We can do a lot lot better....

[Skuit 9,166]

4 hours ago, Bells said:

Create an alliance through AFLNZ - AFL is growing in NZ,  it is an untapped market.  Kiwis love sport, it's not far enough away to jetlag players, bring the big game to NZ to encourage further growth.

I think the Saints are heading back in next year - but to Auckland this time. Maybe we could swoop in and pick up everyone south of the Bombay as a rivalry play - with big Max as our chief marketing device? Our blend of colours may be problematic though.

[Dees2014 2,377]

11 hours ago, Rafiki said:

Could you share these ideas that you say they implemented from you? I feel like the goals you outlined are pretty insane to be honest, gaining 10k members in 3 years (which is definitely possible if we start regularly playing finals) to a 50k increase the following 3 years. As others have said, it is far too difficult to get foreigners emotionally invested in the AFL.

Sure. There was an initiative during I think Dean Bailey's time to invite groups of Chinese to a game and to broadcast it in Mandarin (not sure whether they were students or not  - I think it might have come from the number one ticket holder at the time, a well known owner of a leading Chinese Restaurant in China town - can't remember his name). It floundered in a short space of time, I suspect because they did not put around it the "infrastructure" which is designed to attract and hold the client base. In this case, that involves making it as much as an inclusive social gathering (the Belonging bit - a huge challenge for overseas students/migrants) as a sporting one. I suspect there weren't any "free hooks" either, a basic element of net marketing i.e. give-aways to get and hold their interest. In this case, initially free membership tickets and education about the game in their own tongue and the broadcast. The other thing is you need to give it time to work and follow through is critical. Sets of free tickets, and broadcast of one game in Mandarin wouldn't cut it. Like any successful marketing strategy it requires commitment and time.

[Bells 155]

32 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I think the Saints are heading back in next year - but to Auckland this time. Maybe we could swoop in and pick up everyone south of the Bombay as a rivalry play - with big Max as our chief marketing device? Our blend of colours may be problematic though.

The South Island is currently untapped - it is also where Max's family lives.    Swoop in and do it Dee's!

[Dees2014 2,377]

Can I just add that I am 100% behind the current administration. I think they are doing a wonderful job on and off the field, and I am confident that we are on track for a flag in the next 4 years. I can't describe how happy that would make me.

We all though need to think how we can make our club stronger and  more dominant. Multi smart heads can only make us stronger, not only now, but in the long term!,

 

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

There are at least 3 young kids in my street (6-7 years old) who all wear Whorethorn colours. 

I have no problem with 2014's ideas

but without Premiership Success like we had in the 50's they won't do a lot. 

Kids follow winners. 

[rjay 23,888]

10 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Can I just add that I am 100% behind the current administration. I think they are doing a wonderful job on and off the field, and I am confident that we are on track for a flag in the next 4 years. I can't describe how happy that would make me.

We all though need to think how we can make our club stronger and  more dominant. Multi smart heads can only make us stronger, not only now, but in the long term!,

 

PJ's stated objective was to get the footy side of things right first.

We are seeing the fruits of this now...we needed to have a total focus on footy of course whilst being mindful of the financials.

The old admin under CS was all over the shop so it doesn't surprise they didn't follow through on things but in reality they were fighting on too many fronts.

Get the business model right, which is football then work out from there.

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few years.

[poita 3,573]

My son is the only Demon from 40-50 kids in his Auskick group, and I live in our traditional heartland. Anybody who thinks there is a sizeable supporter base that we can tap into for members is dreaming. Surveys have consistently showed for a long time that we have one of the highest ratios of members to supporters.

Instead of wasting money on feel good ideas with little or no return (eg China, foreign students), 100% of our focus should be on the football team. We are in good hands at the moment.

Unfortunately the payoff for success is always a generation away. It is only in the last 10 years that Hawthorn have capitalised on their success in the 1980s. The Hawthorn kids who I went to school with in the 1980s / 90s are now bringing their kids along, and Hawthorn are thriving off the field. 

The only thing that will help us significantly boost member numbers is a period of sustained success.

[Dees2014 2,377]

4 hours ago, poita said:

My son is the only Demon from 40-50 kids in his Auskick group, and I live in our traditional heartland. Anybody who thinks there is a sizeable supporter base that we can tap into for members is dreaming. Surveys have consistently showed for a long time that we have one of the highest ratios of members to supporters.

Instead of wasting money on feel good ideas with little or no return (eg China, foreign students), 100% of our focus should be on the football team. We are in good hands at the moment.

Unfortunately the payoff for success is always a generation away. It is only in the last 10 years that Hawthorn have capitalised on their success in the 1980s. The Hawthorn kids who I went to school with in the 1980s / 90s are now bringing their kids along, and Hawthorn are thriving off the field. 

The only thing that will help us significantly boost member numbers is a period of sustained success.

I never said there was a sizeable supporter base, that is the whole point, and our ability to generate one from younger supporters is limited because of the very high inherited behaviour when it comes to preference choice of an AFL team. We have no choice but to build from scratch, otherwise we will at worst die, or at best be mediocre both on performance an scale.

As I said in an earlier post Hawthorn is some sort of model. At the time of the merger talks in 1997, I seem to remember Hawthorn had a smaller membership than we did, were broke, but had had greater on field success. They got out of their trough, by tapping into new markets in Melbourne (Waverley Park) and crucially taking on the Tasmanian market which now supplies upwards of 20% of their members. Of course their on field success has helped them enormously, so today they have upwards of 60000 members, second only to Collingwood, and in fact in 2016 exceeded the Pies for the first time with over 75000. They did it through a combination of factors, which we have copied to some extent (Casey, NT), but obviously not yet their onfield success. 

However, we can fiddle at the margins, or really take on ambition. The starting point is new markets, pitch in a way no one has done before.  I have no doubt after we win our 4th new flag we could get to 60000, but is that enough? By thinking differently to everyone else we could own this football town. It is a question of thinking differently, and have a cast iron will in the way you execute on the path to 100,000 members. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Dees2014

[rjay 23,888]

20 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

As I said in an earlier post Hawthorn is some sort of model

 

20 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

They got out of their trough, by tapping into new markets in Melbourne (Waverley Park) and crucially taking on the Tasmanian market which now supplies upwards of 20% of their members.

Hawthorn are not like for like 'Dees', what they did really well is tap into the latent supporter base built on the back of success through the 70's & 80's...

Waverley was not a new market, the eastern suburbs are their heartland.

Their recent success brought a lot out of the woodwork.

Tasmania had the Hudson factor to build on...

We have to go back to the 50's for that type of success.

...and it's not something we can now tap into.

On field success is the first pillar.

The other stuff won't happen unless we have that.

I agree we have to be smart to build our membership base going forward and I think the Melbourne branding is a good start. 

A real home base in Melbourne would be a big plus...

[PaulRB 5,919]

Now the team appears to have stopped serving its supporters weekly doses of humiliation and discouragement, the numbers will rise. 

Start consistently serving jubilation and inspired committed football, and the numbers will soar.

simples.

Edited May 18, 2017 by PaulRB

[buck_nekkid 5,474]

100,000 members?

everyone who flies China Southern is automatically signed up to a country demons membership.  They can cancel or get on board after that.  Opt out as opposed to opt in.  $100 bucks from each trip....

[Skuit 9,166]

Swab correctly identified the differential points of our brand but it was the incorrect path because they are no longer strengths. Bartlett has identified another branding-point but it doesn't reflect urbanised reality. The problem is that we can't compete with the current strengths of other brands - and this should also be noted when it comes the the experiences of new migrant communities: we are the establishment. We represent the blue-blooded in an era of parochial protest. The ferals are the new bourgeois. The boost to the Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn numbers came on the back of Howard's battlers claiming the centre. Darwin is folly if we think it can attract membership and the reasons are two-fold a) it's a migratory environment and people arrive and settle with their long-held teams b) we're just not the club for the knock-about NT character. Dees2014 is correct in that we have to think well outside the box, but it may require a radical rebranding.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Swab correctly identified the differential points of our brand but it was the incorrect path because they are no longer strengths. Bartlett has identified another branding-point but it doesn't reflect urbanised reality. The problem is that we can't compete with the current strengths of other brands - and this should also be noted when it comes the the experiences of new migrant communities: we are the establishment. We represent the blue-blooded in an era of parochial protest. The ferals are the new bourgeois. The boost to the Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn numbers came on the back of Howard's battlers claiming the centre. Darwin is folly if we think it can attract membership and the reasons are two-fold a) it's a migratory environment and people arrive and settle with their long-held teams b) we're just not the club for the knock-about NT character. Dees2014 is correct in that we have to think well outside the box, but it may require a radical rebranding.

The "blue blood" could work in our favour if targeting the Indian and Chinese communities, especially India with the history of caste system. They tend to want to be seen as part of the upper classes.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Dr. Gonzo

[Skuit 9,166]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The "blue blood" could work in our favour if targeting the Indian and Chinese communities, especially India with the history of caste system. They tend to want to be seen as part of the upper classes.

This had vaguely crossed my mind. Generalising here of course - although I have lived in Asia for quite some time - but while the aspirational classes are attracted to the establishment, they're also into success - not just sporting, but a sense of the powerful. We may have the background, but not the wealth and power. In fact, it could work against us, as it's quite the ugly reverse of narrative. Catch-22 really. Until we dramatically boost our numbers and bottom-line, we won't be able to attract those big numbers from abroad.  

[Dees2014 2,377]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

This had vaguely crossed my mind. Generalising here of course - although I have lived in Asia for quite some time - but while the aspirational classes are attracted to the establishment, they're also into success - not just sporting, but a sense of the powerful. We may have the background, but not the wealth and power. In fact, it could work against us, as it's quite the ugly reverse of narrative. Catch-22 really. Until we dramatically boost our numbers and bottom-line, we won't be able to attract those big numbers from abroad.  

Not strictly talking about "numbers from abroad". I'm talking attracting migrants, particularly tertiary students studying here who intend migrating with all the acceptance and assimilation issues attached to that. To me overseas markets are interesting, but very much a secondary issue.

[Skuit 9,166]

3 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Not strictly talking about "numbers from abroad". I'm talking attracting migrants, particularly tertiary students studying here who intend migrating with all the acceptance and assimilation issues attached to that. To me overseas markets are interesting, but very much a secondary issue.

I understand this. But if you're talking about numbers arriving from abroad, then there's no chance we'll ever get anywhere even close to near your original projections. The permanent migrant intake is what, around 200,000? How many AFL members are there? Without researching, let's say it's an average of 50,000 x 18 - so somewhere just under/around 1 mil. Or 1/24th of the current Australian population. If we had the same migrant-pop conversation-rate to paid membership,* and assuming they all opted for the MFC - both scenarios which, frankly, are in the absolute realms of fantasy - we would get around 8000 new members per year.

That is solid of course, but, realistically, if we chop the conversation rate initially by half - for the those migrating to and assimilating in the Australian Rules states (as a broad and probably generous sum),** and then half again for being non-natives to the game (still wildly unrealistic, and especially without the AFL taking on the marketing burden and then reaping the divided rewards) - and - on top of that, we managed to capture say a crazy 50% of that market through our own aggressive marketing strategy (and investment), then that will see us with a grand membership boost of approx 1000 new members per year?*** Converts in terms of new members are great, because there are generational impacts, but it will be a long long time before we can bank any tangible reward.

Again, I agree that we need some seriously creative strategic thinking, and there's no reason not to mobilize across multiple fronts, but it's always investment measured against risk v. reward, and, ultimately, there just isn't a membership get-rich-quick scheme available to us alone and waiting to be cracked.

* migrant age demographics are obviously different to a population as a whole and so figures are unadjusted. Although, then, I think the migrant numbers divide somewhere around 65-35% skilled/unskilled, and there are issues with employment opportunities and disposable income for even skilled migrants - so there are many variables of course.

** Also, if assimilation were a driving factor, then the majority would surely just buy a scarf and enjoy the high-fives at work - maybe attend the odd game - rather than committing membership and so much time to a new sport. 

*** I left school at 14 so my math can be rather shaky at times. Expect errors.

 

[green_machine 36]

I do not post often, but this is a good idea.  Those attacking should have a long hard think and then apologise.

Organic growth is slow as we have such a small starting base

Supporters of other clubs - no chance Australians rarely switch clubs

kids - some possibility but over half goes for parents club.. then sucess gets another quarter then you can fight over the rest.    And every club is already fighting, Watts, Gawn and Viney can only go to so many schools

Outside of Melbourne - well there are lots of people but it is hard work and they can not attend footy anyway.... so  .... I can't see the business case

Migrants to Melbourne is a big pot.   I think there are 100,000 plus per year.  Most do not have an existing club and the Melbourne brand gives us an advantage.   It is logical to follow the team with the city's name.  Having programs to capture these people and get a large percentage is the way forward.  

I personally love the idea of MFC giving guided free tours of the MCG to Indian students (mainly cricket focused) and then giving them tickets to the football game plus some language appropriate pamphlets.. plus some volunteer Indian actual Melbourne supports to cheer with them at the game   I can see it working.   You could even dedicate a section of the ground to it.

 

the other point I would make with the marketing background you should be seeing if you can get on the board

[green_machine 36]

42 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I understand this. But if you're talking about numbers arriving from abroad, then there's no chance we'll ever get anywhere even close to near your original projections. The permanent migrant intake is what, around 200,000? How many AFL members are there? Without researching, let's say it's an average of 50,000 x 18 - so somewhere just under/around 1 mil. Or 1/24th of the current Australian population. If we had the same migrant-pop conversation-rate to paid membership,* and assuming they all opted for the MFC - both scenarios which, frankly, are in the absolute realms of fantasy - we would get around 8000 new members per year.

Skuit supporters matter just as much as members.  The number of members drives the value of sponsorship dollars.  Also if you using a population of 24 million you need to include rugby in your numbers.  Better population figure is vic, sa, tas and WA.   Which is more like 10 to 12 million.,. So 1 in 10 are members.  

If out of the 100,000 coming to Melbourne we got 5 k members and 30k supports that adds up.   There is also untapped conversion from the last five years of migrants.   So 500k people is starting pool and if you got 20k members and 200k supporters from that... if you did everything right

[Skuit 9,166]

20 minutes ago, green_machine said:

Skuit supporters matter just as much as members.  The number of members drives the value of sponsorship dollars.  Also if you using a population of 24 million you need to include rugby in your numbers.  Better population figure is vic, sa, tas and WA.   Which is more like 10 to 12 million.,. So 1 in 10 are members.  

If out of the 100,000 coming to Melbourne we got 5 k members and 30k supports that adds up.   There is also untapped conversion from the last five years of migrants.   So 500k people is starting pool and if you got 20k members and 200k supporters from that... if you did everything right

Numbers-wise I was responding to this (in my overall contention that there is no magic-bullet):

'This paper seeks to outline a path whereby the club develops a membership base of 50,000 within three years, and 100,000 within six years.'

Followed by the above statement that the OP considers overseas markets secondary.

There seems to be a sense of disappointment that the club ignored the suggested initiatives, but we do have professional marketeers (although all ideas from anywhere except Eddie McGuire should always be welcomed) - so really, without intending to be negative, it's just taking a realistic look at the projections and reward for investment.

By your numbers - 1/10th of the AFL states' existing Australian footy-mad population are members. Following that rate, 10,000 permanent migrants to Melbourne will become members each year - with half selecting the MFC - along with a further one third of all migrants choosing to support our club? I won't even raise traditional gender issues here, (or the myriad of other reasons why I and many others don't think our club would be attractive to new migrant supporters) but the numbers just simply aren't realistic.

Otherwise, I say go for it.

[dpositive 1,547]

7 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Not strictly talking about "numbers from abroad". I'm talking attracting migrants, particularly tertiary students studying here who intend migrating with all the acceptance and assimilation issues attached to that. To me overseas markets are interesting, but very much a secondary issue.

Attended an international tourism briefing recently where consultants talked of "internal internationals"

These translate as students and expats who generate visitation from externals.

That cohort is apparently growing and does comprise an international who has some engagement and immersion in Australian culture.

[dpositive 1,547]

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

I understand this. But if you're talking about numbers arriving from abroad, then there's no chance we'll ever get anywhere even close to near your original projections. The permanent migrant intake is what, around 200,000? How many AFL members are there? Without researching, let's say it's an average of 50,000 x 18 - so somewhere just under/around 1 mil. Or 1/24th of the current Australian population. If we had the same migrant-pop conversation-rate to paid membership,* and assuming they all opted for the MFC - both scenarios which, frankly, are in the absolute realms of fantasy - we would get around 8000 new members per year.

That is solid of course, but, realistically, if we chop the conversation rate initially by half - for the those migrating to and assimilating in the Australian Rules states (as a broad and probably generous sum),** and then half again for being non-natives to the game (still wildly unrealistic, and especially without the AFL taking on the marketing burden and then reaping the divided rewards) - and - on top of that, we managed to capture say a crazy 50% of that market through our own aggressive marketing strategy (and investment), then that will see us with a grand membership boost of approx 1000 new members per year?*** Converts in terms of new members are great, because there are generational impacts, but it will be a long long time before we can bank any tangible reward.

Again, I agree that we need some seriously creative strategic thinking, and there's no reason not to mobilize across multiple fronts, but it's always investment measured against risk v. reward, and, ultimately, there just isn't a membership get-rich-quick scheme available to us alone and waiting to be cracked.

* migrant age demographics are obviously different to a population as a whole and so figures are unadjusted. Although, then, I think the migrant numbers divide somewhere around 65-35% skilled/unskilled, and there are issues with employment opportunities and disposable income for even skilled migrants - so there are many variables of course.

** Also, if assimilation were a driving factor, then the majority would surely just buy a scarf and enjoy the high-fives at work - maybe attend the odd game - rather than committing membership and so much time to a new sport. 

*** I left school at 14 so my math can be rather shaky at times. Expect errors.

 

Some good thoughts here as well. My conversation is not only considering membership but growing attendance, growth of the game, and sponsorship. 

Port are reported as picking up $12 mill in new sponsorship. If the game is televised into China growth can be realised

[Dees2014 2,377]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

Numbers-wise I was responding to this (in my overall contention that there is no magic-bullet):

'This paper seeks to outline a path whereby the club develops a membership base of 50,000 within three years, and 100,000 within six years.'

Followed by the above statement that the OP considers overseas markets secondary.

There seems to be a sense of disappointment that the club ignored the suggested initiatives, but we do have professional marketeers (although all ideas from anywhere except Eddie McGuire should always be welcomed) - so really, without intending to be negative, it's just taking a realistic look at the projections and reward for investment.

By your numbers - 1/10th of the AFL states' existing Australian footy-mad population are members. Following that rate, 10,000 permanent migrants to Melbourne will become members each year - with half selecting the MFC - along with a further one third of all migrants choosing to support our club? I won't even raise traditional gender issues here, (or the myriad of other reasons why I and many others don't think our club would be attractive to new migrant supporters) but the numbers just simply aren't realistic.

Otherwise, I say go for it.

Well, let's pause for a moment and analyse axactly what I wrote. 

I put down an aspirational target of getting to 100000 members within six years and within three years a target of 5000, both soft targets IMHO. We already have 40000 this year, so if we did just what we are doing now with no great additional innovation, plus our additional anticipated on-field success, we should easily make the 50000 by 2019. 

The 100000 is based over 6 years, that is an average growth of under  10000 additional members per year for six years. There are over 350,000 people who take a tour of the MCG per year, more than 50% are overseas visitors or new migrants. That is before we really get started targeting their offspring who start to play our game, positioned as a pathway to acceptance and integration (under exploited IMHO). Oh yes, and don't forget the other interesting statistic ie melbourne as a city gets an average of an additional 1500 per week who migrate here both from overseas and the rest of Australia, by far the fastest growth for a capital city in Australia. There is no shortage of "markets" to work with, and with focus and  innovative marketing strategies taking advantage of our current strengths, a few of which I have outlined, as I said, 100000 members by 2023 is a soft target. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Dees2014

[Dees2014 2,377]

 

When I say expansion into overseas markets is interesting but it is of secondary importance to targeting particular groups at home, I don't mean it should not be done. We dropped the ball on China. We along with Brisbane, were the first to play there as an exhibition game, and so should have had the inside running. Instead, it took a commercially minded internationalist like David Kosh to drive it to Port Adelaide's great reward. We should do everything in our power to get back in there next year as Gold Coast appear to have dropped out. They were half hearted at best. Rodney Eade's indifferent attitude to the venture prior to the game should be more than enough to get him sacked at the end of the season.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Dees2014

[rjay 23,888]

11 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

We dropped the ball on China.

No we didn't...

We had a new management team who understood that if we didn't get the football side of things right then we were done for.

It was a full time job just to get this club back on track.

It's good to have ideas like those you have presented but a lot of the statements you are using to back them up are based on falsehoods.

 

[Diamond_Jim 11,736]

Develop a great e game only with Dees as the team v various visitors

Give it free to members and then have play offs with a big $$$ win

Have the e tournaments played pre game

Watch the numbers grow.... could be world wide within a few years if the$$ pot is big enough

Think online poker tournaments etc

problem ... how to own and protect the space