Real Membership Numbers

[Lavender Bushranger]

Stumbled across this as I was reading about memberships relating to another thread:



The part that interested me, was that nearly half of all these 'members' are not what I would refer to as genuine members.

Meaning, only half are actually those old school memberships where you pay the club upfront to go and watch most/all games.

Do clubs release the breakdown of their memberships?

Do we actually know how 'genuine members' each club has? ie. Home, Home and Away and Reduced Access?

 

[dave10]

Stumbled across this as I was reading about memberships relating to another thread:

View attachment 1034658

The part that interested me, was that nearly half of all these 'members' are not what I would refer to as genuine members.

Meaning, only half are actually those old school memberships where you pay the club upfront to go and watch most/all games.

Do clubs release the breakdown of their memberships?

Do we actually know how 'genuine members' each club has? ie. Home, Home and Away and Reduced Access?

Club membership figures have increasingly become challenging to measure. Nowadays some clubs are even recording in their figures memberships they’ve given away free of charge (buy one get one free), Carlton’s figures for 2021 reflect strong growth by reporting sales of ‘free’ memberships. It distorts the truth somewhat and makes reviewing club tallies problematical. It’s possible Carlton will report 80,000 members in 2021 with possibly 10,000-15,000 of them given away as in real terms freebies.

Anyhow, Carlton will be hoping these freebies convert to real paid up memberships in 2022 so the strategy is a good way of generating long term sales and revenue. Most clubs will possibly follow suit in future. It just makes a mockery of the thing when Carlton supporters cheer a membership of 80,000 when in all honesty it’s not the same as a Collingwood 80,000 in real terms.

Broader than that, all clubs do different things which makes like for like comparison difficult.

 

[Kwality]

Membership numbers are a sideshow pumped up by the AFL.

Membership income is not recorded in a consistent manner across the club financials by design.

 

[Rob]

The part that interested me, was that nearly half of all these 'members' are not what I would refer to as genuine members.

Meaning, only half are actually those old school memberships where you pay the club upfront to go and watch most/all games.

Do clubs release the breakdown of their memberships?

Most clubs don't, and TBH I don't see what they'd gain out of doing so. Membership figures have become a marketing tool in themselves, allowing a club to trumpet just how popular they are, but these numbers are rarely backed up by crowd figures.

In the end it doesn't do any harm, but they've lost any credibility in terms of judging popularity. Especially for clubs that consistently draw less than half their membership to games.

 

[Kwality]

Most clubs don't, and TBH I don't see what they'd gain out of doing so. Membership figures have become a marketing tool in themselves, allowing a club to trumpet just how popular they are, but these numbers are rarely backed up by crowd figures.

In the end it doesn't do any harm, but they've lost any credibility in terms of judging popularity. Especially for clubs that consistently draw less than half their membership to games.

3 game memberships have a lot to do with that effect.

Total agree with only info we get is what the marketing department/AFL media want us to get.
The financials do their best to ensure a positive spin, 'iffy' its been described by REH.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Most clubs don't, and TBH I don't see what they'd gain out of doing so. Membership figures have become a marketing tool in themselves, allowing a club to trumpet just how popular they are, but these numbers are rarely backed up by crowd figures.

In the end it doesn't do any harm, but they've lost any credibility in terms of judging popularity. Especially for clubs that consistently draw less than half their membership to games.

The value of memberships isn’t so much the club being able to market its popularity, it’s the fact they have all your details incl age, address, email, phone, DOB and the fact you’re a dedicated club / footy supporter.

The database is gold that they sell to sponsors as part of their sponsorships. Targeted marketing is much more effective than mass marketing so the database is a pot of gold.

 

[Our Game]

The value of memberships isn’t so much the club being able to market its popularity, it’s the fact they have all your details incl age, address, email, phone, DOB and the fact you’re a dedicated club / footy supporter.

The database is gold that they sell to sponsors as part of their sponsorships. Targeted marketing is much more effective than mass marketing so the database is a pot of gold.

100% correct! Bunk Moreland It's the Databases the clubs want!