1 hour ago, 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.

It only matters when trying to compare clubs with one another. Otherwise, who cares what's counted and what isn't? If a club chooses to let someone be a member for zero dollars and who never intends to attend a match, does it really matter?

To answer my own question: Unfortunately it probably does because the TV networks are run by morons who probably don't understand what these numbers actually mean. 

1 hour ago, 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.

Great point.

Imagine if companies reported profits to the ASX like clubs do with membership figures.

Revenue per member would possibly see the Crows at the top as most full members have a reserved seat. Could be the same for WCE.

What worries me most about the MFC is that stat published by LDC ( if I recall) where we are almost at the bottom of the list as to the number of followers/supporters.

That could take 20 years to turn around it is such a  huge discrepancy.

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

What worries me most about the MFC is that stat published by LDC ( if I recall) where we are almost at the bottom of the list as to the number of followers/supporters.

That could take 20 years to turn around it is such a  huge discrepancy.

I thought it was pretty well known that we have the highest rate of conversion of supporters to members.

Years of being at the bottom of the ladder, with no bona fide stars, introduction of TV, etc etc, have stripped us of generations of kids getting on board. It's a long way back, but with names like Gawn, Oliver, Hogan, Petracca making kids sit up and take notice, we are finally heading in the right direction. But it will not be overnight. Far from it. Will take many years. Meanwhile hold on, support the club, and hope we jag a flag to give us a huge boost. Go Demons!

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Imagine if companies reported profits to the ASX like clubs do with membership figures.

It reminds me more of the Logies. Unaccountable and highly fudged online "voting" to see who gets a tin medal to stick on their lapel.

Who would rather have 100,000 $1 members than 20,000 $180 members? (Yes, I understand the magic 100,000 number is a very useful marketing tool, but right now, we're in the business of survival. We can't play in the same sandpit as RFC yet.)

It’s not just money. It’s having Members names and details on a Database. 

 

On 8/2/2018 at 5:52 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

I thought it was pretty well known that we have the highest rate of conversion of supporters to members.

Years of being at the bottom of the ladder, with no bona fide stars, introduction of TV, etc etc, have stripped us of generations of kids getting on board. It's a long way back, but with names like Gawn, Oliver, Hogan, Petracca making kids sit up and take notice, we are finally heading in the right direction. But it will not be overnight. Far from it. Will take many years. Meanwhile hold on, support the club, and hope we jag a flag to give us a huge boost. Go Demons!

That is correct - we have the second highest conversion rate of supporters to members.  Problem is we don't have a high number of supporters, relative to other clubs.  We have the 3rd lowest of number of supporters in the league.

 

Sadly, it is these figures that Ch7 also consider when deciding their broadcast premium slots.  Lots of supporters means lots of tv audience.  Helps explain a bit why Carlton get so many games and the AFL want to 'make them great again'.  Not that I agree with them one single bit.

In many respects we punch well above our weight.

 

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

Something is clearly off with these figures and as poita said above, there's nothing to be gained from comparing them when each club sells different products. The comparison needs to be standardised.

Crowd attendances tell quite a different story. We have the 7th highest average home game attendance (in front of Geelong, Hawthorn, Carlton, St Kilda, Sydney), and that's despite two of our home games having been in the NT with under 10,000 each.

We're 8th for attendances home/away, too (puts us above Hawthorn, Sydney, Port, St Kilda).

42 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is correct - we have the second highest conversion rate of supporters to members.  Problem is we don't have a high number of supporters, relative to other clubs.  We have the 3rd lowest of number of supporters in the league.

Sadly, it is these figures that Ch7 also consider when deciding their broadcast premium slots.  Lots of supporters means lots of tv audience.  Helps explain a bit why Carlton get so many games and the AFL want to 'make them great again'.  Not that I agree with them one single bit.

In many respects we punch well above our weight.

It also needs to be looked at in terms of the numbers quoted above:

Does anyone really, really believe that Sydney has 1.2M supporters, or since it was a survey asking anyone in NSW who they support in AFL, what would be their answer.  You can barely get any mention of AFL in that state.  The numbers are then translated Australia wide so the methodology is faulty. 

And does anyone believe Brisbane has 1/2 million supporters?  More than Carlton....really!  Same problem, ask someone in QLD who they support in AFL and 1 team comes to mind. And you get even less AFL coverage in that state.

How many supporters would Melbourne Storm have if you followed the same methodology?  And poor old Richmond now has over 100,000 members but barely makes it to 4.5k supporters.  That will blow the conversion supposition out of the water. 

The pity is that LH is correct and the numpties at Ch7 and AFL assume that a statistical random sample gives an accurate picture, despite the fact that supporters are concentrated in particular areas. 

 

11 hours ago, FarNorthernD said:

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

 

But they are the biggest load of flogs in the land

14 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It reminds me more of the Logies. Unaccountable and highly fudged online "voting" to see who gets a tin medal to stick on their lapel.

Who would rather have 100,000 $1 members than 20,000 $180 members? (Yes, I understand the magic 100,000 number is a very useful marketing tool, but right now, we're in the business of survival. We can't play in the same sandpit as RFC yet.)

And we shouldn't until we've all had a rabies vaccine shot.