals, yet they are flourishing.

If you think the Royals are a bad compare because their value is so much lower than the Angels, therefore the growth numbers get warped, look at the Phillies. Similar value, similar income, similar debt ratio, but 4X the growth in value anyway. Arte is running a better business model but is not growing the team in value as well as Phillie.

Baseball is a growth market, and the rising tide lifts all boats. Arte has a good handle on the team’s financial position, certainly, but that handle does not appear to be what is driving up team value.

The rising tide

Appreciation relative to average

Washington Nationals			193.7%
Minnesota Twins				 96.8%
Florida Marlins				 56.3%
Los Angeles Angels			 54.7%
Philadelphia Phillies			 47.9%
Kansas City Royals			 46.1%
Tampa Bay Rays				 41.1%
Chicago Cubs				 39.9%
Chicago White Sox			 23.2%
Toronto Blue Jays			 19.6%
New York Yankees			 11.6%
San Diego Padres		  	  3.7%
Boston Red Sox			    	  1.5%
New York Mets 				 -4.5%
Oakland Athletics			 -5.3%
Milwaukee Brewers			 -6.4%
Los Angeles Dodgers			-14.9%
St. Louis Cardinals			-18.4%
Detroit Tigers				-18.6%
Cincinnati Reds				-28.4%
Arizona Diamondbacks			-35.9%
Houston Astros 				-38.3%
Texas Rangers				-41.0%
Pittsburgh Pirates			-47.8%
San Francisco Giants			-50.4%
Colorado Rockies			-50.5%
Baltimore Orioles			-55.5%
Cleveland Indians			-58.7%
Seattle Mariners			-62.8%
Atlanta Braves				-70.4%

To think that the Nationals have finished better than last place once, and that was by two games.

That's growth from 2003 to 2010

Yes, and that is "relative to average".

The Braves, by way of example, grew their worth from $423mm in 2003 to $450mm in 2010. That is still a 5% growth over the span indicated in your chart, which implies that a mere 5% of ACTUAL growth is still 70.4% BELOW LEAGUE AVERAGE.

Average actual growth must be one helluva thing.

i guess losing tbs games really hurt the Braves.

Yeah I hate that they're not on anymore!

It always seemed like when all else failed for you on TV, you could at least watch a Braves game.

http://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal

Paint drying might be more interesting IMHO.

Downing Rules - December 30, 2010 reply

Heyward is worth watching

hauldog - December 30, 2010 reply

ramo - December 29, 2010 reply

I think the tweet you meant to highlight

rapidly scrolled off that link.

You probably meant this?

Latest on Beltre: #A’s out, #Rangers can’t get around Young, #Angels still appear to be front-runners.

Ticket prices aren't that simple

They’re about this simple:

I don’t know what the hell that means. But someone in the Angels’ front office does. Or someone the Angels’ front office has contracted with to advise them on marketing. Maybe Arte Moreno himself is a grandmaster of business calculus.

I think that curve models the “substitution effect”: the optimal price of a given commodity is influenced by the consumers’ tendency to substitute that good for another. Technically you need as many charts and equations as there are competing goods. Arte has said repeatedly that his real competition in Southern California are the beaches, the mountains, the movies, the malls, etc.

This is probably his marketing reality. We’re all hardcore fans here, and the Angels would have to jack prices way up in order to dissuade us. However, my guess is that the vast majority of the nightly attendance does not value the team as highly. Their business is much more sensitive to the price point.

In other words, we’re not the market segment Arte is worried about. As a marketing mogul, I guarantee that Moreno has made sure that the surveys and the sales data are thoroughly analyzed. They must be telling him that the price-minimization strategy will maximize profits in his market. And it makes sense. LA has no shortage of people. It’s just a matter of convincing them to frequent your establishment.

So raising ticket prices might have the opposite effect of what you’re describing. The Angels will make more per seat, but they’ll sell fewer of them. Arte is convinced that the revenue lost to decreased attendance will outweigh the revenue gained from higher prices, and he probably has more evidence than his business philosophy to rely on here. If the Angels are already sitting at the critical point of the price-revenue curve, then movement in either direction will depress the team’s spending power.

rec'd just for the math! Wow.

Wait...are you suggesting Arte Moreno knows more than me???

Nevermind.

He certainly owns more than you or I

But I do have a fancy new camera…

Holiday Inn Express ... never stayed at one

F.A.I.L.

eyespy - December 29, 2010 reply

It is true that Arte has to compete with all the other family-friendly venues (mountains, movies, malls, etc in your words).

But every one of these places has increased prices and it hasn’t had an obvious negative effect on their “product.” The Angels can accomplish the same with well-reasoned, moderate, worth-the-price-of-admission price increases.

Not necessarily

My point was that we don’t know if a “well-reasoned, moderate, worth-the-price-of-admission price increase” is even possible in the LA market. But the Angels do have the marketing data, and they believe that a large price increase would not generate more revenue.

It’s one thing for fans to tell Mike Scioscia he has his head stuck up Jeff Mathis’s ass (which he does) because we have the same information, or at least, all the information that’s relevant. Marketing, unlike coaching, is a serious profession with established methods, and we can only guess without access to the data.

established methods

as in drinking Scotch all day and then hoping Don Draper bails you out in the meeting

joking of course

That's funny you mentioned Don Draper

The original picture I had for this post (instead of the Arte one) was of Draper crying.

how bout next time you want to post a Draper pic

you just post one of Joan (Christina Hendricks) and call it a day. I’d be ok with that

If I could rec that request twice, I would

I agree: "...a large price increase would not generate more revenue."

But I, nor others here such as Commander Nate, am not advocating a large price increase. I am suggesting a nominal one that graduates slowly and, hence, is acceptable to the average fan. The price increase should only be high enough to gradually recover the cost of signing Beltre, for example.

I'm also not local

So I don’t have my finger on the pulse of ticket prices, but the Angels have increased prices nominally each year, no? I seem to remember some grumbling after 2009 in particular.

Yes, tickets are more than they were a few years ago.

And the stadium didn’t start looking empty until about 60% of the way through this crappy season. Coincidence?

That's the key point in regard to ticket prices.

Arte can’t raise prices because his product isn’t worth it. The day we stop trying to place a scrappy, swing-at-every-pitch, slap hitter in every position, find a way to rebuild a productive bullpen and maintain our pitching rotation strength is the day Arte can raise prices.

He knows that day is not today, but what he appears to not know is that his front office doesn’t have the ability to make that day ever happen.

And that may be the exact problem

I’m not expecting him to be able to do much after the abortion that was last year (although he could do the tailgate fee now and make a lot of folks happy – or at least just me). GMJ, Kazmir and some of the other guys are really limiting a lot of payroll flexibility.

My point is, after 2011 if we’ve returned to contention and shed $30 mil+ in payroll and he feels a small increase in prices along with the freed up funds would help land a big player, then he ought to do it. Making a good product even better seems to logically mert a small increase in price.

TheQuestforMerlin - December 29, 2010 reply

Side point: but I personally would consider coaching to also be a "serious profession with established methods"

We may have a lot of offensive/defensive data as fans, but coaches, rather like those you argue as experts in marketing have much statistical data we are not privy too. Plus the most important pieces of information itself, access to the players, their potential, mental approach etc that create those stats we love so dearly.

N.B. The above paragraph is not an endorsement of Jeff Mathis in any way, but merely a defense of coaching which seems to get much maligned in these saber days. ;-)

The same important pieces of information that are keeping Jeff Mathis in an Angels jersey

Having information, and using established methods to analyze and react to that information

does not exclude varying outcomes. Kind of like economics.

The part about coaching not being a serious profession, lacking established methods

Is where a sabregenius starts to sound like an idiot.

No offense.

Zaius - December 29, 2010 reply

I've seen coaches right memoirs

But not textbooks. Of course there are practices and conventions, but are there universal assumptions? Can they withstand scrutiny? “Guts” and “instincts” aren’t educable skills.

Suboptimal - December 30, 2010 reply

Clearly coaching lacks much of the scientific rigor found in more academic pursuits

But your original comment came off as punitively elitist to me.

LAASurfin - December 30, 2010 reply

Go to Amazon

Select “books”, then “sports”, then “baseball”.
In the search box, type coaching.
You should get at least 344 hits, including Baseball Strategies by the American Baseball Coaches Association, and The Baseball Coaching Bible containing contributions from many successful coaches such as Rod Dedeaux and Bobby Winkles, and Coaching Baseball Technical and Tactical Skills written by 2004 ABCA Coach Of The Year Tom O’Connell, and many many many more.

Perhaps you were not present when the authors composed those manuals, but volumes of them do exist nonetheless.

P.S. in the odd chance that you quibble over the word "textbook",

I would direct you to here, where “Coaching Baseball Technical and Tactical Skills” fully qualifies by all definitions of the term.

I revoke my statement

It’s totally indefensible, and I know it. My original intention was purely facetious. While I do believe that major-league managers have more in common with country club members than medicinal chemists, knowledge embedded in practice is not to be lightly discarded.

Suboptimal - December 30, 2010 reply

Ah, rhetorical. Nevermind...

You may be write

And it hurts me to right this.

Zaius - December 30, 2010 reply

I dunno my math that well, but...

…if that equation includes variables to account for the impact of the secondary market to fund/fuel season ticket purchases in the primary market, I would be delighted.

Picture of Subop at work

Yes, I know that’s more Ducks than Angels, but we do what we can on a limited budget here at Kaplan Labs.

It's Mathamagic Land

Which I have on DVD! Most awesomenest film strip of my elementary school career.

did it help your billiard game?

Ha Ha!!

It most certainly would have, had we DVD players back then. The family across the street had a pool table and I sucked at it, miserably. I saw that film and learned for the very first time that there was math behind the location of the markers on the side bumpers, but it went by too fast to write it all down, and it went by only once. I spent the balance of my childhood convinced that I could reverse engineer that math and clean my buddy’s clock. It never happened.

Quad Fin Rider - December 29, 2010 reply

I think you’re missing a very key detail and using the wrong economic model

This is not a choice between a can of either Brand X or Brand Y beans. For most sports fans, the only logical substitute for not attending a game in person is to watch it on TV, therefore the correct model to use here regarding the economic consequences of increasing ticket prices would be your standard Supply & Demand curves. The Supply Curve would actually be a vertical line since quantity is always fixed at 45,050 seats. It’s true that if you are already optimally priced (P1), total revenue will always fall for a commodity if you raise its price AND keep everything else ceteris paribas (i.e., the Demand Curve remains at D1). However, the argument being proposed here is that total revenue can be further increased if you both raise the price AND increase the amount of satisfaction derived from a commodity by improving it (i.e., a rightwards shift of the Demand Curve to D2 with a new optimal price equilibrium at P2). The only question that remains is whether total revenue will increase by an amount equal or greater than the increased cost to improve the commodity. A quick look at the price of Lakers tickets over the years would seem to indicate that the increased costs associated with winning are more than offset by the increased overall demand for the product.

Be careful with that Lakers comparison.

Since the Lakers play in a significantly smaller venue, and only 1/2 the number of events, supply for tickets is tremendously reduced. As long as success is sustained, demand only remains level or goes up, so the pressure to sustain higher prices per seat is a lot higher than that for a pro baseball team. Meanwhile, because the roster is so much smaller and the NBA minor league system is free (NCAA and international leagues), payroll overhead is a lot less.

It costs less in the NBA to be successful, and your ability to raise prices and fund that success is easier.

YES

I love bringing this up to people who are like “The NBA is so much better than MLB, look how popular it is!” My response: “Your biggest crowds typically match the lowest tier of MLB attendance.” I love reminding them that they are well-entrenched in 3rd place, way behind MLB and the NFL.

But, I should note, I agree with Quad's point.

Better product = more demand (at the right price).

Chzburger Jones - December 29, 2010 reply

Differential vector calculus FTW!

My 2 cents

I think I have a unique perspective to this situation. My family has some of the best tickets in the whole stadium. Front-row aisle seats in the Diamond Club. I will say the price point they currently have in the Diamond Club is very close to being excessively high in that except for the big games it’s sometimes hard to get even face value for the tickets if I have to sell them when something comes up.

As Rev has pointed out in other threads a lot of Angels fans with season seats let them expire and then just buy individual games off the ticket exchange. That has huge advantages in that there are never any wasted tickets and you can often times score tickets at well well well below face value anywhere in the park. Rev himself bought tickets again this year…. why…??? Probably in part because they were so dang cheap.

Arte has often times said just getting butts in the seats is important because then there is so much they do make a huge profit on, including food and souvenirs. Raising ticket prices would deeply cut into those.

More often than not, when I go I don’t sit in the Diamond Club but I sit in the LF Pavillion which I think is an excellent value. But if the Angels raised ticket prices $10 bucks a seat I can tell you right now there is NO WAY I’d go to even one game in those seats. Even if they raised them $5 bucks I’d have a hard time justifying going.

As Suboptimal mentioned the Angels have full-time research and marketers that know exactly where the best price point is. The Angels had one of the best attendances in the league last year, and they were below 500. I think things are going pretty well.

Also Arte says things about not wanting to raise ticket prices when failing to sign a big free agent because it sounds nice. If the Angels wanted to add a 20 million dollar player they would have to raise ticket prices over $6 per EVERY seat and not have attendance drop by even one fan.

Then be more creative

Only raise ticket prices by like $1-3 on average and also raise beer, food, merch, parking by similarly small amounts. Establish a tailgate fee. Stuff like this coupled with getting to the playoffs (which apparently the Angels missed several million on this year) seems like it ought to cover a free agent every once in a while.

Again the spike would only have to be temporary. When a couple of big contracts fall off and rookies fill those positions, you can lower prices again. I’ll admit it’s nice having the lowest average price in the AL, but I think most people would be willing to pay a few dollars more than a Royals or Mariners fan to watch a playoff caliber team.

so....

the Angels charge like 400% over what somethings costs at a grocery store, but until now have been unwilling to charge like 500% because they haven’t been wanting to make as much money as possible…..?

Trust me man, even the concession prices are already set at the level that gives them the most money. I bet the Angels even made money by lowering beer prices when Arte took over.

That's not what I said

They seem to have this fear that if they raise prices even a tiny bit in order to field a higher quality product, that suddenly nobody will show up. They seem to feel that increasing quality isn’t as important to sustaining attendence as keeping prices low. Other sports teams don’t seem to feel this way and neither do most other businesses in the entertainment industry.

do you have season tickets Nate????

they DOOOOO raise their ticket prices nearly every year. This is the first year in awhile that I remember them not raising them at all.

No

I’m talking about regular ticket price. I did purchase a block of tickets from a season ticket holder last year though, so I effectively made my own plan.

I thought we were discussing the concern about losing random families and casual fans here? Every year I lived at home, my friends and I would spontaneously go to anywhere from 10-15 games a season. I’d still do it now if I lived where I used to even though prices have gone up a bit since then.

also

in what world do you live in where companies raise prices temporarily?

The real one

Prices fluctuate all the time based on various factors. Company X wants to expand/increse production/whatever. This requires more revenue to cover costs. One way to increase revenue: raise prices. When the extra costs no longer exist, cut prices. Sports teams change their prices when they feel the need. Arte himself has already done it here a few times.

would you kindly explain this formula

to the airline industry? I’m tired of paying to check a fucking bag. 9/11 was almost 10 years ago, so whatever hardships they endured from that have long since passed.

You need to fly on Southwest - no baggage charge.

I do when I can

but many times it isn’t an option, especially if I’m going out of the country.

and don’t even get me started on what they charge for surfboards.

baseball is a business like any other

I’m not a business major, but I know enough to know that businesses base their prices not on their expenses nearly as much as what the demand is and what people are willing to pay for their product.

If Arte raised prices temporarily to make more money and then lowered them when he could still make more money…. he would be a stupid businessman and he is definitely not stupid.

Not exactly

He needs to find the balance point between the demand for a good team and the demand for a cheap ticket.

People pay $15 to go to the movies for a good film (Inception, LOTR, whatever) because it’s a quality product. Fewer people will pay $10 for a crappy movie (Scary Movie 74 or whatever they’re on now) because it’s not a quality product. People pay higher prices for Mammoth or Bear Mountain (in that order) over Mountain High because they are better places to go if you like skiing or snowboarding.

If that’s true in those industries, it ought to be true that baseball fans (in general) are willing to pay more for a championship team than they are to get a deal on a mediocre one. I just find it very hard to believe that the most the Angels fanbase is willing to sustain after nearly a decade of playoff contention is an average price that is lower than the Royals, Mariners and Rays of the world. I wasn’t a business major either, but that argument doesn’t make sense to me.

Mountain High can't raise prices until it doesn't suck.

It can’t raise prices and get the customers to pay them because it needs to the revenue to improve. It must improve first.

Same with the Angels. People won’t pay more until it looks a little more like Mammoth and a little less like Mountain High. And doing things like giving Jeff Mathis a raise does not move us in the right direction.

one big difference though

is that baseball at the stadium is competing with baseball at home on TV whereas skiing you can’t do at home, and the experience of a movie in a theatre is much better than anything you can do at home. Yea I know baseball at the park is more enjoyable, but the difference between watching the Angels game on TV and at the park is a lot smaller than going to Mammoth and playing SSX on the Playstation.

True

I’d say it’s more comparable to the movies. Still, the experience of being there is what people are buying when they choose not to just watch on TV. Big games during the season and the playoffs are similar, possibly greater, than seeing some big release in the theater with 3-D glasses as opposed to waiting for it to come out on DVD. Those 81 home games are more enticing if the team is consistently good.

my dog's vet

didn’t charge me yesterday for his visit because I had my Angels hat on. I was stoked.

just thought I’d share.

guess I thought of it

because of the discussion above about how if you were in Boston everyone would know last night’s game score, etc. so I doubt someone in Boston would get a free vet visit for wearing a Sox cap since everyone there is wearing a sox cap.

That wasn't meant sarcastically

I did think it was a cool story.

good to know

thought fo sho you were being sarcastic

I wish this would work for me in NY.

In my Angels cap, of course.

cath619 - December 29, 2010 reply

I heard a pink hat gets you 20% off your gyno exam from your veterinarian in bawston

I know I'll charge 30% less

on gyno exams if you wear a pink hat. Be forewarned that I’m not a gynecologist.

rmhalofan - December 29, 2010 reply

Yes, but are your hands warm?

I love the Poe shot

Is that on the Poe site via Google?

Raaddad - December 29, 2010 reply

No, I hijacked it from somewhere.

Probably 4chan.

RexTookMyStash - December 29, 2010 reply

how do I get/make a copy?

santa?

Raaddad - December 29, 2010 reply

Right click ==> save image as ==> Profit

"Am I less of a fan because I don't root for the club in person?"

No. But, you drive a Taurus around Wisconsin. You are not the target demographic.

Umm... Guess I should have looked above...

[flush]

RexTookMyStash - December 29, 2010 reply

So, does this mean that at the rate we're going

in about 5-10 years some crazy ass lunatic in baseball will get a $521MM contract? That’s really hard to swallow…(insert a “she said” comment here)

maze88 - December 29, 2010 via mobile reply

I guess I have a few opinions on the matter

I think that the ticket price thing is just an excuse for Arte promising to sign free agents and yet failing on that promise. I think Arte is human like the rest of us, and he over reacted when he promised to pay for free agents. Many of the casual fans and writers where probably grilling him about it and he probably said it to get them off his back. He offered Tex 160 mil without a mention of tickets prices.

But obviously money has something to do about it. What he should have said was something like "Reagins and I got schooled when it came to negotiating and no way was I going to pay $20/7 for a player who relies on speed and has averaged 12 HR’s a year. I thought he was worth a 100 Mil contract and that was as high as I was willing to go. I also know that he is going to decline throughout the life of his contract and it just did not seem worth it to me. Now I am going to play hard ball with Boras concerning Beltre and I sacrificed a rooster last night praying that Trout won’t be a bust like the rest of our highly touted prospects"

Back to the question of paying higher tickets prices for a better team I would totally do it. I wouldn’t pay Yankee prices but I would not mind a bump up in ticket prices if it means a better team. I think for a casual fan it might be a different sort of thing (especially with a weak economy). I think Arte is trying to take fans from the Dodgers by offering a lot better deal and a better family atmosphere. In my opinion, ultimately a winning team puts butts in seats.

I get the opinion (especially after reading fans comments in LA times and OC Register) that fans want to have cheap ticket prices, a winning team, and for the Angels to have signed Soriano, Crawford, Beltre, and Cliff Lee.

Trott - December 29, 2010 reply

A few points

1) I agree with LAASurfin, So Cal sports fans are different than East Coast fans. Anyone who’s been to Boston during baseball season knows that. Outside of HH where fans are more like East Coast fans (that’s kind of painful to say), I don’t think many people would be happy with higher ticket prices.

2) On a related note, if I’m not mistaken, there are far more season ticket holders at the East Coast stadiums. Those are the fans that will go to games no matter what the cost. The Angels depend a lot more on families and tourists who just decide they want to go to the ballpark for an evening. If ticket prices were jacked up, those families and tourists will elect to go to Medieval Times instead the Big A.

3) Another idea is not to raise ticket prices, but raise concession prices. That way, I can still go to the 3-6 games a year I am accustomed to, but I can elect NOT to buy food and drinks. Those who eat and drink at the stadium can be proud that they are boosting payroll and signing the Crawfords of the time.

Rally Manatee - December 29, 2010 reply

Can we just talk about girls instead?

Dude, have you SEEN the rising costs associated with females over the past decade???

By way of comparison, Arte is running a charitable organization.

Game. Set. Match.

come to Thailand....their still reasonably priced

unless, of course, you marry one :(

Ill take higher ticket prices in the premium seating areas

For Albert Puljos lol.. I like to sit in the club level and I’m willing to pay an extra $10-15 per ticket for one of the best hitters of our generation.

C.A._Rep_Los_ANGELS - December 29, 2010 via mobile reply

PASSIONATE FANS

SoCal has more passionate sports fans than anywhere.

LAKERS
USC Footbal and Basketball
UCLA Football and Basketball
DODGERS
ANGELS
KINGS
DUCKS
CLIPPERS

All sustained in a market that has lots of rich people WHO MOVE HERE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE and never support our teams as fans.

Arte’s competition for ticket sales is the movies, theme parks and all the stadiums above. Just because a few thousand hardcore fans would do anything to see this team win does not change the priority of Arte Moreno to maximize the revenue.

SOLUTION: Low ticket prices, mommy and me entertainment on the Jumbotron in between innings with Generation Britney music playing all the time. These fill the stadium, build return customers, add word-of-mouth sales and sell merchandise.

Rev Halofan - December 29, 2010 reply

Lucky in LA

Take sorry-ass Boston for example. All they have is their sports teams. Of course they’re gonna show great loyalty. What else do they have? Butt ugly women, cold weather, and an accent that makes them the red-necks of New England.

All my cousins in Southie would argue with that!

They say it’s not really that cold.

cath619 - December 30, 2010 reply

The Clippers have fans?

Exactly

I’ve quoted it here before, but Arte has said on many occasions that his “competition” isn’t the Dodgers. It’s the beaches, the mountains and the deserts, which can often be sampled for little or no cost outside of gasoline and food.

If Moreno makes the price of admission sufficiently high, he’ll make a very good case for a family of 4 or 5 to head to the beach for the day, instead of the stadium. He knows this, and this is a big part of what guides his decisions regarding the entertainment value at the stadium, and the price of tickets and paraphernalia within.

Just as with so many Angel fans here, kids grow up to become Angel fans. Moreno is doing what he thinks he must to ensure more kids spend their years growing up in Angel Stadium; they’re the next generation of fans.

Dilemma

He already has the beginning ranks of those fans. I feel kinda sad saying this, but it’s the folks that are actually a few years younger than me who are in high school or just entering college/the workforce that are leading the next generation of Angel fans. For those folks, the Angels won the World Series when they were in elementary school and have been a winning team for the majority of their childhood. From this point on, Arte is gonna have to decide if he thinks this group of fans (and those that follow) is more likely to be attracted by cheap tickets for Callaspo/Wood/etc; or something like Kendry/Teixeria/Beltre at a moderately higher price. People tend to willingly pay more for better entertainment regardless of what it is, at least from in my experience

Define "moderately higher"

We have already reviewed this concept: It isn’t about selling more tickets, since the stadium is sold at a rate in excess of 90% already. The usual response is “he’ll put more people in the seats if he signs Player X”, but that idea is in itself a nonstarter.

So how many more dollars are you proposing? Keep in mind, what is, say, $5 extra for your ticket is $20 more for a guy with the wife and two kids. I don’t believe Arte is viewing this on a per-seat basis, but on the total cost for a family experience. The economy simply isn’t so strong at the moment that the average Angel fan can shrug off an increase of $20-$50 more in cost for a trip to the stadium, OR the family goes once a year instead of twice.

So we can calculate the result of an average ticket price hike of $5 (admittedly, a figure I pulled out of my ass), times 90% capacity, times 81 games. That would generate about $16M, which would pay for Beltre’s deal. But what happens if the result is fewer walkups, fewer spontaneous plans to go to the game because of a perception that the game is no longer within the budget? Remember, a significant portion of the fanbase at the game doesn’t reside within OC, they drive in from LA or the IE, which means a rise in ticket prices, coupled with a spike in gas prices (which are predicted to rise to $5/gal by 2012 by a former CEO of Shell, citing improving global conditions causing China and other nations to step up their demand accordingly), can cause people to look elsewhere for an evening’s entertainment. What happens when the total cost of the experience means some fans have to forego attending? If the percentage of seats sold declines, then there isn’t the increase in revenue listed above.

Whatever one thinks about Moreno, it is indisputable that the man became wealthy understanding advertising and marketing. I would have to imagine he has done surveys and studies to find the sweet spot in ticket pricing for his team. He is trying to grow the brand, after it was left to die by Disney when that company grew tired of trying to impose its marketing will on a baseball franchise. I believe he isn’t pulling numbers out of his ass, but is instead working from reliable data which state he needs to keep his prices within defined bands.

Otherwise, he has to take the haircut, and that is how owners morph into Tom Hicks.

I'm thinking along the same lines

I don’t have the data or the time really to do a proper study, but I’m thinking $3-$5 at most coupled with similarly small increases on some other things (concessions, merch, parking, tailgating, etc). I would think that if they spread around the increased costs to where a lot of them were optional, then they would minimize their potential losses in attendance.

It’s honestly GMJ and some of the other contracts that are hampering the team right now. Next winter should provide more flexibility and I’m hoping they take advantage of it. After a losing season might not be the best time, obviously.

I understand the cost of gas prices to get to games, believe me. I grew up in the IE and now live even further away in SD. I’m fully aware of the threat presented by Chinese state-capitalists and peak oil on my ability to travel. I need an electric car or a transporter ASAP.

Need a transporter ASAP?

Here you go…

I'm pressing "Enter" but it does nothing!

There is an issue with the flux capacitor

http://www.instantrimshot.com

Dammit, Jim! I'm tired of having my atoms scrambled and sent who-knows-where throughout the universe!

red floyd - December 30, 2010 reply

Sorry.

WiHaloFan - December 30, 2010 reply

Heyo!!!!

red floyd - December 31, 2010 reply

Just for some background

According to OCBJ, the Angels sell between 25,000 and 29,000 season ticket packages annually.

The Angels’ home attendance for 2010 averaged 40,133 per game. Obviously, there are some games and series which are sellouts and other series which are less well-attended, but as an average, it means that 11,000 to 15,000 seats sold per game are either through mini-packages, advance per-game sales or walk-up. That represents 28% to 38% of the tickets sold for an average game. Not only is that a substantial part of the gate, it constitutes the fans most likely to show up and spend their money elsewhere in the park (season tickets may go unused, but those who buy for a specific game are nearly guaranteed to show up).

I think this is where the Angels are concerned about raising the price of admission. The potential loss of any portion of gate is troubling to any franchise, but the idea that even 5% might not attend simply due to financial reasons would constitute a significant loss in revenue for the team at the same time. Angel Stadium isn’t Fenway, with its capped season ticket sales, 98% renewal rate, and waiting list of 7,000; there, the Red Sox can hike the prices and folks will pay what it costs to get in (the reduced capacity of Fenway helps keep demand high, too). Angels fans have other options, and any revenue gained by a significant increase in ticket prices could well have the undesired affect of causing a net loss in fans for the season, mitigating some part of the revenue gain.

I don’t think simply hiking prices will necessarily lead to the desired result.

What happens if...

I think that is the whole idea behind running a sports franchise as a business. There are a lot of normal business rules that you have to throw out the window.

Compared to 2009, charging another $2 per seat for a product that misses the playoffs will almost certainly decrease revenue. But charging $2 less per seat for a product that goes deep into the playoffs would almost certainly increase revenue. You can go back and forth on these estimations all day but the vageries of human performance, which is your business “product”, preclude knowing the outcome at the time necessary to make these sorts of decisions. It’s sports. You have to take some chances.