Capacity Matters

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 9, 2008 1:07 PM EDT

Don’t be surprised when the Rays announce a record high capacity filled percentage later this season. Sure, crowds will presumably be bigger, assuming the Rays continue on a decent pace, but more due to the official capacity number being dropped for the second consecutive season.

In 2006 the Rays drew over 40,000 fans on opening day and last year right around 38,500. Under the capacity numbers both constituted a complete sellout; however the team has lowered the number to just around 36,000, knocking off a pesky 2,000 seats since mid-season last year.

Take a quick look at the capacity filled percentage for each of the past three seasons:

Year	ATT/G	"Full"	Cap%
2005	14,095	40,000	35.24
2006	16,901	40,000	42.25
2007	17,131	38,500	44.50

A 9% increase in capacity filled since taking over is nothing to hang your head in disgust about, and especially considering the team hasn’t made vast increases in standing or winning gains the attendance could’ve easily slid off. Now let’s project the team wins enough to raise overall attendance by 2% based on the 36,000 number.

Year	ATT/G	"Full"	Cap%
2007	17,131	38,500	44.50
2008	18,211	36,000	50.59

We get a projected 6% jump in filled capacity, which is simply mind blowing. We’re not talking about a World Series contender either, but simply just a competitive enough team to add around 87,000 fans in one season.

Here’s the kicker; the organization has taken steps to ensure that extra fans will attend per game. Let’s start with the removal of free parking for non-carpooling attendees. How many people will simply round up three others to ride with instead of paying the parking fee? Families of four aren’t going to stop attending, they’ll still get in free, but the USF students are a different story.

How does this effect anything? Take the new stadium, when the season ends the team can announce they had 60% of the seats filled this year, a new high that suggests fans are starting to really latch onto the home team. "Our attendance per game rose by nearly 1,000 people." Or "Our filled capacity rose from 44% to 51% this year." Which is more impressive, and perhaps misleading, to the voting public?

I’m hardly suggesting that the Rays are the only team to ever skew the numbers slightly, and you have to admire them for doing so in such an astute manner, but there’s another side to this and that would be the potential to raise ticket prices next year. Simple supply/demand economics, with fewer seats available the team can raise ticket prices slightly and presumably maintain a good market. As the competitive level of the team rises the prices will as well until moving into the new ballpark where capacity will be roughly 34,000. Add in attractions like the waterfront, a winning team, and the always popular new park feel, and ticket prices could definitely see quite a hike.

Of course we’re looking quite a bit in advance, but something as seemingly insignificant as lowering full capacity by 2,000 seats can simply be a phase of posturing for down the road price rises.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm Confused

Where are you getting the 20, 731 number from?

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 9, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions

Estimation based on a win adding 2% more attendance

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." - Robert S. Weider

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 9, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Let my double check my figures

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." - Robert S. Weider

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 9, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Either way

the decreased capacity definitely makes a big difference in capacity percentage. I do worry quite a bit that I will be priced out of my current seating catergory if they open their new stadium, with its reduced capacity.

At the same time, I must say that when the Trop is "full" it is never staffed/operated as such. The result is long lines at the restrooms (many of which were closed!!) and even longer waits for food and drink, like last night.

In a perfect world, I'd like them to hire more staff for their peak games. However, since I know that decision doesn't make business sense (at least not until the fans REALLY show up), I don't mind them capping attendance at a level that they are able to handle.

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 9, 2008 2:45 PM EDT reply actions

Fuzzy math

The problem isn't with how you figured the increase in attendance. The problem is that your predicted increase is far more than 45 fans/game. In fact, it is almost exactly 81 times more than 45. Your numbers listed there for attendance (17,131 last year and 20,731 this year) were already PER GAME (ATT/G) and shouldn't have been divided by 81 again.

by StephenSikes on Apr 9, 2008 4:44 PM EDT reply actions

That seems to be the error

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." - Robert S. Weider

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 9, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions

For an economist

your math, or at least the way you verbalize it, can get pretty sloppy.

That said, you're projecting an over 20% increase in attendance. I don't disagree with the possibility at all - "plenty of good seats available" - and that should be even more impressive than measuring performance vs. capacity, etc. That's just number mumbo jumbo - tainted by the reduced capacity figure - versus the simple fact of more butts in the seats.

What's the point in all this - the selling of the new stadium or the orgs ability to raise prices? The former seems more important - and more difficult in the face of recession - and the latter isn't helped much by the economy either. With so many seats still available, the org should be moderate in their approach on pricing. The significant revenue gain from a 20% attendance increase, and the resulting positive vibe, along with continued strong revenue sharing receipts, should get them through another season very comfortably.

Payroll growth is likely to be more moderate next year depending on free agent activity (maybe more pen, bench help), with coming prospects to fill most holes and still a limited number of arbs - Kaz, Jax, Glover & Dohmann (?), Navy, Bartlett, Gomes. 3 or 4 of them could be replaced by minors guys near the min.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 9, 2008 6:19 PM EDT reply actions

Okay all the numbers have been fixed

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." - Robert S. Weider

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 9, 2008 6:20 PM EDT reply actions

But what happened to the actual increase?

I mean, any number is a guess. Using your formula of a 2% attendance increase per win - not that I consider that a given - you've only bumped attendance 6%. So you're expecting 69 wins?

Basically, what's it gonna take to get folks down there to go to a game? Tonight's attendance was 12,106. It's a midweek game, kids are still in school, etc., etc. Probably going to take some winning. Pena hitting 46 dingers barely moved the needle last year - or would it have been even worse?

I have my doubts about any fast resolution on the stadium deal - admittedly I'm not paying close attention to the details - but given the Marlins struggles and the state of the economy I can't see the State of Florida moving quickly to help, so the main thrust better be local. That's what got it done in Miami.

But the promotional approach has to focus on this being the best Rays team - build some momentum, encourage people to get in on the ground floor. Maybe some season and ticket package price grandfathering to get folks in now and save later by avoiding future price increases. If the economy continues to wallow, signifciant gains will be harder to achieve unless the team goes through the roof. Get that attendance over 20K per and you've got something to talk about!

Now that you've changed the attendance figures, a 6% jump in capacity filled (70% due to an arbitrary capacity reduction) isn't all that impressive. I still can't get my head around how an absolute 6% attendance increase in a 6.5% "smaller" capacity still results in only a 6% "filled capacity" increase. But to me the power of the numbers is gone, especially if presented in terms like filled capacity. Simply put, the Rays will need to show signicant (double digit) improvement in attendance to either help the stadium bid or raise prices. This is possible - an increase of 1,800 per game. There's plenty of places to sit.

Maybe they need a new promotional slogan. "Come see a BJ"?

by nyyfaninlaaland on Apr 10, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions

Fair points

1. The Rays do recognize that the State of Florida isn't going to be helping them with their project anytime soon. That is why they dropped a request for a $30 million in sales tax revenue made on-site. They recognized that in a year with a $3 billion budget deficit, when Medicare benefits, per pupil spending, and higher ed funding are being slashed left and right by the Florida Legislature, that their $30 million request wasn't going to fly, and was unlikely to anytime soon with budget deficits as far as the eye can see on the horizon. They didn't want this to slow down their plans, so they scrapped it.

2. I agree with you completely in regards to "getting people in on the ground floor". The ticket price grandfathering that you speak of sounds very similar to a drive that the Bucs did when Malcom Glazer took over the team in 1995. It was the successful result of this drive that helped ensure the passage of the Community Investment Tax in 1996 by something like four percentage points at the ballot box. By proving that the underlying fan support was there for the proposal to be viable, the drive was a tremendous success. I absolutely agree that something similar has to be done in St. Pete.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 10, 2008 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions