2015 Membership Thread

[brucetiki]

I have tried that before and it cant be done. The installments are apparantly set up by the AFL and come out on the 15th for mY crows and wifes Power and 16th for my SMA. If there are insufficient funds then they will be tried again over the next few days

So we now have our membership team openly lying to the members?

 

[Papa G]

We can't sell any more 11 game membership they are sold out and we have a waiting list. You are well behind us the only reason your numbers look close is the inflation from 3 game and magpies numbers.

The only way to expand our numbers are Victorian and non ticketed members.

Can still buy an 11 GA and 3 gamer membership from the 19th Man. You can still get 11 game GA and 3 game Port memberships too. Everything else is sold out.

 

[fabs33]

Not trying to troll, just wondering if anyone knows why the Crows don't publish running membership numbers?

Going to be interesting to see how close they get this year. I'd imagine the Crows management would be pretty happy as the hype of it should help drive both clubs numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? This is an honest question. Why does it matter how our clubs, or any other clubs, compare in membership numbers. Especially considering the variation in prices between clubs for what is sometimes the same seats, not to mention all the different categories of memberships that all count as one regardless of how many games are included in them. It all serves to completely obfuscate the reality making any comparison meaningless. To me it seems like one of the most childish behaviours supporters engage in and the clubs are guilty of doing this too to some extent. If you guys beat us, will it make your club better? Conversely will it make ours worse? Frankly the only reason I care about my club's membership numbers is because I want my club in a healthy position to provide the team with the best possible resources for winning games and more importantly premierships, how yours compares to ours is irrelevant to that goal.

 

[whattagun07]

Why? This is an honest question. Why does it matter how our clubs, or any other clubs, compare in membership numbers. Especially considering the variation in prices between clubs for what is sometimes the same seats, not to mention all the different categories of memberships that all count as one regardless of how many games are included in them. It all serves to completely obfuscate the reality making any comparison meaningless. To me it seems like one of the most childish behaviours supporters engage in and the clubs are guilty of doing this too to some extent. If you guys beat us, will it make your club better? Conversely will it make ours worse? Frankly the only reason I care about my club's membership numbers is because I want my club in a healthy position to provide the team with the best possible resources for winning games and more importantly premierships, how yours compares to ours is irrelevant to that goal.

How exactly do the prices compare? Just out of curiosity

 

[AFC3000]

How exactly do the prices compare? Just out of curiosity

It is hard to tell this year because our club only says prices "from" on the the website since they are all sold out, also Port divide the ground up based on ticket classes while we offer the whole (minus premium areas) as silver, and gold is an added cost.

Port offer Platinum memberships (we call them Gold) with Grand Final guarantee, all people are seated on the Eastern wing and its just $425. Our Gold tickets start from $425 but thats for people sitting in our absolute cheapest seats. For someone sitting in those seats Port are selling for $425 it would be a couple hundred dollars more.

Ports general admission is $175 and includes the option of a seat in the top deck of the Southern and Eastern stands. Ours is $230 but you only get standing or one of a few hundred seats at the very back/top of the Southern stand.

 

[fabs33]

How exactly do the prices compare? Just out of curiosity

You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than me I'm afraid. AFC3000's post above gives a pretty good idea of just some of the differences between the two clubs, which shows why trying to compare membership numbers is a bit of a fool's errand.

 

[whattagun07]

It is hard to tell this year because our club only says prices "from" on the the website since they are all sold out, also Port divide the ground up based on ticket classes while we offer the whole (minus premium areas) as silver, and gold is an added cost.

Port offer Platinum memberships (we call them Gold) with Grand Final guarantee, all people are seated on the Eastern wing and its just $425. Our Gold tickets start from $425 but thats for people sitting in our absolute cheapest seats. For someone sitting in those seats Port are selling for $425 it would be a couple hundred dollars more.

Ports general admission is $175 and includes the option of a seat in the top deck of the Southern and Eastern stands. Ours is $230 but you only get standing or one of a few hundred seats at the very back/top of the Southern stand.

Ah that's where I am (just undercover) and I pay $585 as a gold member

 

[BruceLight]

Why? This is an honest question. Why does it matter how our clubs, or any other clubs, compare in membership numbers. Especially considering the variation in prices between clubs for what is sometimes the same seats, not to mention all the different categories of memberships that all count as one regardless of how many games are included in them. It all serves to completely obfuscate the reality making any comparison meaningless. To me it seems like one of the most childish behaviours supporters engage in and the clubs are guilty of doing this too to some extent. If you guys beat us, will it make your club better? Conversely will it make ours worse? Frankly the only reason I care about my club's membership numbers is because I want my club in a healthy position to provide the team with the best possible resources for winning games and more importantly premierships, how yours compares to ours is irrelevant to that goal.

Cheers for your reply. They are fair points that you make and I obviously don't know you so I can't call you a hypocrite for playing down membership numbers now that Port's are on the up but can honestly say that Crows greater membership numbers have been the number one reason I've been told Port are inferior over the past 15+ years. So if you've always held that sentiment toward membership numbers that terrific but for me seeing how the many Crows supporters I deal with on a regular basis will react to the news is partly why I see an interest - there's already been the response that Port are simply buoyed by 3-game and Magpies memberships which is obviously missing the mark since Port also have waiting list on 11 game reserved seats AND the fact that the Crows sell both 3-game membership and $50 boundary line memberships both of which count. The next reaction is often pet memberships which every clubs sells and every clubs supporter base mocks the other for.

The bigger interest for me though is how if at all the supporter bases will start to shift in SA. Notwithstanding your point regarding the different factors affecting membership prices, membership still is the best indicator of a clubs long term financial health and it would appear that Port are a chance to carve out a much greater market share. I'll think Port are the better club regardless of membership numbers as I always have but the dividends that come with a bigger piece of the SA market (i.e. Greater sponsorship revenue) would be nice boost.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BruceLight]

Can still buy an 11 GA and 3 gamer membership from the 19th Man. You can still get 11 game GA and 3 game Port memberships too. Everything else is sold out.

Also no ones answered the question. Any idea why the AFC choose to hold their cards so close to their chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rocket18]

Also no ones answered the question. Any idea why the AFC choose to hold their cards so close to their chest?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could be as simple as the incompetence of our Membership/Marketing departments, the people we have in these areas aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and keeping up to date membership numbers might be beyond them.

But, it is all a bit of a circle jerk anyway. As we saw yet again last season the Clubs reported numbers differ greatly from the "real" members numbers from the AFL audit. Case in point was Poorts great fanfare that they cracked 50k - AFL audit showed they didn't make 50k.

The joke about Ports support hasn't been their membership it was about their attendences that dropped off, getting under 20k on a regular basis was the reason for ridicule not the membership figure (which has always been reasonable 30k+)

 

[AFC3000]

Would the numbers mean anything at the moment anyway? It would just be a count of how quickly they can process renewals and a few 3 game/GA memberships. With clubs racing to start memberships early and process faster so they can break "this time last year" records.

What they have said is that well over 40,000 renewals went out and with a wait list they will all be taken up.

That said now that the renewal period has ended I would hope a counter goes up next week and they really start pushing the availability of 3 Game and GA memberships and also the need for pre-sale access to games with Boundary Line memberships.

 

[BruceLight]

Could be as simple as the incompetence of our Membership/Marketing departments, the people we have in these areas aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and keeping up to date membership numbers might be beyond them.

But, it is all a bit of a circle jerk anyway. As we saw yet again last season the Clubs reported numbers differ greatly from the "real" members numbers from the AFL audit. Case in point was Poorts great fanfare that they cracked 50k - AFL audit showed they didn't make 50k.

The joke about Ports support hasn't been their membership it was about their attendences that dropped off, getting under 20k on a regular basis was the reason for ridicule not the membership figure (which has always been reasonable 30k+)

I find it hard to believe that the AFC membership department is less competent than others but fair enough, who knows.

I'd have to check when Port announced their 50,000 last year but I've a feeling it was in July (post the AFL cut off). Obviously there are also the memberships the AFL doesn't count and the odd division of SMA 22 game memberships. At the end of the day all clubs have higher numbers than the AFL from no doubt similar inflating factors so I don't think you can discount the club v club comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Papa G]

Could be as simple as the incompetence of our Membership/Marketing departments, the people we have in these areas aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and keeping up to date membership numbers might be beyond them.

But, it is all a bit of a circle jerk anyway. As we saw yet again last season the Clubs reported numbers differ greatly from the "real" members numbers from the AFL audit. Case in point was Poorts great fanfare that they cracked 50k - AFL audit showed they didn't make 50k.

The joke about Ports support hasn't been their membership it was about their attendences that dropped off, getting under 20k on a regular basis was the reason for ridicule not the membership figure (which has always been reasonable 30k+)

The numbers went down in the most part because the SMA allocated only 2,800 of the 8,000 SMA members to Port. Not sure how they are going to do it this year as now the clubs are getting $50 each per SMA membership which they didn't last year.

 

[rocket18]

It's not just Ports and Crows member numbers that go down after the AFL audit, all clubs numbers are reduced in some way so it seems to makes the membership "counters" a waste of time.

If the clubs used the same criteria as the AFL when counting member numbers I could see the benefit of them but at the moment it reeks of "golly gosh my club is doing well herp derp"

 

[Justinpa1]

I just received a Facebook message from the club (after hassling them on FB & Twitter) that at present we have 44,000 Season Ticket Holder Members and they are yet to process any non renewals and the season ticket waiting list.

Excellent start considering our renewal period only closed on the 14th January and the club hasn't done any Three game or General Admission Membership marketing at all yet.
From what I heard last year the Crows were then and surely would still be the only club to have that many (40,000 2014 and now 44,000 in 2015) 11 game members in the AFL.
After this start we should quite easily get to 60,000 members this season.

 

[OG_ADL]

Cheers for your reply. They are fair points that you make and I obviously don't know you so I can't call you a hypocrite for playing down membership numbers now that Port's are on the up but can honestly say that Crows greater membership numbers have been the number one reason I've been told Port are inferior over the past 15+ years. So if you've always held that sentiment toward membership numbers that terrific but for me seeing how the many Crows supporters I deal with on a regular basis will react to the news is partly why I see an interest - there's already been the response that Port are simply buoyed by 3-game and Magpies memberships which is obviously missing the mark since Port also have waiting list on 11 game reserved seats AND the fact that the Crows sell both 3-game membership and $50 boundary line memberships both of which count. The next reaction is often pet memberships which every clubs sells and every clubs supporter base mocks the other for.

The bigger interest for me though is how if at all the supporter bases will start to shift in SA. Notwithstanding your point regarding the different factors affecting membership prices, membership still is the best indicator of a clubs long term financial health and it would appear that Port are a chance to carve out a much greater market share. I'll think Port are the better club regardless of membership numbers as I always have but the dividends that come with a bigger piece of the SA market (i.e. Greater sponsorship revenue) would be nice boost.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because there can only be a limited amount of memberships that include tickets to home games, and both clubs seem to reaching that amount as they both have waiting lists as you mentioned, then Port Adelaide are bound to catch up to Adelaide as long as they are in good form. It's almost like trying to see whose car has the highest top speed, but you aren't allowed to exceed a certain speed. So for years Adelaide has been cruising at that speed limit regardless of the condition of its car, while Port's car has been pretty run-down, wheels falling off and having engine troubles and as a result has been well below Adelaide's speed. Port has had some serious work done on their car now and they are getting up to that speed limit. Adelaide's car is in average condition, but it has always been able to maintain that speed where as when Port's car was in similar condition to Adelaide's, they could only go half as fast. Now the waiting list is essentially the speed that each teams cars could exceed the speed limit by, but because they are limited to that speed, we don't actually know how fast (how many members each team could have) each car COULD go. Most Adelaide supporters who have a problem with Port Adelaide's Membership ask the question 'Where were these supporters before?', which is a fair question, because even when Port have been great, and Adelaide poor, Adelaide have always had more people attending their games and more members on their list. Even now as Port Adelaide closes in on Adelaide's membership number, it doesn't necessarily indicate a shift in support from one team to another, because there is a waiting list that is really a bigger indicator of support. As silly as it sounds, the number of Facebook likes is probably a better indicator of each teams support base rather than membership numbers.

 

[JPetro83]

The scum havery clocked up 50K members. . Any idea what we are up to? Surly we are way past 50K?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Also no ones answered the question. Any idea why the AFC choose to hold their cards so close to their chest?

To be honest, I reckon it's because you guys update so often. You've come from a low base, getting membership up is a big deal for Port, every new member is something to celebrate.

We look like we're trying to come off as a bit laissez-faire about the whole thing. No biggie for us, we always sell out, let Port celebrate their little milestones, we're above all that.

Trouble is that over - confidence of ours doesn't look all that warranted after the last few years. It comes across as sloppy at best, defensive at worst.

 

[fabs33]

Cheers for your reply. They are fair points that you make and I obviously don't know you so I can't call you a hypocrite for playing down membership numbers now that Port's are on the up but can honestly say that Crows greater membership numbers have been the number one reason I've been told Port are inferior over the past 15+ years. So if you've always held that sentiment toward membership numbers that terrific but for me seeing how the many Crows supporters I deal with on a regular basis will react to the news is partly why I see an interest - there's already been the response that Port are simply buoyed by 3-game and Magpies memberships which is obviously missing the mark since Port also have waiting list on 11 game reserved seats AND the fact that the Crows sell both 3-game membership and $50 boundary line memberships both of which count. The next reaction is often pet memberships which every clubs sells and every clubs supporter base mocks the other for.

Definitely no hypocrisy from me, you could search through all my posts and I doubt you'd find a single one comparing your club negatively to our own in that regard, nor in regard to attendances either, even though I consider attendances as a better representation of support for a club.

The bigger interest for me though is how if at all the supporter bases will start to shift in SA. Notwithstanding your point regarding the different factors affecting membership prices, membership still is the best indicator of a clubs long term financial health and it would appear that Port are a chance to carve out a much greater market share. I'll think Port are the better club regardless of membership numbers as I always have but the dividends that come with a bigger piece of the SA market (i.e. Greater sponsorship revenue) would be nice boost.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd don't think we can assume that increased membership numbers are a sign of a growing market share, I think what is far more likely is that it's a conversion of supporters into members, particularly those who may have become disenfranchised with the direction of the club before 2013. Also of those who waver between supporter and member status as a norm based on how the team's traveling, which all clubs have a percentage of and whom I don't judge. As far as the South Australian market goes I think it's pretty much saturated at this point, the same holding true for Victoria and Western Australia, which is why you see even successful clubs of late like Hawthorn play home games in Tasmania.

 

[fabs33]

To be honest, I reckon it's because you guys update so often. You've come from a low base, getting membership up is a big deal for Port, every new member is something to celebrate.

We look like we're trying to come off as a bit laissez-faire about the whole thing. No biggie for us, we always sell out, let Port celebrate their little milestones, we're above all that.

Trouble is that over - confidence of ours doesn't look all that warranted after the last few years. It comes across as sloppy at best, defensive at worst.

Or maybe no one at our club knows how to create a counter thingy on a website.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Also no ones answered the question. Any idea why the AFC choose to hold their cards so close to their chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Crows have never revealed their membership numbers until late in April or early May. They have nopt just stopped doing it this year. They have not done it now, not 5 years ago, and not 20 years ago. The club just hasn't done it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Or maybe no one at our club knows how to create a counter thingy on a website.

I don't know about that. We know they've got a hit counter worked out.

 

[fabs33]

I don't know about that. We know they've got a hit counter worked out.

One step at a time.

 

[BruceLight]

To be honest, I reckon it's because you guys update so often. You've come from a low base, getting membership up is a big deal for Port, every new member is something to celebrate.

We look like we're trying to come off as a bit laissez-faire about the whole thing. No biggie for us, we always sell out, let Port celebrate their little milestones, we're above all that.

Trouble is that over - confidence of ours doesn't look all that warranted after the last few years. It comes across as sloppy at best, defensive at worst.

Yep fair enough. For me it's not so much a case of "we do this, why don't you?" but that every other club does it. I think that it is likely something along the lines of what you're saying though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BruceLight]

Definitely no hypocrisy from me, you could search through all my posts and I doubt you'd find a single one comparing your club negatively to our own in that regard, nor in regard to attendances either, even though I consider attendances as a better representation of support for a club.



I'd don't think we can assume that increased membership numbers are a sign of a growing market share, I think what is far more likely is that it's a conversion of supporters into members, particularly those who may have become disenfranchised with the direction of the club before 2013. Also of those who waver between supporter and member status as a norm based on how the team's traveling, which all clubs have a percentage of and whom I don't judge. As far as the South Australian market goes I think it's pretty much saturated at this point, the same holding true for Victoria and Western Australia, which is why you see even successful clubs of late like Hawthorn play home games in Tasmania.

I agree that increased membership isn't necessarily a sign of growing market share but I think it's likely it will follow increased membership... We'll have to wait and see though.

As far market saturation goes I think we still have a way to go. Obviously peaking with 11 game memberships but if you compare Collingwood's membership numbers to their attendances it's clear that they have a huge number of non ticketed / 3 game memberships. Same as WC with a much smaller capacity than AO/AAMI. How much those numbers go up for the Crows is off interest to me with the albeit circle jerk push of increasing Port numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk