The media deal is league-wide but individual team incentives vary, though the extent of that variation depends on the market and team management. I did a couple of posts about attendance and team quality a few years ago. What I missed then, though, is the role of revenue sharing and the role of local market conditions. Tickets are priced at what the market can bear, which is why the Pelicans are never going to have NYC level prices even if they suddenly become great.
That’s true about tickets being priced at what market can bear. The revenue sharing is equal across the teams but I get the sentiment.
Not all teams seem to operate with the maximalist mindset though — the Hawks pricing at $190 is honestly a bargain compared to wha Atlanta could price in. Ditto for the Detroit Pistons
I will say as a fan with a family tanking does impact the game to game experience.
When teams tank, especially visiting teams it means waiting months if not whole seasons before you get a chance to see certain players play. It makes seeing star players so hard.
Kids are also just as star driven as the adults. They want to see the best play and as a person buying tickets it’s about the ROI.
The NBA model seems designed more to drive people to screens and not to games.
Great article ! What you miss is the long term value of a fan.
What you can quantity is the shift of fandom from growing up following and committed to a team , vs the push of social media to follow individual players.
When a family can afford to come to a game, they do. It’s a unique, bonding event that creates incredible memories. When they come as a family, they not only become a fan of a team, and the players, they become a “Mavs family”.
It’s this connection that makes sports different than every other business. It’s a connection that drives interest, hopefully for decades.
This is why the Mavs had $2 tickets for a while. It’s why David Stern put in place $10 tickets after the lockout in the 90s. It’s why every Mavs game had 4k tickets under $19.
The math is the marginal revenue of an increased ticket price vs the incremental value of families committed as “Mavs families “. I gave up probably $15per ticket or $60k per game. $2.4m a year.
That seems like a lot of money, until you compare it to what it costs in marketing, advertising and promotions to try to connect to all the families you priced out of games. And then add the cost of being able to watch games on streaming and legacy tv. Also not cheap.
Which meant we delegated our connection to fans, to social media, podcasts, email newsletters and the declining influence of legacy media. IMO, that’s a huge mistake.
If you look at only this year’s revenue , I was wrong in my approach. If you look at it across decades, my goal was to make every family in Dallas a Mavs family. Not to maximize this year’s P&L
Nothing hurt me more than seeing fans in the other team’s jersey. Or pricing our tickets so high that fans sold their tickets so they could afford season tickets, or would rather profit than go to the game. Leading to the other team’s fans being louder than our fans.
IMO, this was the greatest insult to an owner and to the players who take the court. If your home game isn’t a home game, it’s a failure.
This is why i sat in the stands and not in the suites. It’s why i made my email public. So I could connect. To ask. To listen.
One thing about Mavs games during my tenure, we put affordability and game experience first. We may not win every game, but we were going to find a way to make sure every parent got the joy of a lifetime, watching their kids beam the whole game. Or the couple on a date had plenty to talk and smile about. The memories we can create, can last a lifetime. And those memories create Mavs families.
Would you say the other owners share the same philosophy? Because from the outside in, there looks to be a lot of owners that, unlike what you did with Dallas, are simply looking to maximize immediate P&L, especially in the biggest markets. And maybe that’s because their customer acquisition cost isn’t as high due to team heritage? But would love to hear your thoughts on that
I was going to comment about how whenever prices for the season would come out, the Mavs would keep the prices down for the cheaper seats and just raise prices on courtside or the suites or whatever. But some guy who knows way more about the Mavs than any of us beat me to it.
tanking is simply a means to an end, and we need to realize that it's okay... You know who isn't worried about what their fans thought 3-4 years ago now? The Thunder and Spurs. You know what fanbases have been desperately clamoring for a full tank rebuild? Steelers and Bulls fans. Tanking is necessary for half the teams to truly, truly, truly improve. So why are we trying to punish teams trying desperately to improve? Unless you think Luka is going to sign with the Kings in the offseason.
I mean statistically that is indeed correct — I’ll have a piece coming out some time about it but when a team tanks, they have a 30% higher chance of making the playoffs in 5 years than if they didn’t tank.
I’m also one of the few people who enjoys watching bad teams because you get to see guys play who you wouldn’t otherwise. I don’t think tanking is “good” though, as it’s still a downgrade from real basketball
The media deal is league-wide but individual team incentives vary, though the extent of that variation depends on the market and team management. I did a couple of posts about attendance and team quality a few years ago. What I missed then, though, is the role of revenue sharing and the role of local market conditions. Tickets are priced at what the market can bear, which is why the Pelicans are never going to have NYC level prices even if they suddenly become great.
That’s true about tickets being priced at what market can bear. The revenue sharing is equal across the teams but I get the sentiment.
Not all teams seem to operate with the maximalist mindset though — the Hawks pricing at $190 is honestly a bargain compared to wha Atlanta could price in. Ditto for the Detroit Pistons
I will say as a fan with a family tanking does impact the game to game experience.
When teams tank, especially visiting teams it means waiting months if not whole seasons before you get a chance to see certain players play. It makes seeing star players so hard.
Kids are also just as star driven as the adults. They want to see the best play and as a person buying tickets it’s about the ROI.
The NBA model seems designed more to drive people to screens and not to games.
I can see that
Though I think it also depends on how knowledgeable of basketball you are, vs being a fan who goes because it’s just the fun thing to do
For screens vs stadiums it certainly looks like that BUT it’s also not, because they make it so hard to watch all the games affordable
It’s a weird dichotomy
That’s a good point. But I don’t know a lot of casuals who would muster up $150 to see people they don’t know.
From experience, it’s far more affordable to watch the game than go to a game.
For what it costs for my family to attend 1 game, I could buy a year long subscription to every platform they are on.
Currently eying some tickets and my projected cost is $550 for 4 people with parking.😭
Definitely more affordable to watch on TV
It’s just shocking the NBA doesn’t make it easier to watch in general
Great article ! What you miss is the long term value of a fan.
What you can quantity is the shift of fandom from growing up following and committed to a team , vs the push of social media to follow individual players.
When a family can afford to come to a game, they do. It’s a unique, bonding event that creates incredible memories. When they come as a family, they not only become a fan of a team, and the players, they become a “Mavs family”.
It’s this connection that makes sports different than every other business. It’s a connection that drives interest, hopefully for decades.
This is why the Mavs had $2 tickets for a while. It’s why David Stern put in place $10 tickets after the lockout in the 90s. It’s why every Mavs game had 4k tickets under $19.
The math is the marginal revenue of an increased ticket price vs the incremental value of families committed as “Mavs families “. I gave up probably $15per ticket or $60k per game. $2.4m a year.
That seems like a lot of money, until you compare it to what it costs in marketing, advertising and promotions to try to connect to all the families you priced out of games. And then add the cost of being able to watch games on streaming and legacy tv. Also not cheap.
Which meant we delegated our connection to fans, to social media, podcasts, email newsletters and the declining influence of legacy media. IMO, that’s a huge mistake.
If you look at only this year’s revenue , I was wrong in my approach. If you look at it across decades, my goal was to make every family in Dallas a Mavs family. Not to maximize this year’s P&L
Nothing hurt me more than seeing fans in the other team’s jersey. Or pricing our tickets so high that fans sold their tickets so they could afford season tickets, or would rather profit than go to the game. Leading to the other team’s fans being louder than our fans.
IMO, this was the greatest insult to an owner and to the players who take the court. If your home game isn’t a home game, it’s a failure.
This is why i sat in the stands and not in the suites. It’s why i made my email public. So I could connect. To ask. To listen.
One thing about Mavs games during my tenure, we put affordability and game experience first. We may not win every game, but we were going to find a way to make sure every parent got the joy of a lifetime, watching their kids beam the whole game. Or the couple on a date had plenty to talk and smile about. The memories we can create, can last a lifetime. And those memories create Mavs families.
Thats far more valuable to the team than anything
I appreciate the insight — super eye opening!!
Would you say the other owners share the same philosophy? Because from the outside in, there looks to be a lot of owners that, unlike what you did with Dallas, are simply looking to maximize immediate P&L, especially in the biggest markets. And maybe that’s because their customer acquisition cost isn’t as high due to team heritage? But would love to hear your thoughts on that
I was going to comment about how whenever prices for the season would come out, the Mavs would keep the prices down for the cheaper seats and just raise prices on courtside or the suites or whatever. But some guy who knows way more about the Mavs than any of us beat me to it.
Straight from the source!!
tanking is simply a means to an end, and we need to realize that it's okay... You know who isn't worried about what their fans thought 3-4 years ago now? The Thunder and Spurs. You know what fanbases have been desperately clamoring for a full tank rebuild? Steelers and Bulls fans. Tanking is necessary for half the teams to truly, truly, truly improve. So why are we trying to punish teams trying desperately to improve? Unless you think Luka is going to sign with the Kings in the offseason.
I mean statistically that is indeed correct — I’ll have a piece coming out some time about it but when a team tanks, they have a 30% higher chance of making the playoffs in 5 years than if they didn’t tank.
I’m also one of the few people who enjoys watching bad teams because you get to see guys play who you wouldn’t otherwise. I don’t think tanking is “good” though, as it’s still a downgrade from real basketball
Really great post! Much of the comments above said the same things I had in mind but I love me some good graphs!