UK clubs need to move away from the bums on seats culture

[The Daddy]

UK RL has an unhealthy obsession with attendances. I include both spectators and club owners in that. Attendances are not the be all and end all. Yes they are important but it needs to be mixed with other forms of income. The sport over here is just too reliant on bums on seats as a revenue stream and needs to create new business models where multiple streams of income are created that support the clubs. I think the French clubs and Toronto are moving in the right way I'm this respect. There's a big debate about how much of Toronto's crowd actually pay entrance fee, but I think the owners are looking at the bigger picture. They are turning match days into an event and creating a buzz around that, building a 5 star brand and then creating revenues around it. They have their own alcohol product, cannabis oil product and many more on the way. Revenue from streaming is a big part of their plans. This is a new business model in comparison to traditional UK clubs. The French clubs develop strong links with local and regional government bodies who provide funding and they also have a strong presence in the business world with round table events and plenty of innovation around engaging the business community for sponsorship. Already the Catalan Dragons are one of the highest revenue earners in SL. The British clubs must learn from this and so should the RFL and Robert Elstone because I think clubs should be permitted access to SL on the strength of their business model.

 

[langpark]

I'm not British, but I too consider it one of THE most important things in our game.  Income aside, it's the image we portray, full grandstands looks so much better than empty ones.  I don't know how 'obsessing' over pursuing high attendances can possibly be a bad thing?

[hunsletgreenandgold]

25 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

UK RL has an unhealthy obsession with attendances. I include both spectators and club owners in that. Attendances are not the be all and end all. Yes they are important but it needs to be mixed with other forms of income. The sport over here is just too reliant on bums on seats as a revenue stream and needs to create new business models where multiple streams of income are created that support the clubs. I think the French clubs and Toronto are moving in the right way I'm this respect. There's a big debate about how much of Toronto's crowd actually pay entrance fee, but I think the owners are looking at the bigger picture. They are turning match days into an event and creating a buzz around that, building a 5 star brand and then creating revenues around it. They have their own alcohol product, cannabis oil product and many more on the way. Revenue from streaming is a big part of their plans. This is a new business model in comparison to traditional UK clubs. The French clubs develop strong links with local and regional government bodies who provide funding and they also have a strong presence in the business world with round table events and plenty of innovation around engaging the business community for sponsorship. Already the Catalan Dragons are one of the highest revenue earners in SL. The British clubs must learn from this and so should the RFL and Robert Elstone because I think clubs should be permitted access to SL on the strength of their business model.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? I agree clubs should be looking for as many income streams as possible, but suggesting they 'move away' from wanting to fill stadiums seems somewhat odd. The NRL, which has an astronomical TV deal, seemed to overlook the importance of bums on seats in the stadium a few years back - now they're doing their utmost to get fans back at games as it looked terrible and did affect clubs revenues. 

[Private Baldrick]

Well, looking at this thread's title and the OP's club it would appear that that Club are certainly leading the way on not putting bums on seats.

[The Daddy]

Just now, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? I agree clubs should be looking for as many income streams as possible, but suggesting they 'move away' from wanting to fill stadiums seems somewhat odd. The NRL, which has an astronomical TV deal, seemed to overlook the importance of bums on seats in the stadium a few years back - now they're doing their utmost to get fans back at games as it looked terrible and did affect clubs revenues. 

Not saying it has to be one or the other. Just don't be reliant on it. My main point is..... create new income streams. 

[The Daddy]

Or another way of putting it is our clubs need to explore and implement new business models

[whatmichaelsays]

There's some method in @The Daddy's madness. Things are more than just "bums on seats" in modern sport. 

Our biggest revenue stream by far is the TV deal. The value of our TV deal is based on our importance to the broadcaster in terms of subscriptions (ie, how many Sky subscriptions rely on RL content) and the nature of the audience that we offer to that broadcaster (the more valuable demographics we can offer, the easier it is for the broadcaster to sell advertising space around RL content). 

There's a lot of talk about the sport wanting to increase its TV deal when the contract comes up for negotiation, but I don't believe the sport is offering enough to prospective broadcasters on those two key details to justify an increase. I don't think enough Sky subscriptions rely on RL content, and I don't think the sport has done enough to offer Sky (or any other broadcaster) the sort of audiences that advertisers want to pay good money to reach in an era where those same advertisers can reach C2DE audiences for less than £50 per thousand online. 

So it's not so much about "bums on seats" but instead (for want of a better term) "the right bums on seats", as well as "bums on sofas". 

Advertisers don't want to reach people who only want to pay £130 for a Giants season ticket. They don't want to pay good money to reach people who baulk at £20-25 for a semi-final ticket, yet that is largely what we're offering them. 

I get what @The Daddy is saying here. The idea of "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" doesn't really suit a modern sporting market. Unfortunately, it's a multi-faceted problem and fixing it will take a hell of a lot of work that I genuinely believe most clubs are neither able nor willing to do. 

[Dave T]

Customers are important to all businesses. 

Bums on seats are not just a vanity thing, those people attached to those bums are the ones that you can sell merchandise to, refreshments, offer to your sponsors etc. 

I'm all for looking at different ways to get those bums on seats, or different ways to capitalise on them, but we should be constantly focusing on customer numbers and trying to get a) more, and b) the right types of customers. I think point B is very important.

[The Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Customers are important to all businesses. 

Bums on seats are not just a vanity thing, those people attached to those bums are the ones that you can sell merchandise to, refreshments, offer to your sponsors etc. 

I'm all for looking at different ways to get those bums on seats, or different ways to capitalise on them, but we should be constantly focusing on customer numbers and trying to get a) more, and b) the right types of customers. I think point B is very important.

Does it matter if they're paid bums on seats or non paid bums on seats?

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Does it matter if they're paid bums on seats or non paid bums on seats?

That is what I referred to when I said "I'm all for looking at different ways to get those bums on seats, or different ways to capitalise on them"

During SL we have seen that we have pushed the Season Ticket model really hard - to the point that anything outside of the season ticket is a really hard sell, but that shouldn't surprise us. Cup games should really be part of the season ticket package. It's a bit like Netflix charging you your £8 a month and then asking you to pay another £6 for an individual show that is exactly the same as other stuff you get included, or maybe an even lower standard. 

I don't think it is important whether they have paid £20 to get in, or whether you can create value from them in a more creative way.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Does it matter if they're paid bums on seats or non paid bums on seats?

Perhaps in the bigger picture if other incomes can be generated no, but to me there is nothing less appealing than to be at a game without the atmosphere being generated by the peope inside the ground.

I watch as mutch as anyone on TV, but for me, and it is a personal preference sitting in one's living room doesn't strike the same chord, I also go to live games weekly (season ticket holder, and travel to away games), the hoo's, aah's, bloody hell ref, forrerd pass, etc sound much better, than the wife saying "do you want a cup of tea" TV is a great substitute but give me the banter and atmosphere of a good crowd everytime.

[Rupert Prince]

Giving something for free just lowers the value of your product... it cheapens the brand. Once something is given away it's given away for good.   Why should someone just walk past the DW, look in, guzzle a burger (or a pie) shrug a shoulder at the game and walk out? 

Take a 10000 gate times £25 and multiply it by 14 and add up the sum.  How can you ignore that?  How can you ignore the likelyhood of our stars then preferring the money in Aussie.  How can you encourage Aussie stars talking our money?

Why should anybody anywhere take any notice of anything to do with RL any time if no one can be bothered to pay to watch it.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Perhaps in the bigger picture if other incomes can be generated no, but to me there is nothing less appealing than to be at a game without the atmosphere being generated by the peope inside the ground.

I watch as mutch as anyone on TV, but for me, and it is a personal preference sitting in one's living room doesn't strike the same chord, I also go to live games weekly (season ticket holder, and travel to away games), the hoo's, aah's, bloody hell ref, forrerd pass, etc sound much better, than the wife saying "do you want a cup of tea" TV is a great substitute but give me the banter and atmosphere of a good crowd everytime.

I don't think this should be understated or dismissed as it often is. I enjoy going to pubs, less so clubs nowadays, but if they were always dead with no atmosphere, I would be going to others, or change my habits and drink at home on a weekend.

The atmosphere and crowd is absolutely part of the experience.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Bums on seats, for any one game, are comfortably the minority of customers for that game.

I assume you are talking about TV viewers.

Look a that for a club like Warrington.

If they get £1.9m from the SL tv deal, that probably works out at c£2 per annum per customer if we roll up the total value of the TV deal and viewer numbers. Because of the scale it brings a decent value, but per customer it is low.

Then if we look at the actual bums on seats. Around 11k customers per game, but they may have an average spend across match tickets, merchandise, refreshments etc. of £2-400 per annum.

For the bigger clubs, the c£2m they get from TV deals is around 20-30% of their total income. We know sponsorship in RL is modest - the income is coming from the real people attending and interacting with the individual clubs. 

Even if we manage to double the TV deal this time, there is still a huge proportion of income from attending customers. 

[Mr Wind Up]

Fans may have an unhealthy obsession about attendances but only because stadiums are rarely full. You'll find the same happening in other sports around the world that also struggle with attendances. 

It stands to reason that people constantly talk about attendances because they realise that it's a reflection of the popularity and standing of the game. 

It even happens in the NRL. They have plenty of revenue streams, and make alot of money outside the stadium, but look how often their fans obsess about attendances. Why? Because they're not that great. Far too often they play in half (or worse) empty stadiums. 

Even if the Super League expanded its revenue streams, people would still moan about shoddy attendances if the NRL is anything to go by. 

The only way people will ever move away from 'bums on seats' culture is if attendance usage goes above 90%.

[Cowardly Fan]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

TV viewers, sponsors etc.

Let's say on average a game is 10k, spending an average of £40 per game that's 400k per game. 

Firstly thats less than SL receive per game broadcast on sky. Secondly that game will be watch by C150k people. 

It's far easier to monetise 150k people at an average of about £2.50 per person than 11k at £40. In terms of uplift if we can monetise those 150k to £3 per person that's the equivalent of about 1200 more people per game. 

Also in terms of direct costs the revenue you make from the TV viewers and sponsors is almost entirely profit. The attendees cost you in opening the stadium, VAT, stewarding policing, safety carts, match day staff etc etc.

Your Market is as an RL club is massive compared to your market of people who attend is massive. RL has for too long focussed on taking large amounts from a small number of people when the largest scope for growth is to take a little from a lot of people

One of best bits of advice I got in business is it's a lot easier to get a lot of money from a few people, than a little money from a lot of people. 

Matchday income in football has grown mainly due to hospitality - for some clubs it's now up to 2/3 of matchday from 1/10 in attendance. Rugby League is poor in this area in my experience despite some advantages. 

I wonder how the clubs target new fans. For example if I was Warrington new fans from the posh local areas would be a priority, you can afford to pay more to attract them because they are more likely to be future hospitality and sponsorship clients. However I doubt they have a value of what a new fan is worth, let alone segmenting by where they are from.

[The Daddy]

6 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

One of best bits of advice I got in business is it's a lot easier to get a lot of money from a few people, than a little money from a lot of people. 

Matchday income in football has grown mainly due to hospitality - for some clubs it's now up to 2/3 of matchday from 1/10 in attendance. Rugby League is poor in this area in my experience despite some advantages. 

I wonder how the clubs target new fans. For example if I was Warrington new fans from the posh local areas would be a priority, you can afford to pay more to attract them because they are more likely to be future hospitality and sponsorship clients. However I doubt they have a value of what a new fan is worth, let alone segmenting by where they are from.

Agreed. There's definitely scope for Warrington to extend its brand throughout Cheshire

[Tommygilf]

There is massive doubt over the amount of money SL clubs make out of sponsorship atm. I can't remember if it was part of the ASUS deal with Wakefield but I remember reading that the whole sponsorship deal could have gone on expenses rather than the actual corporate partner budget.

The fact Leeds have invested so heavily in the new corporate stuff at headingley shows how commercially valuable that is to the game. Whether thats good on a moral/social level is another issue but clearly our clubs currently are reliant on people in the ground. A lot of clubs fall down in that their grounds are only used for around 15 days a year. 

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

1 - TV viewers, sponsors etc.

Let's say on average a game is 10k, spending an average of £40 per game that's 400k per game. 

Firstly thats less than SL receive per game broadcast on sky. Secondly that game will be watch by C150k people. 

It's far easier to monetise 150k people at an average of about £2.50 per person than 11k at £40. In terms of uplift if we can monetise those 150k to £3 per person that's the equivalent of about 1200 more people per game. 

Also in terms of direct costs the revenue you make from the TV viewers and sponsors is almost entirely profit. The attendees cost you in opening the stadium, VAT, stewarding policing, safety carts, match day staff etc etc.

Your Market is as an RL club is massive compared to your market of people who attend is massive. RL has for too long focussed on taking large amounts from a small number of people when the largest scope for growth is to take a little from a lot of people

The big problem with all of this is that not every game is televised. Per televised game, each SL club gets around £24k (based on their deal of c£1.8m per year for c79 games) - that doesn't take into account the money from the deal that is routed into the RFL or other clubs - but I am keeping this as SL club level.

But even if we did roll it up to the full £40m per year, across 79 games that is half a million per game, split twelve ways it is just over £40k per club for each televised game. If every game was televised and they paid the 12 SL clubs the £40m per year, this would drop to less than £20k each per televised game.

This is substantially less than comes in from attendees (at the bigger clubs).

I do take the point overall, and if anything it shows that we are not generating enough from the TV deal imho, becasue the sponsors and corporate that we are getting at clubs is often local chip shops or car dealers who are not massively benefiting from the TV deals.

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

One of best bits of advice I got in business is it's a lot easier to get a lot of money from a few people, than a little money from a lot of people. 

Matchday income in football has grown mainly due to hospitality - for some clubs it's now up to 2/3 of matchday from 1/10 in attendance. Rugby League is poor in this area in my experience despite some advantages. 

I wonder how the clubs target new fans. For example if I was Warrington new fans from the posh local areas would be a priority, you can afford to pay more to attract them because they are more likely to be future hospitality and sponsorship clients. However I doubt they have a value of what a new fan is worth, let alone segmenting by where they are from.

This is what I referred to when I talked about appealing to different types of customers. I think we have focused almost solely on the less affluent market through reasonable deals and perceived working class roots of the game instead of the premium markets. 

In sport there has to be a place for both, even football appeals to the cheaper end of the market, but they also get that corporate and premium market.

I don't think RL as a sport is great at giving you things that you want to spend decent amounts of money on. People spend a fortune on quality sporting experiences nowadays, yet we seem obsessed with ticket offers and deals, and little at the other end.

[yipyee]

I agree that it's misleading to use attendances as a metric.

10 people in hospitality are worth 50 through the turnstiles. 

5 good sponsors are worth 1 sponsor and 2k season ticket holders.

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

I agree that it's misleading to use attendances as a metric.

10 people in hospitality are worth 50 through the turnstiles. 

5 good sponsors are worth 1 sponsor and 2k season ticket holders.

 

However when the numbers are so modest, as they are in RL, it is quite easy to see the value to a club of number of fans. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is what I referred to when I talked about appealing to different types of customers. I think we have focused almost solely on the less affluent market through reasonable deals and perceived working class roots of the game instead of the premium markets. 

In sport there has to be a place for both, even football appeals to the cheaper end of the market, but they also get that corporate and premium market.

I don't think RL as a sport is great at giving you things that you want to spend decent amounts of money on. People spend a fortune on quality sporting experiences nowadays, yet we seem obsessed with ticket offers and deals, and little at the other end.

How do you put that in context David, surely the "quality" is relevant to those who percieve it to be quality and to their taste, I would sooner pay 50 quid to attend a RL game than be given freebies to Wembley for the FA cup final, or Silverston for the British Grand Prix, or special hospitality at the Cheltenham Races, I could go on. We the converted know how good our product is, we just need to convince more people on how good of a "Quality Sporting Expierence" it is.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How do you put that in context David, surely the "quality" is relevant to those who percieve it to be quality and to their taste, I would sooner pay 50 quid to attend a RL game than be given freebies to Wembley for the FA cup final, or Silverston for the British Grand Prix, or special hospitality at the Cheltenham Races, I could go on. We the converted know how good our product is, we just need to convince more people on how good of a "Quality Sporting Expierence" it is.

Yes, sorry, by Quality Sporting Experience, I mean premium hospitality stuff, or events. I think in RL we are missing out on VIP-style events tbh. Our sport is top-notch, it is how we package it imho.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not every game is televised, but isnt that part of the 'bums in seats mentality'? That television every game would affect attendances.

Also your maths is all wrong. Why would you split the games by 12? Only one of them is being shown and only one of them is the home team. 

On average each team would have 6.5 home games shown (79/12). If you want to count it as 20k per game that is fine, that would be much less than they get from attendees but it ignores the fact they get 20k per game for 72.5games they arent the home team on sky. They only play 14 homes. That means that they are paid 20k per game by sky for 65 games they arent the home team for. If every single one of their away games are shown and they are shown an average amount of times they would be paid 20k a game for 59.5 games they didn't even play in. That's much much more than they earn from those attendances which is obviously nothing. 

The sponsors et al are still part of the bums on seats mentality, big sponsors arent sponsors EPL sides because of the thousands in the stadiums. Its thr millions watching. Bob's fish and chips sponsor and RL side because a fan might pick up a chip butty on the way home

If we want to cut the money a different way, let's assume each club has 14 opportunities to 'make money'. 

They get £1.8m from the TV deal, so split that across the 14 home games and that is c£130k. That is still less than the income from your fanbase (for a 10k average club). We can manipulate the numbers however we want to make it appear higher or lower, but look at the bottom lines.

The bigger clubs are turning over £7-10m now, with a tv deal of less than £2m. We also know corporate and sponsorship is modest in RL. Those other millions are coming from customers who attend and/or are engaged with the club. They will usually be the people occupying the seats.