Cards, Brewers showing the Royals a blueprint

Good article from Mellinger and a topic I've been meaning to write up for a while. There was/is a lot of debate about KC bringing up prospects in anticipation of a competitive 2012. However many feel 2013 is the first realistic year the Royals can compete.

What's lost in this argument at times, and what Mellinger brings up, is the marketing aspect of these decisions. Baseball, after all, is a business. The promotions of various prospects and relative late season success seemed to cause a jump in attendance.

Here's the thing...

A sustained jump in attendance can be directly correlated to the size of the payroll. Having a full year (2012) of young, exciting prospects could lead to enough ticket sales to afford better FAs in 2013 (or contract extensions).

Clearly, it doesn't mean a team should rush prospects just to increase attendance. And ultimately, winning is going to be more important for long-term attendance gains. But it is something to think about, especially in borderline cases of when a player should be called up.

7 months ago jsolo 30 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A sustained jump in attendance can be directly correlated to the size of the payroll. Having a full year (2012) of young, exciting prospects could lead to enough ticket sales to afford better FAs in 2013 (or contract extensions).

I can’t imagine its much better free agents. I think even a huge bump in attendance is only worth $2 mill or so, or am I wrong? Plus you have to consider free agent contracts are typically several years out, so you’d have to bank on attendance being sustained, which I don’t know this front office wants to make that gamble.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 19, 2011 11:09 AM EDT reply actions

Admittedly I haven't done the math

I don’t have any idea what kind of bump in attendance to expect and how much that translates into dollars. Plus, there’s the indirect stuff like merchandise sales that could go up based on having more popular players (who could be around for longer than normal).

Mellinger does imply it’s the larger attendance numbers leading to the Cards and Brewers increased payroll, but that may be a very simplified way of looking at it.

by jsolo on Oct 19, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions

The Royals drew 1,724,450 this season

If you had a huge increase in 2012, say to around 2,200,000, that would be another 500,000 fans conservatively spending, what, about $40 each (ticket, prorated share of a parking fee, concessions, etc.). That’s another $20,000,000 in revenue. Back out about $1-2 million in cost of the additional food and perhaps additional salary/admin costs for the increased attendance. That would cover a pretty significant FA for a couple years.

However, like you said, in order to truly go out and get that huge impact FA (say an ace SP), you’d have to count on the sustained attendance (at the 2.2M level) for the next five years or so. That’s still a gamble. I can’t see a guy like Glass authorizing that kind of a payroll bump on the hope that on-field success can keep attendance at that level five years later.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Oct 19, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

thatd be a huge jump in attendance that is unlikely to happen unless the royals are winning

the royals haven’t seen 27K a game show up since 1990. if the royals start out hot and stay in contention through the all star break, its possible. but thats the only way 6000 more people a night are coming to the K.

by BeauJackson on Oct 19, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

My instinct is that sustaining a .500 record all year would bring in 25,000

The Royals were selling out a lot of games in 2003 when they started hot, and with all the talk about this team, I think people are more willing to believe.

Plus, the Royals benefit from the Chiefs being awful, the NBA cancelling its season, and, after next year, MU leaving the Big 12. All of those are rivals for entertainment dollars.

by KSinDC on Oct 19, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

i think there is genuine excitement about the direction of the team

the attendance numbers in september were a good sign. if they are winning, i think 25K would be realistic. that would bring in 5.8M in new ticket revenue which can’t hurt. i wonder if the royals are raising ticket prices for 2012.

by BeauJackson on Oct 19, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions

What is a fair number for net profit to the Royals for each additional fan?

Looks like you’re using $19/ticket?

by KSinDC on Oct 19, 2011 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

It's the fan cost index

That combines the average ticket cost with parking, concessions, souvenirs, etc. I think in 2010 it broke out to $40 a person (sometimes it is presented as cost for a family of four).

I have tried to use that to figure out how attendance corresponds to revenue, and I have heard Soren Petro try to do it as well. The Royals would probably say that method is nowhere close to accurate, and maybe they’re right. But when Dayton opened the door with his statement about a 55-60mil maximum sustainable payroll and then backtracked to saying increased attendance(among other factors) could push that to 80mil, he would have to expect that media and fans would try to figure out that correlation.

by thelaundry on Oct 19, 2011 3:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

I definitely think it makes sense to gross up the revenue to include something for parking and concesions

And while it’s mostly a fixed cost business, there are some additional labor and food costs, as sweep_the_leg noted above.

by KSinDC on Oct 19, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah, i was using the average ticket price

i’m not a big fan of the family of four model that is used. that model includes a family of four buying two programs and two hats at a game. maybe thats the easiest way to boil it down, as some fans will buy 3 beers for $25 bucks, some will eat dinner for $20 bucks, so maybe it balances out. it probably works somehow.

by BeauJackson on Oct 19, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

We're not the only ones who pay attention to this

In St. Louis it comes up every year that the Cardinals consistently rank higher in MLB attendance than in payroll. I guess the team is supposed to make sure they correspond exactly?

The difference is they are at 3 million plus attendance every year. With the Royals you can’t discuss revenue without bringing up revenue sharing, and the FO gets prickly about that subject.

by thelaundry on Oct 19, 2011 3:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

And the attendance bump usually lags a year

The team may be good next year, but that probably won’t be fully reflected in attendance til 2013, when people have a chance to buy season tickets. You can’t expect 10,000 walk ups every night in a city this size.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 19, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure that the attendance bump will lag

Between good turnout already this summer, increased season ticket packages ahead of the All-Star Game, and a lack of other entertainment options if the Chiefs continue sucking, the NBA season is cancelled and local college basketball has a down year, I think the attendance would respond pretty quickly if the team stays in contention from the start.

by KSinDC on Oct 19, 2011 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

These promotions are only going to help attendance for 2012 (full season) if it leads to significantly more wins

Moore has said the team won’t compete until the prospects show up. He’s made it all about prospects (rhetorically, at least). And now a bunch of them are up. Perhaps more will come next year. So expectations have been built up that the Royals can/will/should contend next year. The fanbase expects and requires at least a nearly .500 season. If those expectations aren’t met, I think the fans will leave in droves (not forever, but at least for the short-term).

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2011 11:53 AM EDT reply actions

the only solution

Is 5/60 to Edwin Jackson. —MK

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2011 12:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Do you think Dayton Moore would only give him $12M per season?

Because that is pure —BS

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I know it's supposed to be a snarky comment

But to clarify, it clearly does not make sense to spend a ton on a FA in order to drive up future revenues. There’s obviously a lot of problems with that. Spending big on a FA only makes sense if it works out like it did for the Brewers this year (although they were trades not FAs) and that’s far from a guarantee.

I think most agree 2012 is not the year to spend big on a FA pitcher. And, fortunately, it seems like the FO agrees with this as well. Although, I’m sure they’ll kick the tires on Edwin Jackson at least. A trade is far more likely, but that’s a different argument.

by jsolo on Oct 19, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Did the Royals get a bump in attendance from 2006-2007

When they signed Gil Meche?

(Let’s leave Jose Guillen out of the discussion for now.)

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Oct 19, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I doubt it, but it would be hard to quantify specific reasons even if it were so

Not to mention, the team wasn’t any good… and more than anything that drives ticket sales. But I doubt they signed Meche as a way to boost attendance. DM signed him because he thought the Royals would be competitive within his 5 year contract window.

As far as signing a particular FA just to boost attendance… well there aren’t too many of those types of players anyhow. Pujols? Jeter? Ichiro (in some markets)? Verlander maybe after all the publicity he got this season? Even a guy like Adrian Gonzalez probably wouldn’t cause an attendance spike on his own, all else being equal.

by jsolo on Oct 19, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions