A's Attendance

by sslinger on Jul 18, 2005 1:37 PM PDT

It was really frustrating to see the attendance figures over the weekend. Gorgeous weather, a division rival we're chasing, the team has been hot for over a month, and...the best we could do was 25,330? So far this year we are averaging under 25,000/game which will leave us under 2 million if it doesn't improve.

Now, I understand that there are some factors that can't be changed that hurt the ability to capture the coveted "casual fan":

1.    No new stadium (I could go off on a rant about how the Coliseum is still a great place to watch a ballgame but that argument has been hashed about ad nauseum so I'll just leave it as gospel that a shiny new park will get shining happy people in the door)
2.    Losing stars - people who only barely pay attention, and read Ratto, think that by losing Giambi, Tejada, Hudson and Mulder means the team is not worth watching, and starting slow seemed to confirm this
3.    No flagship radio station beating the drums for the team 24-7

Given these factors, and with the Giants as competition for the casual fan in the market (with 1&3 covered), it is an uphill battle to be sure. But it still galls me to see so many empty seats for a key series to start the second half of the season.

So, as there are a lot of smart people on this site, let's weigh in on how the A's get more butts in the seats? Is it marketing? (They have some cute ads, but the whole "A's Brand" thing goes nowhere. Giving away cars isn't really doing anything either.) Direct sales in the community? Better use of the internet? Guerilla AN marketing blitz? (No, not a rally gorilla.)

Or, should I just relax and enjoy the short beer (and bathroom) lines, put my trust in Billy and Lew that they'll get a new stadium in place HERE and secure a strong media deal, and know that some treasures are best shared by the few rather than the many?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It'll get better

as the A's continue to win games. We don't have the luxury of having a stadium that draws people--it has to be the team. As people catch on to the A's continued success, they'll start to show up

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -- Gil Meche

by Alien @ Athletics Nation on Jul 18, 2005 1:44 PM PDT reply actions

I'd like to think so

But when you look at the home schedule, with teams like CLE, DET, and KC coming in, the only real "draw" series is LAA until the Yanks in the beginning of Sep. MIN might draw some crowds if we're close in the WC chase, and some might come to see Miggy when the O's come to town, but its hard to envision big crowds until September if they're still in the race.

by sslinger on Jul 18, 2005 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't forget all the defectors

From the sinking ship across the Bay. I hear they have some beer money to bring with them too.

I'm not convinced that bigger crowds necessarily translate into bigger payroll. I think Schott and Co. had more wiggle room in the finances than they let on to, but when attendance was up, he just pocketed the profits. Where does it say that the owners have an obligation to increase payroll when revenue increases?

I think the biggest problem the A's have is an image problem. I was in an ESPN store in Orlando last week and they had caps from about half the teams in MLB, but the A's were not among them. They had KC and Colorado, for cryin' out loud! So what's the problem? The A's are snubbed by national media, and without that national recognition, it makes it more difficult to get larger Corporate sponsorship (big $$) and national merchandising revenue.

I don't think Lew Wolff would care if 10 people showed up to a game if he was getting the kind of merchandising revenue the Red Sox and Yankees were getting.

"I don't care what anyone calls it as long as the umpires call it a strike." ~ Rich Harden, on his "Spluckle Ball"

by almostreggie on Jul 18, 2005 1:54 PM PDT reply actions

the A's passed one million in attendance

some weeks back. They typically get better attendance in the second half of the season, especially if they are contending.

So I wouldn't lose hope just yet. They will doubtless top 2 million, as they usually do.

by OaklandSi on Jul 18, 2005 2:02 PM PDT reply actions

I think it would help

if they used moneyball as a selling point. Even though Beane isn't exactly thrilled with the success it has had, it's certainly the most noteable aspect of the A's from a casual fan's point of view.

by tblazrdude on Jul 18, 2005 2:09 PM PDT reply actions

notable, yes... exciting, maybe not

I'm continually amazed when I talk to A's fans and they tell me they haven't read the book. The fans on this site are much more into the Moneyball thing than the run of the mill A's fan, and I really don't think the idea of the book is one that's going to create a lot of new baseball fans. I loved the book, but I was already an A's fan.

by Brian in 317 on Jul 18, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Frustrating, I know

I hate that the Giants can get 30,000 on a rainy day against the Padres and the A's can't draw with them facing a good team like the rangers. The Giants pick up quality free agents like a particular one in 1992 and they draw,fortunately the A's have young up and comers who either come from trade which no one really hears about or from the whole farm system, so case in point it is homeruns that get people in seats and unfotunately the A's do not have that 40 HR hitter anymore, it could be in Crosby but that will be another 2 years. So my point is that the A's do not have a player who wooo's anybody, it is better to have a team effort than the whole spotlight on one player.

You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club wont be worth a dime.-Babe Ruth

by doublehustle22 on Jul 18, 2005 2:14 PM PDT reply actions

uh what?

2000 $32.1 million
2001 $33.8 million
2002 $40.0 million
2003 $50.2 million
2004 $59.4 million
2005 $55.4 million

The payroll went up every year. Not sure where you get the idea Schott & Co. pocketed money whenever revenue increased. Sure, they made money, but not as much as some think, and not a little as they said.

One point on the 2005 payroll. I still believe the real budget is closer to the 2004 payroll. It was reduced this year for a couple reasons.

There was the possibility that the A's would be really bad and attendance would suffer.
If attendance didn't suffer, that $4 million in the budget is available to sign extensions for 2006 onward. As it turns out Harden, Crosby plus an expected extension of Zito will be getting that money. Kotsay is getting paid almost exactly the same so his extension is a wash for the budget.
The money is also available for mid season trades, and has been dipped into in some small wayfor the Payton and Kennedy trades.

by Donner on Jul 18, 2005 3:02 PM PDT reply actions

Rangers

The A's have never drawn well when the Rangers are in town because everyone thinks the Rangers don't have that marquis player that everyone wants to see (i.e., A-Rod, Jeter, etc.). Soriano & Texeira are two very good players I would want to see!

As the A's continue to play like they are, they will easily draw over 2 million, and the attendance should be over 35,000+ on the weekends.

by Fongpay on Jul 18, 2005 3:07 PM PDT reply actions

I agree with most of the assessment here...

If the A's continue to win and stay in the playoff race, the stadium will fill up again. Especially with the Giants suffering. Now, if we get 20k fans to a Sunday afternoon game in September with a playoff spot on the line, then I'll be worried. Right now, we're still rebuilding our image after that horrific May that scared away a lot of fans. They'll come back.

Oh, and the A's will never get good national media attention until they get their payroll over 80 million (at least). I say that because the media follows the stars. If we had the money to sign a Carlos Beltran or a Vlad Guerrero, then ESPN would carry us much more often. Look at the Angels...no one cared about them until they bumped their payroll up to Dodger level and signed Vlad. Now they're a favorite. And since I don't see the A's doing this, we may have to live without the good media exposure nationally.

But if we could get some more local media attention, which could come with more winning coupled with more Giants losing, it could help us get the local sponsors and more local money, which would be a good help too...

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." ~Rogers Hornsby

by ZeroIndulgence on Jul 18, 2005 4:40 PM PDT reply actions

A new ballpark

OK, it's a little off-topic. Estimates I've seen by guys who do this sort of thing for a living are that a new ballpark adds $35-$40 million A YEAR in revenue for at least five years, all other things being the same. Now you know why every owner wants one. Now you know why it is imperative for the A's to get one. Now you know why the A's will play wherever they have to get one.

by rsquared on Jul 18, 2005 9:57 PM PDT reply actions

Very True

The whole attendance thing kills me too, but it is sort of a mixed blessing. Not to say that the A's don't need an attendance boost, because they do. (How else are they going to pay for Kendall's salary?) I just wanted to say that on the flip side, less people at a game can be good too.
I'm also a huge Cal Bears football fan. A few years ago, when we went 1-10, there was no one at the home games. It was great! We got to spread out, sit wherever we wanted, and enjoy the company of the true blue fans. Now that the Bears are a winning team, suddenly they've become cool. I don't look forward to this year's season because I know that the stadium will be so packed, I can't move to get a drink or use the restroom, and a lot of the new faces will be "bandwagon" jumpers who know almost nothing about the game or the team.
So enjoy the company of the true A's fans that are there now because if attendance increases, you may end up with annoying fangirls taking about Bobby Crosby's ass sitting to your left and right.

by athleticsjunkie44 on Jul 19, 2005 9:37 AM PDT reply actions

A's attendance - My two cents

Attendance is like wins. You can't get enough of either. The more wins you get, the more tickets you will sell. Your casual observation is correct. Attendance IS down from last year.

BUT

The one thing I have noticed at the games I have gone to, is : Even though the crowds are smaller, they are better crowds. There are not as many (key phrase, AS MANY) of the rowdy, rude, obnoxious jackasses there were last year. I have been a season ticket holder for (let's see... 1984- present, that makes....) oh heck, a LOT of years, and the crowds of recent years have been getting steadily worse. Not everyone, but enough to give everyone else a bad reputation.
In the 1980's, the crowds tended to be pretty rowdy.
In 1990, the year after the A's won the world Series, they had crowds the likes of which most of you who less than 25 or 30 years old have never seen. AND they were one big happy family.
In the new millenium, that is when the (for lackof a better term) "RAIDER NATION" mentality took hold. (Boy, am I ever going to get hate mail for that one!) Sometimes the truth hurts. And the bottomline is this:

Attendance is down, but so is the rowdiness and the idoicy level. Now,the Coleseuim is a more enjoyable place to go.

No matter how importnat the game, always remember to have some fun.

by larryh on Aug 6, 2005 8:58 AM PDT reply actions