[HisKneeWasDown]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/change-in-stanford-football-season-ticket-renewal-policy-comes-at-a-cost/


Two 45+ year season ticket holders interviewed. One is canceling, the other is consider relocating if there are comparable seats.

I also stumbled into this story about Cal when they charged their seat tax in 2006: http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Kee...532420.php

Check out this quote: "At Stanford, the donors' priority section makes up only about 5 percent of the total seating, which is based on studies of what the market would bear, according to interim Stanford athletic director Bill Walsh."

Matt Wittig (associate AD for development) and I have been exchanging emails trying to set up a phone call to discuss (I've been out of town for the past 2 weeks).

[HisKneeWasDown]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/change-in-stanford-football-season-ticket-renewal-policy-comes-at-a-cost/


Two 45+ year season ticket holders interviewed. One is canceling, the other is consider relocating if there are comparable seats.

I also stumbled into this story about Cal when they charged their seat tax in 2006: http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Kee...532420.php

Check out this quote: "At Stanford, the donors' priority section makes up only about 5 percent of the total seating, which is based on studies of what the market would bear, according to interim Stanford athletic director Bill Walsh."

Matt Wittig (associate AD for development) and I have been exchanging emails trying to set up a phone call to discuss (I've been out of town for the past 2 weeks).

[CowboyIndian]

Apparently, the market actually IS 59ering.

[CowboyIndian]

Apparently, the market actually IS 59ering.

[Farm93]

Apparently, the market actually IS 59ering.

Thought the same thing.  When was Bill Walsh quoted on that 5% estimate?  That would have been no later than 2006.  If Stanford Football in 2006 could have 5% of a 50,000 seat stadium paying a donation premium, I am HIGHLY confident that number is greater than 5% today.  Is it 14%?  We will see.

Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or bear type football program.

FWIW - I didn't know that even lowly SJSU was using this donation model now.  I wonder how many FBS programs did not have donation requirements to sit at the 40 yard line last year?  How many in the FBS Power 5 Conferences?

[Farm93]

Apparently, the market actually IS 59ering.

Thought the same thing.  When was Bill Walsh quoted on that 5% estimate?  That would have been no later than 2006.  If Stanford Football in 2006 could have 5% of a 50,000 seat stadium paying a donation premium, I am HIGHLY confident that number is greater than 5% today.  Is it 14%?  We will see.

Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or bear type football program.

FWIW - I didn't know that even lowly SJSU was using this donation model now.  I wonder how many FBS programs did not have donation requirements to sit at the 40 yard line last year?  How many in the FBS Power 5 Conferences?

[teejers1]

"Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or 59er type football program."

A total crock (and sounds like a flyer of an argument to come, should the team's fortunes wane).

How about a strategy of filling Stanford stadium - which only holds 50K - with a devoted fan base?  Oh yeah . . . that takes too much work, like getting the athletes out into the community and interacting with same.

Or how about dipping into DAPER or the various endowments a bit more.

Regardless, I'm more interested in health of the program.  Soaking those willing to pay a premium (who may or may not show for games, anyway) to cover for soft attendance strikes me as unhealthy longterm. But what do I know?  I'm just a lifelong fan who has seen Stanford Stadium downsize in both capacity and actual attendance.  By a lot.

[teejers1]

"Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or 59er type football program."

A total crock (and sounds like a flyer of an argument to come, should the team's fortunes wane).

How about a strategy of filling Stanford stadium - which only holds 50K - with a devoted fan base?  Oh yeah . . . that takes too much work, like getting the athletes out into the community and interacting with same.

Or how about dipping into DAPER or the various endowments a bit more.

Regardless, I'm more interested in health of the program.  Soaking those willing to pay a premium (who may or may not show for games, anyway) to cover for soft attendance strikes me as unhealthy longterm. But what do I know?  I'm just a lifelong fan who has seen Stanford Stadium downsize in both capacity and actual attendance.  By a lot.

[oldalum]

The DA's priorities are clearly $ > attendance. Don't think that's going to change with griping or stories in the Merc (not clear that the guy who has given up actually understood he might be able to get equivalent seats on the other side).

Given Wilner's recent story in the Merc on the revenue gap between Pac-12 and the SEC/Big 10, I can't say that I blame the DA, even though I don't like it.

[oldalum]

The DA's priorities are clearly $ > attendance. Don't think that's going to change with griping or stories in the Merc (not clear that the guy who has given up actually understood he might be able to get equivalent seats on the other side).

Given Wilner's recent story in the Merc on the revenue gap between Pac-12 and the SEC/Big 10, I can't say that I blame the DA, even though I don't like it.

[CowboyIndian]

The DA's priorities are clearly $ > attendance. I can't say that I blame the DA, even though I don't like it.

When are the indictments coming?

[CowboyIndian]

The DA's priorities are clearly $ > attendance. I can't say that I blame the DA, even though I don't like it.

When are the indictments coming?

[82lsju]

this part of the article makes it sound like the required donation is a way to evict low level donors and replace them with high level donors who may, or may not, already give enough to cover the required donation, if they already give enough then there will be little new revenue......

“Hundreds of accounts every year request to move into those areas that we’re now expanding those seat gifts to, and we have heard from a lot of those folks when we announced the policy and in Day 1 of renewals that are excited that this might finally be the year that they’re finally able to get in there. They’ve been waiting for a long time to do it.

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

[82lsju]

this part of the article makes it sound like the required donation is a way to evict low level donors and replace them with high level donors who may, or may not, already give enough to cover the required donation, if they already give enough then there will be little new revenue......

“Hundreds of accounts every year request to move into those areas that we’re now expanding those seat gifts to, and we have heard from a lot of those folks when we announced the policy and in Day 1 of renewals that are excited that this might finally be the year that they’re finally able to get in there. They’ve been waiting for a long time to do it.

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

[oldalum]

When are the indictments coming?

The indictments are related to the DOA.  ;D

[oldalum]

When are the indictments coming?

The indictments are related to the DOA.  ;D

[Farm93]

this part of the article makes it sound like the required donation is a way to evict low level donors and replace them with high level donors who may, or may not, already give enough to cover the required donation, if they already give enough then there will be little new revenue......

“Hundreds of accounts every year request to move into those areas that we’re now expanding those seat gifts to, and we have heard from a lot of those folks when we announced the policy and in Day 1 of renewals that are excited that this might finally be the year that they’re finally able to get in there. They’ve been waiting for a long time to do it.

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

The Maples lessons are right there.  Don't wait too long.  Get it done in the good times.  Yes it is a revenue maximizing move.  I really doubt these high powered donor types will leave their calendars open for those 5 day TBD kickoff windows.

If attendance maximization were the game, then the seats in stadium would be FREE like we have for so many other sports at Stanford.

[Farm93]

this part of the article makes it sound like the required donation is a way to evict low level donors and replace them with high level donors who may, or may not, already give enough to cover the required donation, if they already give enough then there will be little new revenue......

“Hundreds of accounts every year request to move into those areas that we’re now expanding those seat gifts to, and we have heard from a lot of those folks when we announced the policy and in Day 1 of renewals that are excited that this might finally be the year that they’re finally able to get in there. They’ve been waiting for a long time to do it.

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

The Maples lessons are right there.  Don't wait too long.  Get it done in the good times.  Yes it is a revenue maximizing move.  I really doubt these high powered donor types will leave their calendars open for those 5 day TBD kickoff windows.

If attendance maximization were the game, then the seats in stadium would be FREE like we have for so many other sports at Stanford.

[Snorlax94]

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

I just have to add, that statement is demonstrably false.

They are claiming that there were "a lot of" big donors who wanted those seats but were locked out because they were all taken by longstanding ticket holders.

But anyone who has watched the season ticket page on the gostanford website knows that there were 50-yard-line seats available (with donation) on both the shady and sunny sides for months, which would prove there was absolutely no waiting list of big donors, unless those big donors wanted to sit at the 20-yard-line instead of the 50, or they are defining "big donors" as someone donating less than 1k or 2k, which is simply a false statement when talking about Stanford's donors.

I could believe there was a waiting list for seats between the 20-yard-lines, but there was no waiting at all of "big donors."

I was mildly upset about the expanded mandatory donations, but I am downright pissed when they go talk to a journalist and make statements that are clearly and demonstrably untrue. Stanford, or even its athletics ticketing sales staff, should not be engaging in this bs business of "alternative facts." Next they will be telling us they raised prices because Stanford football games have all been sold out. It is the most sold out stadium in the world.

[Snorlax94]

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

I just have to add, that statement is demonstrably false.

They are claiming that there were "a lot of" big donors who wanted those seats but were locked out because they were all taken by longstanding ticket holders.

But anyone who has watched the season ticket page on the gostanford website knows that there were 50-yard-line seats available (with donation) on both the shady and sunny sides for months, which would prove there was absolutely no waiting list of big donors, unless those big donors wanted to sit at the 20-yard-line instead of the 50, or they are defining "big donors" as someone donating less than 1k or 2k, which is simply a false statement when talking about Stanford's donors.

I could believe there was a waiting list for seats between the 20-yard-lines, but there was no waiting at all of "big donors."

I was mildly upset about the expanded mandatory donations, but I am downright pissed when they go talk to a journalist and make statements that are clearly and demonstrably untrue. Stanford, or even its athletics ticketing sales staff, should not be engaging in this bs business of "alternative facts." Next they will be telling us they raised prices because Stanford football games have all been sold out. It is the most sold out stadium in the world.

[oldalum]

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

I just have to add, that statement is demonstrably false.

I was going to post the same thing. For the center section in the shady side, seats might be tight but a required donation already applies there and is not going up. For the other sections on the shady side, there is always some turnover and you can be sure the "big" donors are going to be served first.

[oldalum]

“And a lot of them are big donors for us, but we just haven’t had availability in that area due to the high renewal rate.”

I just have to add, that statement is demonstrably false.

I was going to post the same thing. For the center section in the shady side, seats might be tight but a required donation already applies there and is not going up. For the other sections on the shady side, there is always some turnover and you can be sure the "big" donors are going to be served first.

[winflop]

According to Buck/Cardinal Club's own data, there are fewer than 5,000 donors PERIOD.  Many of those donors don't live in the Bay Area to begin with.

Also depends on the definition of "big"- maybe that's $500?

Also keep in mind that the 50 yard line sections require larger donations than what is being asked for these other sections, so there are more donors who already fall into that bucket.  And there has been a waitlist to move to the shady side for a long time.

I for one like my sunny side seats and hope my seats to improve next season with this shuffle since I am also an annual donor.  The reality is that with the newer scheduling it doesn't make as much difference as it used to.  I'd say there's probably one game a year where it gets uncomfortably hot on the sunny side, and a cool towel soaked in cold water does the trick.

[winflop]

According to Buck/Cardinal Club's own data, there are fewer than 5,000 donors PERIOD.  Many of those donors don't live in the Bay Area to begin with.

Also depends on the definition of "big"- maybe that's $500?

Also keep in mind that the 50 yard line sections require larger donations than what is being asked for these other sections, so there are more donors who already fall into that bucket.  And there has been a waitlist to move to the shady side for a long time.

I for one like my sunny side seats and hope my seats to improve next season with this shuffle since I am also an annual donor.  The reality is that with the newer scheduling it doesn't make as much difference as it used to.  I'd say there's probably one game a year where it gets uncomfortably hot on the sunny side, and a cool towel soaked in cold water does the trick.

[82lsju]

from the last annual report for 2014-15 (the 2015-16 should be out soon)

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

~6,000 donors
~$12m in donations

so ~$2,000/"average donor"

I would imagine the large donors pull that up, would be interesting to know the median

From the Stanford Football Facebook page last week

DYK we have Season Ticket Members in 43 of 50 states? Let's get going Dakotas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia & Vermont...

which I found mind boggling.

Our tailgate group had a fellow who lived in MN (he now lives in CA) and he was a season ticket holder but he attended 80%+ of home games which I found amazing, I always thought he was an outlier.....

I wonder if some of the "remote" ticket buyers will pass with the new required donations if they don't go to many games

From the Cardboard poll run a short time ago on donating to the AD

No - 22 (44%)
Yes, under $500/year - 11 (22%)
Yes $500-2500 - 12 (24%)
Yes $2500-5000 - 4 (8%)
Yes over $5000 - 1 (2%)

the 28 positive responses are about 0.5% of the total number of donors to the AD

so in our population the median donor is somewhere between $500 and $2500, probably not far above $500, I'll assume $750, and I'll SWAG the average at ~$2,500 (I took the mid-point of each band as the average in that band and also assumed the one over $5000 was actually $20,000)

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=16476.0

I would guess the Cardboard distribution is not too different from the overall AD donor distribution which tells me there are ~10% of donors in the "Big Donor" bucket so of the 6,000 total donors that would be maybe 600 people.  If they buy 4 tickets each that's 2,400 tickets.  There are now going to be ~7,000 seats that require a donation.  It will be interesting to see how many are sold.

I also wonder if they do not sell out if they will backfill with people not paying the required donation. 

Back in the original reseating we were told we could sit in the sunny side upper deck premium section without paying the premium but if the next year (or anytime later) some came along and was willing to pay the premium we would get booted, we choose to sit elsewhere.

[82lsju]

from the last annual report for 2014-15 (the 2015-16 should be out soon)

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

~6,000 donors
~$12m in donations

so ~$2,000/"average donor"

I would imagine the large donors pull that up, would be interesting to know the median

From the Stanford Football Facebook page last week

DYK we have Season Ticket Members in 43 of 50 states? Let's get going Dakotas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia & Vermont...

which I found mind boggling.

Our tailgate group had a fellow who lived in MN (he now lives in CA) and he was a season ticket holder but he attended 80%+ of home games which I found amazing, I always thought he was an outlier.....

I wonder if some of the "remote" ticket buyers will pass with the new required donations if they don't go to many games

From the Cardboard poll run a short time ago on donating to the AD

No - 22 (44%)
Yes, under $500/year - 11 (22%)
Yes $500-2500 - 12 (24%)
Yes $2500-5000 - 4 (8%)
Yes over $5000 - 1 (2%)

the 28 positive responses are about 0.5% of the total number of donors to the AD

so in our population the median donor is somewhere between $500 and $2500, probably not far above $500, I'll assume $750, and I'll SWAG the average at ~$2,500 (I took the mid-point of each band as the average in that band and also assumed the one over $5000 was actually $20,000)

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=16476.0

I would guess the Cardboard distribution is not too different from the overall AD donor distribution which tells me there are ~10% of donors in the "Big Donor" bucket so of the 6,000 total donors that would be maybe 600 people.  If they buy 4 tickets each that's 2,400 tickets.  There are now going to be ~7,000 seats that require a donation.  It will be interesting to see how many are sold.

I also wonder if they do not sell out if they will backfill with people not paying the required donation. 

Back in the original reseating we were told we could sit in the sunny side upper deck premium section without paying the premium but if the next year (or anytime later) some came along and was willing to pay the premium we would get booted, we choose to sit elsewhere.

[Farm93]

My ticket office knowledge is now dated, but a lot of the DAPER comments ring true.

Back when in the old Stanford Stadium with all of those empty seats, allocation problems were still common.  Closer to the 50 was requested by so many donors, but it wasn't possible because Stanford was loyal to renewal rights.  Yes, two seats open here or 4 there, but if you are a donor that wanted 6 or more seats together (for your corporate needs, clients, or whatever) you were completely out of luck.  No way was that going to happen.  You literally needed another block holder to die to then claim their seats.  Oh and BTW inevitably the surviving members of that block would scream bloody murder about sitting there for 20 years, etc.  So even with a death the block often would not open up.

The  donor requirement really allows Stanford to hit the big reset button and get some big donors the blocks of seats they covet.  I also doubt there are 3,000 or more seats in this category, but I believe the AD has solid plans with real demand for the two sections next to the 50s.

FWIW - I think the renewal rights apply to those at the sections on the 50s too.  So the likely new blocks created by the mandate on the 40s will give the AD a place to put new blocks for big donors. 

I believe other schools address this large donor block seat allocation problem by not honoring renewal rights at all.  I can only imagine how those schemes would be received here.  Those athletic programs have a more comprehensive re-shuffling every few years with donations during that prior period determining the ultimate allocation in the best seats. 

Stanford is introducing donation requirements not uncommon in the 90s around college football.  What other top 20 programs are doing would likely break this board.

[Farm93]

My ticket office knowledge is now dated, but a lot of the DAPER comments ring true.

Back when in the old Stanford Stadium with all of those empty seats, allocation problems were still common.  Closer to the 50 was requested by so many donors, but it wasn't possible because Stanford was loyal to renewal rights.  Yes, two seats open here or 4 there, but if you are a donor that wanted 6 or more seats together (for your corporate needs, clients, or whatever) you were completely out of luck.  No way was that going to happen.  You literally needed another block holder to die to then claim their seats.  Oh and BTW inevitably the surviving members of that block would scream bloody murder about sitting there for 20 years, etc.  So even with a death the block often would not open up.

The  donor requirement really allows Stanford to hit the big reset button and get some big donors the blocks of seats they covet.  I also doubt there are 3,000 or more seats in this category, but I believe the AD has solid plans with real demand for the two sections next to the 50s.

FWIW - I think the renewal rights apply to those at the sections on the 50s too.  So the likely new blocks created by the mandate on the 40s will give the AD a place to put new blocks for big donors. 

I believe other schools address this large donor block seat allocation problem by not honoring renewal rights at all.  I can only imagine how those schemes would be received here.  Those athletic programs have a more comprehensive re-shuffling every few years with donations during that prior period determining the ultimate allocation in the best seats. 

Stanford is introducing donation requirements not uncommon in the 90s around college football.  What other top 20 programs are doing would likely break this board.

[CrazedZooChimp]

"Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or 59er type football program."

A total crock (and sounds like a flyer of an argument to come, should the team's fortunes wane).

How about a strategy of filling Stanford stadium - which only holds 50K - with a devoted fan base?  Oh yeah . . . that takes too much work, like getting the athletes out into the community and interacting with same.

Or how about dipping into DAPER or the various endowments a bit more.

Regardless, I'm more interested in health of the program.  Soaking those willing to pay a premium (who may or may not show for games, anyway) to cover for soft attendance strikes me as unhealthy longterm. But what do I know?  I'm just a lifelong fan who has seen Stanford Stadium downsize in both capacity and actual attendance.  By a lot.

How does the donation requirement impact filling the stadium? The sections needing donations were full (or sold out, at least). The parts of the stadium that were empty are the endzones and corners. THOSE PRICES DIDN'T GO UP, EVEN IN THIS, A "GOOD" YEAR! That's almost unheard of in sports. Would you not complain about this if they dropped the end zone prices? If the rich folks wanna pony up and extra couple k, maybe we can make the endzones free?

[CrazedZooChimp]

"Now with Shaw, and the salary requirements for Shaw and his staff, the market will either need to take on those donations or accept a beaver or 59er type football program."

A total crock (and sounds like a flyer of an argument to come, should the team's fortunes wane).

How about a strategy of filling Stanford stadium - which only holds 50K - with a devoted fan base?  Oh yeah . . . that takes too much work, like getting the athletes out into the community and interacting with same.

Or how about dipping into DAPER or the various endowments a bit more.

Regardless, I'm more interested in health of the program.  Soaking those willing to pay a premium (who may or may not show for games, anyway) to cover for soft attendance strikes me as unhealthy longterm. But what do I know?  I'm just a lifelong fan who has seen Stanford Stadium downsize in both capacity and actual attendance.  By a lot.

How does the donation requirement impact filling the stadium? The sections needing donations were full (or sold out, at least). The parts of the stadium that were empty are the endzones and corners. THOSE PRICES DIDN'T GO UP, EVEN IN THIS, A "GOOD" YEAR! That's almost unheard of in sports. Would you not complain about this if they dropped the end zone prices? If the rich folks wanna pony up and extra couple k, maybe we can make the endzones free?

[cctop]

If attendance maximization were the game, then the seats in stadium would be FREE like we have for so many other sports at Stanford.

Actually this isn't true and it has to do with psychology: the more you pay for an item, the more you value it.

If seats were free then fans would arrive even later, leave even earlier, and show up in even lesser numbers for non-marquee opponents.

With the launch of dynamic pricing for single-game seats, I have to imagine the AD has done market studies to determine the price points for each section to very nearly sell out the stadium.  The theoretical ideal price to maximize ticket revenue (and as a byproduct maximize attendance) will have 1 unsold seat remaining at each price level.

[cctop]

If attendance maximization were the game, then the seats in stadium would be FREE like we have for so many other sports at Stanford.

Actually this isn't true and it has to do with psychology: the more you pay for an item, the more you value it.

If seats were free then fans would arrive even later, leave even earlier, and show up in even lesser numbers for non-marquee opponents.

With the launch of dynamic pricing for single-game seats, I have to imagine the AD has done market studies to determine the price points for each section to very nearly sell out the stadium.  The theoretical ideal price to maximize ticket revenue (and as a byproduct maximize attendance) will have 1 unsold seat remaining at each price level.

[teejers1]

CZC, not sure what your question is.  But my fundamental point is this:  the AD believes it needs more $$ from football tickets.  I start with premise that you can attain that goal by either (i) getting more butts in more seats, or (ii) charging more from your bid donors (who may or may not show for games, anyway). 

For the health of the program (i.e., building a loyal fan base is a GOOD thing), my preferred option is (i) - but that takes a lot of work.  So, the AD appears to have taken the easier route - just charge more from the most well-heeled alums.

As for how this affect attendance, we shall see.  And I submit we shall really see this in the next 2 years.  Maybe all will be fine; or maybe this will be another gut shot to already-soft attendance.

[teejers1]

CZC, not sure what your question is.  But my fundamental point is this:  the AD believes it needs more $$ from football tickets.  I start with premise that you can attain that goal by either (i) getting more butts in more seats, or (ii) charging more from your bid donors (who may or may not show for games, anyway). 

For the health of the program (i.e., building a loyal fan base is a GOOD thing), my preferred option is (i) - but that takes a lot of work.  So, the AD appears to have taken the easier route - just charge more from the most well-heeled alums.

As for how this affect attendance, we shall see.  And I submit we shall really see this in the next 2 years.  Maybe all will be fine; or maybe this will be another gut shot to already-soft attendance.

[Leftcoast]

There is no way raising prices will increase already poor attendance.

How many groups on this board alone have either given up their tickets or reduced the number they purchased?  We're not Michigan or Ohio State with a large waiting list for tickets and the ability to piss of loyal fans with impunity. The argument that other programs treat their fans worse implies we are in the same starting position as those other programs. 

This same faulty argument was applied to Stanford basketball.  Has the AD learned nothing from watching the Maples disaster?

[Leftcoast]

There is no way raising prices will increase already poor attendance.

How many groups on this board alone have either given up their tickets or reduced the number they purchased?  We're not Michigan or Ohio State with a large waiting list for tickets and the ability to piss of loyal fans with impunity. The argument that other programs treat their fans worse implies we are in the same starting position as those other programs. 

This same faulty argument was applied to Stanford basketball.  Has the AD learned nothing from watching the Maples disaster?

[jhftb]

[/quote]

Actually this isn't true and it has to do with psychology: the more you pay for an item, the more you value it.

[/quote]

Stanford Football tickets are Veblen goods?

[jhftb]

[/quote]

Actually this isn't true and it has to do with psychology: the more you pay for an item, the more you value it.

[/quote]

Stanford Football tickets are Veblen goods?

[cctop]

Stanford Football tickets are Veblen goods?

No, Veblen goods are ones where demand increases with price.

I'm not talking about demand as much as engagement and follow through.

How many times have you had tickets to a show but when you got home from work you were just too tired and would have skipped it if you hadn't already paid for the tickets?  If you'd gotten the tickets free, you'd have no problem sitting on your couch that evening.

In fact I did that exact thing last week.  Stanford hosted an evening in San Francisco to introduce new president Marc Tessier-Lavigne.  I signed up for tickets a few months ago but by the time the evening rolled around I went to pick up my kid from basketball practice rather than make my wife do it.  You can bet that if they'd charged a nominal amount for the ticket ($10-15) there would be much fewer people signing up but a much higher turnout percentage.

[cctop]

Stanford Football tickets are Veblen goods?

No, Veblen goods are ones where demand increases with price.

I'm not talking about demand as much as engagement and follow through.

How many times have you had tickets to a show but when you got home from work you were just too tired and would have skipped it if you hadn't already paid for the tickets?  If you'd gotten the tickets free, you'd have no problem sitting on your couch that evening.

In fact I did that exact thing last week.  Stanford hosted an evening in San Francisco to introduce new president Marc Tessier-Lavigne.  I signed up for tickets a few months ago but by the time the evening rolled around I went to pick up my kid from basketball practice rather than make my wife do it.  You can bet that if they'd charged a nominal amount for the ticket ($10-15) there would be much fewer people signing up but a much higher turnout percentage.