Honest to Christ, what the fuck is this?
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ticketing/green_monster_seats.jsp?partnerId=ed-7970570-661013643
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ticketing/green_monster_seats.jsp?partnerId=ed-7970570-661013643
Remember when tickets were sold without gimmicks?
- Thread starter YTF
- Start date
Remember when the Sox weren't good enough to be able to implement this (very sensible given the demand) policy?
Total no brainer. They are close to capped out on volume of butts they can put in seats, so the natural lever to turn to is pricing. Even better, they can achieve more price via extracting more from those willing to pay vs. the blunt tool of across the board increases that draw the ire of the fans/media.
People don't root for one airline over another, don't buy airline jerseys, can watch the game on TV, and other differences as well.findguapo said:
have you guys seen this work for teams? Really truly work.
Where the extra profit on sold tickets outpaces the sum of goodwill lost and concession revenue lost? Just because some tickets, say 10%, sell at a huge premium, doesn't mean all tickets would.
I don't mind them doing it for Green Monster seats or Dugout Boxes or Bud Roof tables or whatnot, but it's different if they do it for the entire stadium liek some teams do, I think SF Giants is one.
I don't mind this, but again for me to see any MLB game means I have to get on a plane. But if I provided a service and sold it for say 50 bucks and saw somebody turn around and sell access to that service for 200 bucks online, then I would think about holding onto it and selling it for 100 bucks if that was what the market indicated.
I don't know what's gimmicky about it. I kind of wish events would go toward "cascading" ticket prices for portions of non-STH seats, i.e., start in sort of a reverse auction that declines from the on-sale date until the day of the event (starting well above "face" and declining to a floor that is under face). Teams could maximize gate receipts while being able to fill seats that would normally go unsold.
So from an execution standpoint, how will this work?
My initial thought is that people will log in at noon and the purchase price will be whatever the Sox determine is the fair value of the seats based on opponent and row, as they sell and quantity decreases the cost will go up. If the cost reaches a point where people are saying no thanks the cost will either stay at the cost of the last ones sold or will decrease.
My guess is that the only way you will get reasonably priced Monster seats is to be in right at noon. I wonder if they'll have a choose your section/seat option as well which is definitely a feature lacking in Sox ticket purchasing.
My initial thought is that people will log in at noon and the purchase price will be whatever the Sox determine is the fair value of the seats based on opponent and row, as they sell and quantity decreases the cost will go up. If the cost reaches a point where people are saying no thanks the cost will either stay at the cost of the last ones sold or will decrease.
My guess is that the only way you will get reasonably priced Monster seats is to be in right at noon. I wonder if they'll have a choose your section/seat option as well which is definitely a feature lacking in Sox ticket purchasing.
I am also shocked that it took this long.
That being said, it was all much classier and more innocent when the gimmicks for selling tickets were "cap day", "batting glove day", and "bat day".
Of course, Cleveland's "Ten Cent Beer Night" or the White Sox' "Disco Demolition Night" were not so innocent...
That being said, it was all much classier and more innocent when the gimmicks for selling tickets were "cap day", "batting glove day", and "bat day".
Of course, Cleveland's "Ten Cent Beer Night" or the White Sox' "Disco Demolition Night" were not so innocent...
After MLB signed a partnership agreement with StubHub in 2008, it became apparent that many people were going there instead of the box offices to get their tickets and it didn't take teams long to figure out that dynamic pricing might draw some of them back. I think the Giants were the first team (in 2009) to do this and by 2012, more than half the clubs were doing it. And by last year only four clubs were not using some type of flexible pricing.
to paraphrase: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-12/business/ct-biz-0512-stub-hub--20130512_1_stubhub-bleacher-ticket-ticket-reselling
to paraphrase: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-12/business/ct-biz-0512-stub-hub--20130512_1_stubhub-bleacher-ticket-ticket-reselling
DrewDawg said:
Guess I'm just a guy who tries to go to couple of games a season who enjoys trying to get shot at decent tix every so often the traditional way.
YTF said:
You should be in favor of this, then, because ticket prices will be set by supply and demand and should be generally easier to come by, as opposed to the old method of sitting in a virtual waiting room for hours only to see them sell out in 2 minutes.
The pricing model makes sense for the team as it appears they capture any excess market value over a fixed price. But they also bear the risk of selling tickets below a theoretical fixed price ticket to a lower-demand game.
From the buyer perspective when do they knew if they are a winning bidder? ie. If I want tix for a April 23rd game, when do I find out I've secured the tix? Is it within 24 hours or does the bidding continue for an extended period?
Also is there a "reserve" minimum price?
From the buyer perspective when do they knew if they are a winning bidder? ie. If I want tix for a April 23rd game, when do I find out I've secured the tix? Is it within 24 hours or does the bidding continue for an extended period?
Also is there a "reserve" minimum price?
YTF said:
Im with you. I feel like I just got priced out from ever having good monster seats, unless I want April 9th against the Twins. And even then.....
bankshot1 said:
It's not an auction. You buy the tickets, they're yours just like past years, The only difference is that if you go back a day or a week later, similar tickets to yours could be cheaper or more expensive. That's the dynamic part.
Is it a bid type situation? I was under the impression that the prices change on the fly according to all the variables listed on the site which of course only the seller will set and control. We have no idea how many tickets sold determine that there is a "demand". And weather can be a factor? Are we going to be busting out the Farmer's Almanac to determine if we should wait on these games?
mt8thsw9th said:
Seattle has demand pricing that works just the opposite of this. If you buy a ticket the day that single games go on sale, you know that the team will never sell a similar ticket for a lower price. The price may go UP based on demand, but you will never save money from putting off your ticket purchase.
(This assumes you don't know about StubHub.com.)
Also will the demand/price for tix to the "premium" games place higher demand/price on the non"premium" games because people will feel priced out of those and seek out the lesser games.
Jim Ed Rice in HOF said:
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Guapo, correct me if I'm wrong, but the decreasing part of this equalition doesn't usually happen, right?
edit: beaten to it, sorta, by Hriniak
HriniakPosterChild said:
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Also fans shouldn't think that decreasing value should ever mean below face value should they?
yeah, GM SRO will never be below the noon price, which I assume will be $45 plus fees for Tier 1, ,$35 for Tiers 2, 3 and 4, and $30 for Tier 5.YTF said:
But I also don't see a drop even to original face. Say it starts at $45 as my guess for Yankees April. It goes up to $60 since a lot of people will buy at $45. It won't go down to $45 if there's a rain forecast 3 days out. Or even $55
The Twins use both variable and demand-based pricing. The "starting price" for season ticket holders varies based on day/season/opponent. They promise STHs - who already get a discount off face value - that demand pricing will never go below what the ST price was. I've checked; plenty of lousy games have tix dropping to the ST levels. Keep in mind though, that it's the Twins, not the defending world champs.
Another point: demand can vary not just by game but by ticket type or area. So Monster seats might see sky high demand for every game but RF box could drop for midweek April tilts against Houston.
Another point: demand can vary not just by game but by ticket type or area. So Monster seats might see sky high demand for every game but RF box could drop for midweek April tilts against Houston.
Will all the April Monster seats be available for sale on Tuesday, or will some seats be held (ie supply constrained) for sale, Wed, Thurs. etc. to skew the outcome?
HriniakPosterChild said:
There has to be some sort of standard that this is going to be set to. Call it an opening price if you like, but I'm pretty confident that the decreases don't fall below that.
YTF said:
surely it doesn't, but with another tool to achieve the same ends, it's likely to help.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
I have not seen prices decrease when other teams have done it, but I haven't followed it super closely either. When Rose was healthy a couple of years ago, the bulls had nosebleed seats that started at around $65, and increased all the way to $200 when they were almost sold out. The prices from ticketmaster were more than stubhub or any broker, but it seemed to work well for them, and we never saw the media even pick up on it.
To those who seem Ok with this method of selling tickets, how would you feel if you're local hardware store used similar pricing of goods such as generators, snow shovels, rock salt, flashlights, batteries, candles, etc....as their supplies dwindle during major storms or natural disasters? You good with shelling out $20 for a case of water that is normally $5? $15 for a loaf of bread just because there are now just 20 loaves left in the store?
YTF said:
Hardware stores and supermarkets wouldn't do that because they have competitors who can take and keep their customers with more attractive price structures. It's not some sort of moral dilemma that keeps them from doing it, it's economic.
The Red Sox and other MLB teams are in a unique position of being the only game in their respective towns. They're also very much a luxury item that no one needs to have. It doesn't matter if we are okay with it or not, they can set the prices however they wish. If people want it, they'll pay the prices asked. If not, they'll pass. Going to Fenway isn't as vital as a bottle of water or a loaf of bread.
How would you feel if prices didn't rise as a result of diminished supply, and the lucky few who got there early by anticipating the shortage managed to hoard all the supplies and by the time you got there, there was none for anybody? The store could probably get some more, but with the terrible conditions, it will cost them a lot more to do so. But since everyone would get mad if they temporarily raised their prices, it's not worth it and now there's nothing for anybody.YTF said:
And they're not the only game in town. Between minor, indy and college summer leagues, there are lots of opportunities to watch baseball at a more affordable price (although not so much in Boston proper, which is a market inefficiency that will eventually correct itself, I presume).Red(s)HawksFan said:
Think of MLB as a fancy steak house, and the other leagues as Dennys...
findguapo said:
I'll say. The Giants have the longest active sellout streak in baseball.
YTF said:
I think most people would be opposed. I also think most people would view staples necessary for survival in a different light than they would baseball tickets.
Obviously the difference is that there isn't a shop right next to the hardware store hoarding generators and selling them at big markups.YTF said:
What you are complaining about here is the Sox earning the premium instead of Ace/Stubhub/random ticket hoarder.
This all is happening at the same time as the introduction of tiered ticket pricing, so for 40% of the games you can get in for cheaper than at any time in the last 5 years.
Stores do raise their prices when demand is high, they just call it putting stuff on sale when demand is low.
To me the idea that baseball was the game for the people, got a little tested, when the MFYs started selling box seats for $2500 in 2009. A sage guy once noted that it was a damn shame the cheapest thing in the new Urinal was a homer to right.
I've never been in Monster seats, and I'm going to be in Boston for the April MFY series with my kid, I'm going to try the process and see what happens. I expect to get priced out.by the investment bankers and ticket brokers.
I've never been in Monster seats, and I'm going to be in Boston for the April MFY series with my kid, I'm going to try the process and see what happens. I expect to get priced out.by the investment bankers and ticket brokers.
I understand the frustration that baseball is getting too expensive to attend in person, especially when 20+ years ago it was both easy and inexpensive to get into the park. But I also understand supply and demand and would much prefer the Red Sox get the extra money than Ace Tickets et al, or STH who have season tickets below the individual game price and sell most of them on Stubhub. I don't really understand why it was OK for the ticket brokers to charge different prices for games of different demand, but when the Red Sox try to do the same thing, it's a problem? They are a business too and it's not like they are just sitting there getting rich -- they have put money back into both the team and ballpark.
It would be one thing if they made a certain number of cheap tickets available and you had a fair shot at them, but when that was the case (when tickets were way cheaper than the secondary market), the people whose job it was to buy and re-sell tickets well, did their job and snatched up most of those underpriced tickets, or stood in line for them while "normal" people were at work.
The heart of the problem seems to be the monopoly that MLB has and their resistance to expansion. As long as the Red Sox are the only team for a wealthy metro region of >6 million (and a "Nation" that extends far beyond that), the economics aren't going to lend themselves to cheap tickets, unless the team is bad for an extended period, and no one wants that, either.
I'm liberal, and I'm all for regulation and subsidy in transportation, housing, and other things that people should have a right to, but an MLB ticket is a luxury good. Baseball and the Red Sox are part of our history and tradition, but so is Disneyland, and no one thinks Disney should sell their tickets below what the market will bear.
It would be one thing if they made a certain number of cheap tickets available and you had a fair shot at them, but when that was the case (when tickets were way cheaper than the secondary market), the people whose job it was to buy and re-sell tickets well, did their job and snatched up most of those underpriced tickets, or stood in line for them while "normal" people were at work.
The heart of the problem seems to be the monopoly that MLB has and their resistance to expansion. As long as the Red Sox are the only team for a wealthy metro region of >6 million (and a "Nation" that extends far beyond that), the economics aren't going to lend themselves to cheap tickets, unless the team is bad for an extended period, and no one wants that, either.
I'm liberal, and I'm all for regulation and subsidy in transportation, housing, and other things that people should have a right to, but an MLB ticket is a luxury good. Baseball and the Red Sox are part of our history and tradition, but so is Disneyland, and no one thinks Disney should sell their tickets below what the market will bear.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
You're right going to Fenway isn't as vital and not a staple, but as a desired "need" for many and being the "only game in town" as you put it, places them in the same position as the only store in town that has water, bread or generators available. And we would and should be outraged if they gouged us by raising prices.
NoXInNixon said:
Like this doesn't happen already in respects to hoarding tickets and won't continue? Ace/Stub Hub/etc.... will get in on the early pricing and get out when they have reached their spending limit forcing more of us to pay the inflated prices that might be otherwise be lower we had any sort of ligit chance at face value tix. They will drive this new pricing structure and then bail when they reach their acceptable price limit leaving the rest of us to pay inflated prices to either the Sox or their ticket hoarding partners.
Do you honestly think the Sox or any team are going to make a practice out of selling tickets below face value at the last minute after selling many tickets on a sliding scale that is above face?OttoC said:
They should view it differently and some will. I realize what I've offered isn't a completely fair comparison, but it certainly gives some perspective of where this type of structuring leads.cannonball 1729 said:
Really? Please enlighten me as I totally missed this. Will the increased demand for these cheaper games drive the pricing to be the same the new structure or are they immune?behindthepen said:
Really? I work in retail and this IS NOT how it works. Your equation is only partially correct. If demand is high and supply is plentiful you can easily price yourself out of the market. If you are talking about the cost of fruits and veggies/meat/milk etc.... during a drought or some other situation that causes a less than normal harvest, then yes. Supplies are low due to nature and the farmers will raise prices hoping to recoup losses and the stores will pass that increase along. Stuff is put on sale when we can get deals and breaks from the manufacturers. More often than not it is the manufacturer/supplier that determines the price that we set based on a certain margin that we hope to maintain. Fenway Park capacity will be the same for every game with the exception of the difference for day vs. night games. The supply will always be the same.judyb said:
I overstated that a little. 20% of the games are at the new higher average price for 2014, 20% are at last year's price and 20% are at the lowest price.
There are 5 pricing tiers for regular season games this year. So for example, the single game price for my bleacher seats used to be $28, and this year it's $20/28/30/32/40. 16 games each except for Tier 3, which has 17 games. So the cheapest Tier is the same as in 2003/4 for those same seats. The discounts vary through the park , with the Tier 5 discount about 19% in the Field Box vs. the 33% in the Bleachers.
Does this guarantee they won't dynamically price in the future? Of course not. But for the time being, the end prices are much closer to reality, so there is much less of an incentive to tinker.
There are 5 pricing tiers for regular season games this year. So for example, the single game price for my bleacher seats used to be $28, and this year it's $20/28/30/32/40. 16 games each except for Tier 3, which has 17 games. So the cheapest Tier is the same as in 2003/4 for those same seats. The discounts vary through the park , with the Tier 5 discount about 19% in the Field Box vs. the 33% in the Bleachers.
Does this guarantee they won't dynamically price in the future? Of course not. But for the time being, the end prices are much closer to reality, so there is much less of an incentive to tinker.
behindthepen said:
Thanks for this. The skeptic (and realist) in me suspects that we'll never know when the Sox set or determine that there is a "demand" forcing the prices to increase and I'm guessing that the pricing structure within certain sections may change as well. Lets use the bleachers as an example. Once tix become "in demand" will the seats closest to the bullpen be priced higher than those further up. I'm aware that there are already two pricing structures for the bleachers (at least there used to be), but will this change with "demand' in stages the further you get from the bullpen to the Dunkin' Donuts section?
I would feel great about this. I wish more stores did it.YTF said:
Pricing based on supply and demand works much better than a fixed price whether we're talking about game tickets or rock salt.
Your hypothetical would be a lot better than the situation now, which is everything being sold out. If I go to the store during a snowstorm, I know they are going to be sold out of ice melt. It would be a lot better if I at least had the option to buy some for $20 or $30. Instead of not being able to get any at all, which happened to me during a recent storm.
Would it be better? Yes you would have the option, but would you be happy to pay $20-$30 for a $5 item that you needed or would you feel as though you had been fucked over? I'll offer another comp and again we ARE talking needs rather than desires, but take the recent shortage of wood pellets. I have heard of cases of limiting quantities that folks can buy in an effort to be fair to those in need, but I haven't heard of retailers raising prices. Not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not aware of it in my location.
Joe Sixpack said:
I agree. I recently experienced this - after the storm that hit Boston @ a week before Christmas I tried to buy some rock salt. Out of stock everywhere I could get to. I would have been happy to pay a hefty premium to get just 1 bag. I would have considered that a penalty for not having a little more foresight.