2014 membership- Target 40,000

[dogwatch]

There's obviously some inside money on us finishing with a bang.
Win all seven games and we should make the finals. After that we only need to win our next four.

One down. Six to go.

 

[Mingo]

I did the ladder predictor with us winning every game and picking who I would consider favourites for all the other games and we still didn't make the finals I think it has us finishing 10th. Think the teams in the 6th-13th bracket have a pretty easy run home.

 

[Trent85]

31,006





518 in ten days not a bad effort

 

[the dog's kennel]

Can someone please change the name of the thread to:

"2014 membership- Target 31,050"?

I'm feeling confident!

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Can someone please change the name of the thread to:

"2014 membership- Target 31,050"?

I'm feeling confident!

31068

 

[_M_16_]

What a solid result. Was probably 2000k more than it was looking at one stage

 

[cleveland]

When can we start the thread 2015 target 40,000

 

[_M_16_]

When can we start the thread 2015 target 40,000

When fans stop being bandwagoners and support the club through good times and low, like Demons and Roos fans did. So pretty much once we start making the top eight we could aha

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When fans stop being bandwagoners and support the club through good times and low, like Demons and Roos fans did. So pretty much once we start marking the top eight we could aha

I don't think you can say that with the Roos fans. They had less members than us about 5 years ago.
Taking into account that they are a finals relevant team plus have Tassie memberships, the fact that they have less than 9,000 more memberships than us actually shows how good we've been, not them.
We're getting roughly the same amount of members as we did when we were among the pre-season favourites in the media to win the flag in 2011. Or in 2010 when we firstly had narrowly missed the Granny, signed Barry Hall and won the NAB cup (when it was still half a big deal) in 2010.

When we make finals in the next two years 40,000 won't seem all that unrealistic. Remember we have had over 50,000 unique members over the course of the last 5 years.

 

[_M_16_]

I don't think you can say that with the Roos fans. They had less members than us about 5 years ago.
Taking into account that they are a finals relevant team plus have Tassie memberships, the fact that they have less than 9,000 more memberships than us actually shows how good we've been, not them.
We're getting roughly the same amount of members as we did when we were among the pre-season favourites in the media to win the flag in 2011. Or in 2010 when we firstly had narrowly missed the Granny, signed Barry Hall and won the NAB cup (when it was still half a big deal) in 2010.

When we make finals in the next two years 40,000 won't seem all that unrealistic. Remember we have had over 50,000 unique members over the course of the last 5 years.

Don't take my post to seriously, as it wasn't even a serious post. Any post with a laugh or cheeky emote at the end is seldom serious. I know all that stuff you wrote about, in fact I was the one who made a huge essay with stats and such on here a couple of months ago on it all. It's called taking the piss out of the situation, and poking fun at what is in a way true about bandwagon fans

We are easily capable of 40,000 fans, but the reality is, we will have to make finals before it may happen, as that is the difference between a few thousand fans

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Don't take my post to seriously, as it wasn't even a serious post. Any post with a laugh or cheeky emote at the end is seldom serious. I know all that stuff you wrote about, in fact I was the one who made a huge essay with stats and such on here a couple of months ago on it all. It's called taking the piss out of the situation, and poking fun at what is in a way true about bandwagon fans

We are easily capable of 40,000 fans, but the reality is, we will have to make finals before it may happen, as that is the difference between a few thousand fans

Thought you were being serious, red face for me!
The point still stands. The fact that we've still gotten over 30,000 the last two seasons - recently considered a benchmark - is quite remarkable and credit to the marketing and membership team.

 

[_M_16_]

Thought you were being serious, red face for me!
The point still stands. The fact that we've still gotten over 30,000 the last two seasons - recently considered a benchmark - is quite remarkable and credit to the marketing and membership team.

Haha, all good. Hard to really pick up on those things on here

Yeah most definitely, we have managed to keep above 30k despite not performing as well as people would like. As I pointed out back then, North and Melbourne have both had spikes due to a period where they called for members to rally behind the team. Since then they have stayed consistent and haven't dropped off all to much.

The Saints almost hit 40k a few years ago, but are now a fraction below us?

Either way, I know we are capable of reaching 40k members. Why do we need to wait until we are in financial peril for those missing 30k, and other people who have not been members to sign on. Financial reasons aside, it would be great if we could be the first of the four smaller drawing clubs to hit 40k members, and to do so without needing to be called upon. It would then show the league that we are not a small team, and that off the field we do have fans who care about the team, and we will stop being the butt of jokes. We wont even be that far behind some other teams who sit in the 40's if we reach that mark.

The club and fans/members should all rally to work together to sign other people and make it our goal for season 2015, even if it is just a small membership package. And show everyone that our bite is bigger than our bark

 

[BallaratBulldog]

They can start by marketing Pink Lady game and Robert Rose cup properly not half assed (GF if we get it). Offer them as a membership package like ANZAC Day with the help of the other team and AFL. That way the members who pay will also turn up to these games and it's a win-win.

It's not just about getting members remember, they need to turn up and maintaining. These things make it appealing.

 

[the dog's kennel]

They can start by marketing Pink Lady game and Robert Rose cup properly not half assed (GF if we get it). Offer them as a membership package like ANZAC Day with the help of the other team and AFL. That way the members who pay will also turn up to these games and it's a win-win.

It's not just about getting members remember, they need to turn up and maintaining. These things make it appealing.

YES!!!!

I have long maintained that we are p!ssing away what could be the 2nd biggest day on the home & away calendar. AFL is a sport which attracts a LOT of women. Women's participation is a huge growth area too. We've got to make this work for us, or someone else will.

 

[flipper83]

Gordon said in an article on the Dogs website that he was using his corporate sponsorship to buy memberships for kids in the western suburbs.
I wonder if that is partly responsible for the late surge?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Gordon said in an article on the Dogs website that he was using his corporate sponsorship to buy memberships for kids in the western suburbs.
I wonder if that is partly responsible for the late surge?

"We’re going to give them the gift of membership, invite them to a night to meet our young players and explain to them that the club belongs to the west, just as they do."

Great idea, get the kids early and teach them that this is THEIR team. For life .

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2014-07-24/gordons-column-these-pups-are-our-future

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

These kids haven't been brainwashed sufficiently.

This is what they need to be telling them in schools, to paraphrase Borderlands: "If you barrack for anyone else, I'll have you killed"

Love the community outreach in the west though. Might not reap the benefits for a while, but it's important to lay the foundations.

 

[_M_16_]

Gordon said in an article on the Dogs website that he was using his corporate sponsorship to buy memberships for kids in the western suburbs.
I wonder if that is partly responsible for the late surge?

All clubs probably have something like that, that contributes to inflated membership totals. Wish the AFL would reveal FULL membership statistics for all clubs, so then we can truly see who has how many full memberships, how many have three game ones, and if they exist, who stupidly counts pets as a member

 

[cammo78]

I don't think you can say that with the Roos fans. They had less members than us about 5 years ago.
Taking into account that they are a finals relevant team plus have Tassie memberships, the fact that they have less than 9,000 more memberships than us actually shows how good we've been, not them.

The diagram below adds plenty of context to North's ongoing back-slapping around their membership growth.

The facts of the matter are that they have fewer home game/home and away game access members than ANY other Melbourne-based club. The surge in their membership has come purely and simply through selling 3-game memberships to people in Hobart, as evidenced by their standing in the "membership revenue" category (a FAR more important measure than membership numbers). These people would be members of ANY club that was playing three games a season in their backyard, just to gain entry. The point is - people are not paying to go and see them IN THEIR OWN MARKET. They are relying on their external market members to inflate their figures.

I would question - they say they aren't going to relocate - so what happens to these "artificial" members when the AFL decides they want a permanent team in Hobart? They'll keep giving North $60 a year out of the kindness of their heart. Highly unlikely, and an unsustainable growth model.

We have the opportunity to tap into the entire west of Melbourne, a luxury North Melbourne do not. We need to make a success of that.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

The diagram below adds plenty of context to North's ongoing back-slapping around their membership growth.

The facts of the matter are that they have fewer home game/home and away game access members than ANY other Melbourne-based club. The surge in their membership has come purely and simply through selling 3-game memberships to people in Hobart, as evidenced by their standing in the "membership revenue" category (a FAR more important measure than membership numbers). These people would be members of ANY club that was playing three games a season in their backyard, just to gain entry. The point is - people are not paying to go and see them IN THEIR OWN MARKET. They are relying on their external market members to inflate their figures.

I would question - they say they aren't going to relocate - so what happens to these "artificial" members when the AFL decides they want a permanent team in Hobart? They'll keep giving North $60 a year out of the kindness of their heart. Highly unlikely, and an unsustainable growth model.

We have the opportunity to tap into the entire west of Melbourne, a luxury North Melbourne do not. We need to make a success of that.

Collingwood and Hawthorn have their large share of 3 game members as we'll!

View attachment 69732

hare

 

[GarnerSmash]

The diagram below adds plenty of context to North's ongoing back-slapping around their membership growth.

The facts of the matter are that they have fewer home game/home and away game access members than ANY other Melbourne-based club. The surge in their membership has come purely and simply through selling 3-game memberships to people in Hobart, as evidenced by their standing in the "membership revenue" category (a FAR more important measure than membership numbers). These people would be members of ANY club that was playing three games a season in their backyard, just to gain entry. The point is - people are not paying to go and see them IN THEIR OWN MARKET. They are relying on their external market members to inflate their figures.

I would question - they say they aren't going to relocate - so what happens to these "artificial" members when the AFL decides they want a permanent team in Hobart? They'll keep giving North $60 a year out of the kindness of their heart. Highly unlikely, and an unsustainable growth model.

We have the opportunity to tap into the entire west of Melbourne, a luxury North Melbourne do not. We need to make a success of that.



View attachment 69732

Incorrect.

We have an ingrained and significant interstate membership base with our Tasmanian membership numbers increasing by no more than 2,000 since the club started playing there. True, our goal needs to be increasing the Melbourne gameday membership but to say that our increase is only due to Tassie is wrong.

 

[cammo78]

Incorrect.

We have an ingrained and significant interstate membership base with our Tasmanian membership numbers increasing by no more than 2,000 since the club started playing there. True, our goal needs to be increasing the Melbourne gameday membership but to say that our increase is only due to Tassie is wrong.

On what basis is it wrong?

The numerical facts are that you have the lowest home game/home and away game access membership levels of any Melbourne-based club.

At the time of that article(May 6), you had 5k more members than us, yet only made an extra $300k from these members. Thus - these members paid an average rate of $60 per ticket, which directly equates to the cost of a Hobart 3-game membership.

I note that Carl Dilena is stating a Hobart membership base of 4k this year - if that figure is true (which is highly questionable), you've in fact gone backwards in that area as your previous CEO stated you had ~6k Hobart members only 18 months ago. Considering you're of the belief that you've only added 2k Hobart members, are you suggesting that the 4k you presently (according to Carl) have are the "ingrained" ones and the other 2k have dropped off? Or potentially moved to a higher level of membership? We know it can't be the latter, because as mentioned you have the lowest proportion of 11/18 game members. And the highest proportion of "reduced game" members.

Or - could it possibly be that thousands have taken your club up on their offer of a free 2014 membership if they buy their 2015 membership now?! In which case, there'd obviously be a lot of double-counting going on. That part will become apparent in next year's numbers.

So, any way you look at it, there is some creative accounting and spin going on here. The numbers do not add up. Can't say I'm surprised, it's par for the course where your Kool-Aid drinking mob is concerned.

 

[GarnerSmash]

On what basis is it wrong?

The basis on where you stated that:

The surge in their membership has come purely and simply through selling 3-game memberships to people in Hobart

We have gone from roughly 2,500 Tassie memberships pre deal to 4,200 now, whilst our overall membership has increased from 30,332 to 40,000 during the same period.

 

[cammo78]

The basis on where you stated that:

We have gone from roughly 2,500 Tassie memberships pre deal to 4,200 now, whilst our overall membership has increased from 30,332 to 40,000 during the same period.

So where have all these members come from, considering your status as having the fewest home/home and away memberships and the highest number of "reduced game" memberships?

Youi'd agree that something doesn't add up?

 

[GarnerSmash]

So where have all these members come from, considering your status as having the fewest home/home and away memberships and the highest number of "reduced game" memberships?

Youi'd agree that something doesn't add up?

If you refer to my initial post:

We have an ingrained and significant interstate membership base with our Tasmanian membership numbers increasing by no more than 2,000 since the club started playing there.

Without further detail I can only therefore assume that this area of the membership pool is increasing too, as are our Melbourne based 3 gamers, however without the breakdown it is just speculation. What is not speculation is the overall Tassie membership number, which has been released by the club, hence my initial reply.

True, our goal needs to be increasing the Melbourne gameday membership but to say that our increase is only due to Tassie is wrong.

Further to this we will see after this year what is the deal with here as the data you refer to does not take into consideration 2014 numbers. We will add close to 5,000 members this year but the breakdown of that is not yet clear. It would be great if 3,000 of that is 11 game home memberships as this is, as you correctly point out, a key area of concern, but we will just have to wait and see.