Seriously how are some of those clubs recording such massive jumps in memberships? Would love to see a breakdown of membership type.

Also, how the frog does St Kilda have more members than us???

Edit: how many games does a full membership get you into? All home only?

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by —coach—

GWS must have theirs included with Krispy Kreem donuts

Does that include the Saints $1 memberships? Is it the AFLs final figures or just those reported by the clubs?

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by Dr. Gonzo

The Richmond increase is ridiculous. From April to now they increased by a further 10%. I believe one game memberships were sold. Do they count?

The Bulldogs have paid dearly for their Premiership Hangover.  Down 9.2%!

Hard to see how Carlton and St Kilda have increased by 11.3% and 10.1% respectively. 

This article gives a breakdown of memberships http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-02/thanks-a-million-new-membership-benchmark

Of the 1,008,494 claimed members 456,633 are Full Club members.  Would love to see a breadown of those by Club. 

Our increase of just 4.8% means we are falling further and further behind most other clubs?

While it will undoubtedly help I don't think growing membership will be as simple as winning more games or even just one premiership. 

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

The full breakdown is:

 

I would guess the one-game memberships are in the 'Reduced-Access' figures.  I recall reading that Collingwood has a huge i/state and o/s memberships and would be in that category.  Ditto the StKilda $1 memberships.

It is the above figures by club, that Ch7 use to determine the premium time slots so the 500,000+ Non-Full Member figures are really important as they are the ones who stay at home and watch on TV.  And really important for Clubs as that is where the potential for conversion to Full members lies.

Edited October 21, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

25k members for GWS. AFL must still be handing out free memberships to anyone that walks within proximity to Shitless Stadium.

It would be interesting to understand the difference in marketing approach and membership package composition between the MFC and its VIC peers to pick apart the big uplift the likes of STK etc have had.

Having a quick look at some of the for-like memberships, the MFC inclusions - for the armchair/digital as a quick example - equivalents are lesser but for more money. Price and inclusions are obviously not the only factor, of course, but they could be a factor.

Does anyone have any insight into the difference in marketing approach? The SKFC, Carlton, EFC and Geelong increases are substantial. SKFC and Carlton especially so.

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by -Ⓥ-

I can think of a few things that might have caused our membership to not increase as much as might be expected. 

Unique items to 2017/2018 and in no particular order of significance:

• the way we missed the finals going down without a whimper in rnd 23.
• the 'get your finals tickets' campaign fiasco before we made finals.
• the lack of communication plan from the club for those possibilities
• the loss of our much loved #4. 
• restructuring the membership options to 'force' new members into 'packages' eg for reserved seats and GF guarantee.  
• price increases, especially in the lower categories and of the GF guarantee. 
• Home MCG games vs not very exciting opponents = questionable value of membership.
• Time slots of Home games.

Those things won't stop the loyal, die hard demons on this site from buying memberships but there would be more easily disillusioned supporters out there who would react to one or more of the above.

Interestingly, we had massive record attendances at our games in 2017 but for some reason only a very small %'age were converted to memberships. 

As I noted in another thread I'm rapt with the 25% increase in members since the Jackson/Roos era started.  But we cannot continually go backwards relative to other clubs who are also vying for sponsors and broadcast airtime/slots. 

It will be interesting to see what initiatives Pert comes with.  Growing membership will be his biggest challenge and hopefully his major KPI. 

 

Edited August 2, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

saints and carlton certainly scotching the theory that wins equates to increased memberships

So St Kilda have one of their worst seasons in recent decades and leapfrog us? Doesn't make sense. 

Carlton have 56K members and probably 8K of them will turn up on Sunday,

This is from St Kilda's website just now:

7 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This is from St Kilda's website just now:

...Exactly...they have been 1,000 members behind us for a long time.  Suddenly they discover another 3K members?

24 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This is from St Kilda's website just now:

I'm guessing the AFL then adds the AFL members, Auskick members etc. to the memberships sold/reported by each club to reach the AFL wide total of 1,008,494.

Which begs the question why the figure the AFL reports for mfc is the same as that on our website...something isn't adding up...

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Gil is a saints supporter, anything is possible........

Collingwood liked to call itself the biggest sporting club in the land. 5th biggest now, so thats good news

 

A thought for Gold Coast. 

What will their number look like next year if they lose Lynch             ( highly likely) and May ( possibility)?

Edited August 2, 20186 yr by Dee Zephyr

The number of members is the sizzle. The sausage is the amount of revenue brought in by memberships.

Better metrics are total revenue and revenue per member.

Another stat that fails to tell the real story

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Bulldogs have paid dearly for their Premiership Hangover.  Down 9.2%!

Hard to see how Carlton and St Kilda have increased by 11.3% and 10.1% respectively. ? [...]

 

Yeah, that drop is shattering for the Bulldogs. I know they invested a lot of resources - financial and otherwise - into membership marketing post-2016, in an attempt to capitalise on the flag. I wouldn't be surprised if their numbers dropped again next year.

RE: Carlton and Saints, have a look at what happens to the figures in 2019.

Edited August 2, 20186 yr by Rogue

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The full breakdown is:

I would guess the one-game memberships are in the 'Reduced-Access' figures.  I recall reading that Collingwood has a huge i/state and o/s memberships and would be in that category.  Ditto the StKilda $1 memberships.

It is the above figures by club, that Ch7 use to determine the premium time slots so the 500,000+ Non-Full Member figures are really important as they are the ones who stay at home and watch on TV.  And really important for Clubs as that is where the potential for conversion to Full members lies.

The perfect recipe to destroy smaller clubs... and then the competition.    More short-sighted visual media execs.

 

.

I've been saying for years these numbers are a load of crap, and this data further supports it.

Either report in actual dollars received from memberships or in 11 game equivalents (ie 3.67 x 3 game m/ships = 1 x 11 game m/ship), or just don't bother.

I'm sure a club like St Kilda is boasting about increased member numbers, whereas their membership revenue would be significantly reduced and their crowd numbers are well down on last year.

Just now, poita said:

I've been saying for years these numbers are a load of crap, and this data further supports it.

Either report in actual dollars received from memberships or in 11 game equivalents (ie 3.67 x 3 game m/ships = 1 x 11 game m/ship), or just don't bother.

I'm sure a club like St Kilda is boasting about increased member numbers, whereas their membership revenue would be significantly reduced and their crowd numbers are well down on last year.

Ditto all crap Whorethorn,Pies, Ess = pet memberships/ 3 game memberships love to see the real figures for 11 game memberships.

36 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

Ditto all crap Whorethorn,Pies, Ess = pet memberships/ 3 game memberships love to see the real figures for 11 game memberships.

You think interstate/international/armchair members should be excluded? They are not insubstantial given the $.

If you had 2000 (of 45,000 or so) paying $80 for a digital membership, it is 160k of membership revenue less the cost of a lanyard, membership card and posting it out to them.

Same logic for interstate/international (with a higher membership fee than non access).