This essay gives a broad overview
about the marketing theory behind the term ‘strategy’ and describes why and how
strategies are developed and used. Finally it gives an overview about three
common ticketing strategy approaches used by professional sports clubs nowadays.
In my post from the 28th
October I identified three reasons why on-site spectators are crucial for every
sport club. In addition to these reasons, Drayer et al. (2012: 184) argue that
facts like increasing revenue needs, through for instance growing player
salaries and operational expenses, and latest technological developments force
sport marketers to seek for more effective ticketing strategies in order to
meet the organisations’ needs.
Generally speaking a strategy
could be defined as “a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or
overall aim” (Oxford 2014). Although the sport business is characterised
through certain particularities and generic marketing measures cannot be simply
adopted without adapting them, it is worth considering the not sport related
marketing theory at this point in order to provide a basic theoretical
foundation. According to Palmer (2007: 23) a successful marketing management
process consists of the four fundamental stages analysis, planning,
implementation and control, whereat the planning stage comprises the
development of a strategy based on the specific circumstances identified during
the analysis stage. It is also generally acknowledged that, event though there
are particular situations that require specific marketing strategies like for
example the introduction of a new product, an on-going implementation of
marketing measures is crucial for an organisation in order to reach its
objectives on a permanent basis (Hooley et al. 2004: 44-47; Palmer 2007: 23;
Jobber & Ellis-Chadwick 2013: 54-58).
When it comes to selling tickets,
the sport related literature agrees on the perception that there is a wide
array of strategies and tactics that could be used to pursue ticketing
objectives. However, there is also accordance about the fact that a ticketing
strategy is never a ‘one size fits all’ model. Instead a customised approach,
which considers the specific circumstances of the particular organisation, is
required (Irwin et al. 2008: 88-91; Meir & Arthur 2007: 322/323; Fullerton
2010: 4/523; Lee & Kang 2011; Rishe & Mondello 2003). Nevertheless
there are, as listed below, several acknowledged basic practices, which are
nowadays considered to be expedient.
According to basic marketing
theories, a strategy is always linked to particular objectives, defined during
the analysis and the planning stage, which are again linked to the corporate
objectives of the overall organisation (Rowley 1997; Meir & Arthur 2007:
326; Shilbury et al. 2009: 35). For sport clubs this circumstance becomes
obvious when comparing the objectives of the profit orientated franchise clubs
in most North American Major Leagues with the not-for-profit approach in, for
instance, German basketball (Dietl et al. 2011). Whether a club follows the
objective of revenue maximisation or increasing the attendance (Lee & Kang
2011), the overall purpose of developing a (ticketing) strategy is to gain a
competitive advantage towards direct and indirect competitors (Schwarz &
Hunter 2008: 9; Shilbury et al. 2009: 35). This is mainly achieved through
adapting an organisation’s marketing mix (4 Ps, respectively 7 Ps) to the
specific needs of the customers (Palmer 2004: 19).
Although all parts of the
marketing mix are important and should not be neglected, the ‘Price’ element
could be considered as the most crucial one when it comes to ticketing
strategies (Lee & Kang 2011; Drayer et al. 2012; Shapiro & Drayer 2014;
Irwin et al. 2008: 89; Fullerton 2010: 523). One major reason for that is the
fact that Price is the only element of the marketing mix which actually
generates revenue (Kotler & Armstrong 2004; Clowes & Clements 2003) as
well as the fact that price significantly influences the decision making of
customers, as described later in this passage.
When it comes to ticketing
strategies, broadly defined it could be distinguished between four different
ticketing strategy approaches, which also demonstrate the development over time
from a comparable simple approach right up to complex strategies, based on
latest marketing insights.
The first and most simple
strategy is based on a ‘one size fits all’ concept where clubs charge the same
price for every ticket and every game throughout the whole season (Drayer et
al. 2012: 184).
The seconds approach alters this
strategy and is also known under the terminology ‘discriminatory ticket
pricing’. It mainly comprises different prices for different seat categories
(e.g. standing stands versus courtside seats) and different customer segments,
such as discounts for students and children (Fullerton 2010: 526; Meir &
Arthur 2007: 333; Rishe & Mondello 2003: 73; Drayer et al. 2012: 184).
The third approach is called
‘Variable Pricing’ (hereinafter known as VP) and means “selling a seat for
different prices depending upon timing or the opponent” (Fullerton 2010: 527).
This strategy takes factors like demand and attractiveness of the game into
account and aims primarily on maximising the attendance at low-demand games and
increasing the revenue at more popular ones (Drayer et al. 2012: 188; King
2002; Drayer & Shapiro 2011; Mullin et al. 2007: 227). Commonly a VP
strategy divides the totality of games per season into two or three categories,
each representing teams with the same projected attractiveness and demand
(Clowes & Clements 2003: 116). Timing is the second major factor the
strategy takes into account. Because different times and dates, for instance
weekdays versus weekends or public holidays, create different demands,
different prices for peak and off-peak games seem to be advisable (Blakey 2011:
86). According to Cameron (2002) the two requirements for a successful
implementation of a VP strategy are to keep accurate transaction records and to
consider the interests of season tickets holders.
The fourth and most complex
approach develops the aforementioned VP strategy further and is known as
‘Dynamic Ticket Pricing’ (hereinafter known as DTP). In 2009 the San Francisco
Giants (Major League Baseball) became the first professional sports team which
introduced a purely DTP based strategy. Beside the aforementioned timing and
opponent, the DTP considers numerous internal and external factors as for
instance player performances or even the weather. By using a special DTP
technology, clubs can set and adapt ticket prices in real time which allows
them to quickly react to demand changes and achieve both, revenue and
attendance maximisation objectives (Drayer et al. 2012; Shapiro & Drayer
2014; Rishe 2012). Although DTP, which originally comes from the airline and
hotel industry, is nowadays successfully established at some primarily North
American sports clubs, Drayer et al. (2012) emphasise the challenges and risks
associated with the implementation of such a strategy. Due to missing know-how
and technology developed for the specifics of
the European market, as well as the lack of required relevant customer
information and empirical values at most clubs, considering a DTP strategy for
the case of any professional club in Germany seems not to be expedient at this
point.
The circumstance that most clubs
already altered their ticket prices based on different seat categories and
customer segments, as well as the fact that the DTP approach is not effective
viable at this point, shifts the focus upon a VP strategy. Researches prove
that there are several sport leagues that already implemented the VP approach
successfully, including some clubs of the football Premier League (Clowes &
Clements 2003), the National Football League (Rishe & Mondello 2003), some
clubs of the Major League Baseball (King 2002), and in several college sports
(Mullin et al. 2007: 228) to name but a few. In near future hopefully some more
will follow!
A list of references and
literature used in this essay is available upon request.