In strategy terms price acts as a barrier to entry. For example you can't use electricity without an appliance, so the electricity suppliers 'rely' on appliance producers selling the connection to the network… if they do a poor job the electricity company performance is constrained.

This exact example lead to Rob Aitken and I suggesting in lectures that electricity companies should / could give away free heaters to students during O'week. Both power consumption (the way power companies actually make money) increases and its likely that this would seed a relationship with customers when entering the market for the first time and becoming a life time user. Throw in a little customer inertia with regards to changing supply companies and it seems like a recipe for growing a substantial (stable / loyal) customer base.

A comment on the 'full stadium creates great atmosphere' bullet point – this is the key argument. My logic started from this assumption professional sport now makes the majority of its revenues from broadcast rights… while traditionally they have sold the 'game' what makes it better to watch is the atmosphere at the game. Consider watching a test match (on tv) when there was no crowd there; the skill set (the functional product) remains the same but the observed experience suffers. Better television, more money for broadcast rights… I am guessing that the differential between ticket sales and increased broadcast rights is not actually that much at the NPC or Super (whatever number they up to now) rugby.

This is also a way to understand how sports events are co-created with the crowd. Listen to any 'big match' interview and the players always comment about the difference in intensity caused by large crowds.

A final thing about human nature too, is that some people don't want the free experience – they want it enhanced (sometimes the only enhancement is the knowledge that they paid and everyone else didn't). This demand for enhancement creates opportunity to charge customers who want to be charged who are then also unlikely to complain.

The revenue model has already changed BUT the producers of rugby want to continue to clip the ticket multiple times… spectators and broadcasters hard to stop eating at the trough when you have done it all your life (even if less and less scraps in it each day)

free doesn't mean no one pays – just maybe not you

Cheers again for the hat tip…

Ophil

In strategy terms price acts as a barrier to entry. For example you can't use electricity without an appliance, so the electricity suppliers 'rely' on appliance producers selling the connection to the network… if they do a poor job the electricity company performance is constrained.

This exact example lead to Rob Aitken and I suggesting in lectures that electricity companies should / could give away free heaters to students during O'week. Both power consumption (the way power companies actually make money) increases and its likely that this would seed a relationship with customers when entering the market for the first time and becoming a life time user. Throw in a little customer inertia with regards to changing supply companies and it seems like a recipe for growing a substantial (stable / loyal) customer base.

A comment on the 'full stadium creates great atmosphere' bullet point – this is the key argument. My logic started from this assumption professional sport now makes the majority of its revenues from broadcast rights… while traditionally they have sold the 'game' what makes it better to watch is the atmosphere at the game. Consider watching a test match (on tv) when there was no crowd there; the skill set (the functional product) remains the same but the observed experience suffers. Better television, more money for broadcast rights… I am guessing that the differential between ticket sales and increased broadcast rights is not actually that much at the NPC or Super (whatever number they up to now) rugby.

This is also a way to understand how sports events are co-created with the crowd. Listen to any 'big match' interview and the players always comment about the difference in intensity caused by large crowds.

A final thing about human nature too, is that some people don't want the free experience – they want it enhanced (sometimes the only enhancement is the knowledge that they paid and everyone else didn't). This demand for enhancement creates opportunity to charge customers who want to be charged who are then also unlikely to complain.

The revenue model has already changed BUT the producers of rugby want to continue to clip the ticket multiple times… spectators and broadcasters hard to stop eating at the trough when you have done it all your life (even if less and less scraps in it each day)

free doesn't mean no one pays – just maybe not you

Cheers again for the hat tip…

Ophil

In strategy terms price acts as a barrier to entry. For example you can't use electricity without an appliance, so the electricity suppliers 'rely' on appliance producers selling the connection to the network… if they do a poor job the electricity company performance is constrained.

This exact example lead to Rob Aitken and I suggesting in lectures that electricity companies should / could give away free heaters to students during O'week. Both power consumption (the way power companies actually make money) increases and its likely that this would seed a relationship with customers when entering the market for the first time and becoming a life time user. Throw in a little customer inertia with regards to changing supply companies and it seems like a recipe for growing a substantial (stable / loyal) customer base.

A comment on the 'full stadium creates great atmosphere' bullet point – this is the key argument. My logic started from this assumption professional sport now makes the majority of its revenues from broadcast rights… while traditionally they have sold the 'game' what makes it better to watch is the atmosphere at the game. Consider watching a test match (on tv) when there was no crowd there; the skill set (the functional product) remains the same but the observed experience suffers. Better television, more money for broadcast rights… I am guessing that the differential between ticket sales and increased broadcast rights is not actually that much at the NPC or Super (whatever number they up to now) rugby.

This is also a way to understand how sports events are co-created with the crowd. Listen to any 'big match' interview and the players always comment about the difference in intensity caused by large crowds.

A final thing about human nature too, is that some people don't want the free experience – they want it enhanced (sometimes the only enhancement is the knowledge that they paid and everyone else didn't). This demand for enhancement creates opportunity to charge customers who want to be charged who are then also unlikely to complain.

The revenue model has already changed BUT the producers of rugby want to continue to clip the ticket multiple times… spectators and broadcasters hard to stop eating at the trough when you have done it all your life (even if less and less scraps in it each day)

free doesn't mean no one pays – just maybe not you

Cheers again for the hat tip…

Ophil