[Goose]

However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

"Maybe" isn't quite good enough. I just want to see the predictive model that the AD used to decide to do this. The Stanford fan base, as you point out, is much different than the fan base for other PAC-12 schools, as probably all the fan bases are from each other. If Stanford can raise prices and that actually brings in more revenue, that would be good. However, the opposite could also happen. I am suggesting that the fan base would respond better if there was a model presented showing how much each year they expect to make, and each year to show us how that model worked. They don't have to do this, for sure. But it would be nice to see, because I, for one, am not convinced that it exists.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

Or, maybe the letter is what the department believes for no good reason. That is my guess. Yes, when you raise prices, you expect to lose customers. But you hopefully have made some study into how many you will lose, and if you lose more than expected, you can re-think your prices. However, if you just guessed it wouldn't be too many, or relied on what happened at, say Texas, as a guide, quite possibly you will actually lose revenue. Then, many organizations choose to raise prices again, because revenue is down, creating a negative spiral. Does anyone know about a survey, or questionnaire, or anything about ticket prices?
I just want to see some study that shows they aren't just guessing. Granted, you can do all sorts of things to predict the marginal propensity to buy, and still be wrong. However, it is a lot easier to pay a higher price when you have some reason to believe it is justified, especially when "optional" spending is concerned. Right now, it doesn't affect me. I am concerned that if/when it doesn't work, and revenue drops, they will expand the program, not reduce it.

[Goose]

However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

"Maybe" isn't quite good enough. I just want to see the predictive model that the AD used to decide to do this. The Stanford fan base, as you point out, is much different than the fan base for other PAC-12 schools, as probably all the fan bases are from each other. If Stanford can raise prices and that actually brings in more revenue, that would be good. However, the opposite could also happen. I am suggesting that the fan base would respond better if there was a model presented showing how much each year they expect to make, and each year to show us how that model worked. They don't have to do this, for sure. But it would be nice to see, because I, for one, am not convinced that it exists.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

Or, maybe the letter is what the department believes for no good reason. That is my guess. Yes, when you raise prices, you expect to lose customers. But you hopefully have made some study into how many you will lose, and if you lose more than expected, you can re-think your prices. However, if you just guessed it wouldn't be too many, or relied on what happened at, say Texas, as a guide, quite possibly you will actually lose revenue. Then, many organizations choose to raise prices again, because revenue is down, creating a negative spiral. Does anyone know about a survey, or questionnaire, or anything about ticket prices?
I just want to see some study that shows they aren't just guessing. Granted, you can do all sorts of things to predict the marginal propensity to buy, and still be wrong. However, it is a lot easier to pay a higher price when you have some reason to believe it is justified, especially when "optional" spending is concerned. Right now, it doesn't affect me. I am concerned that if/when it doesn't work, and revenue drops, they will expand the program, not reduce it.