27,488 members as of 12/03/2013?

[andrewg]

I wonder if the clubs with stronger membership bases have a higher percentage of auto roll-over payees? Taking smaller increments more often requiring an opt-out is the way to go I would reckon. Eases the financial blow of a big payout once a year and preys on disorganisation. Is that something Saints push?

Yep they do, probably don't push it but definitely have it as an option.....your right though they should push this more, maybe with an incentive if you order your membership this way, e.g a scarf:) or even fre entry to NAB cub games.

[plugger66]

Just as important as the headline number of members is the revenue per membership. I don't know how those figures stand these days but I do recall them from a few years ago. Back then some of the clubs with the biggest memberships had very low revenue per member figures. Collingwood have made an art form out of low revenue membership deals. Hawthorn did do the same, but I'm not sure of how it stands these days. They both managed to create a desire to belong well above the lesser profile clubs.
The key to us financially is to make NZ work and get a resolution to the revenue drain from the Etihad deal. If we consider that the outcome from games at the G is estimated to be >$2M p.a. better compared to the Etihad deal for the same crowds, that translates into an awful lot of members.
That's why the clubs getting screwed at Etihad will be happy if the AFL just equalise the deals at the G and Etihad, rather than playing into the hands of Eddie and his elites' line, about taking from the rich clubs to prop up the poor, and let them create an illusion of being the better "entrepreneurs".
The truth is the AFL has a product - it doesn't have a number of products. The product is the competition, not the clubs. The major source of revenue is the TV rights and they are sold on the basis of all 18 clubs as 1 product. The AFL recognises this by various equalisation measures (draft, salary cap). Those measures have been effective, as evidenced by the spread of contenders and winners since the early 90's. Now they need to embrace the concept and spread it to the other facets of the competition's success, like stadium deals. Why should they be so unequal, when the strains they exert put at risk components of their product, and then have to hand out money to keep clubs competitive?
A properly equalised basis of the game's revenue would allow all the clubs to compete for individual members on their merits, not to have to concentrate on having members compensate for crappy deals on where they play. Memberships could be sold in competitive deals (e.g. cheaper, if you want to boost your numbers), if some clubs didn't have to rely on memberships to stay afloat because of dud treatment in elements like where you play.
If memberships remain the headline way for clubs to provide the illusion of financial success, the real issues won't get addressed, and Eddie and his band of elites will get to keep pleading they're hard done by, and propping up the stragglers. And, that's just disingenuous crap.

Revenue is important for sure. On SEN yesterday they said Carlton got 2 million more from membership than the Tigers even though the Tigers had about 10k more members. The problem is though that membership numbers are important anyway whether revenue is good or bad and the reason is sponsorship. If i owed a big company I would rather sponsor a club with 50k membership rather than 40k whatever the actual revenue is.

And there is no excuse why our club will struggle to get 32k members this year. Its pathetic whatever the revenue is.

[plugger66]

Our draw for home game sux
Wellington + MCG home games sux

Simple value for money problem, main reason we don't get reserved seats anymore

Agree. I was considering dumping reserved seats for that same reason but didn't.

plugger and I have something in common. We like Kennett!

Now plugs, the fact you post on here 2.3 million times a day but haven't been a member is a shocker.

Please take out an 11 game membership if for nothing else as a donation. I'm sure you could afford it, it's only about $20 per month!

I am going to start with a 3 gamer and work up from there.

[Legendary]

Throw in the fact we have no new major sponsor and yep, it aint great.....yet we reckon we are one of the big boys??????

We need a new Prez that can drum interest in thfis club - like it or not but a chief role of the Prez is spokesperson/marketer for the organistion and weve had marcel marso for a few years while we slowly die.

I reckon we need real profile/acumen on the board.....hopefully not in-bred mates rate jobs.

Just give it 4-6 weeks

[st_Trav_ofWA]

the thing to remember is a lot of companies are tighening the belts a fair bit so spend on sponsorship is going to be pretty tight in the current climate ... that said a lot of people are in the same thinking there are a lot of familys out there who are cutting the non essentual spending so that in itself will see a drop off in membership numbers ... i think the club are doing a fair ammount to try and get the members and with the NZ games hopefully we will see an influx of members from the kiwis ...

[plugger66]

the thing to remember is a lot of companies are tighening the belts a fair bit so spend on sponsorship is going to be pretty tight in the current climate ... that said a lot of people are in the same thinking there are a lot of familys out there who are cutting the non essentual spending so that in itself will see a drop off in membership numbers ... i think the club are doing a fair ammount to try and get the members and with the NZ games hopefully we will see an influx of members from the kiwis ...

That makes complete sense if all clubs were struggling with membership and sponsorship but i think our figures over the last 2 years would be the worst in Victoria.

[saintspremiers]

Throw in the fact we have no new major sponsor and yep, it aint great.....yet we reckon we are one of the big boys??????

We need a new Prez that can drum interest in thfis club - like it or not but a chief role of the Prez is spokesperson/marketer for the organistion and weve had marcel marso for a few years while we slowly die.

I reckon we need real profile/acumen on the board.....hopefully not in-bred mates rate jobs.

Just give it 4-6 weeks

Why? Until we win our first 3 games or do you have some inside info??

[samuraisaint]

We'll beat GWS, Gold Coast, and definitely one of Richmond or Essendon. Membership will build from there. We could even be four from four with a little luck.

[samuraisaint]

the thing to remember is a lot of companies are tighening the belts a fair bit so spend on sponsorship is going to be pretty tight in the current climate ... that said a lot of people are in the same thinking there are a lot of familys out there who are cutting the non essentual spending so that in itself will see a drop off in membership numbers ... i think the club are doing a fair ammount to try and get the members and with the NZ games hopefully we will see an influx of members from the kiwis ...

That makes complete sense if all clubs were struggling with membership and sponsorship but i think our figures over the last 2 years would be the worst in Victoria.

We had more than Geelong a year or so ago, and even now not much difference.
Much higher than Melbourne, North, Bulldogs. On parity with Richmond until recently. We just need some genuine excitement around the club to stimulate a buzz around the joint.

If we can built percentage against the expansion teams in the first few rounds and add a win at the G against Richmond, which is very doable, or Essendon at home (they will probably be starting to get worn down by all the speculation by then) the bandwagon will get moving. We'll nudge 40k again, I'm sure.

[Bayside Nick]

If we actually embraced the expansion opportunities to develop support in Tassie back when, or commit to the Frankston/peninsula area and get over Moorabbin we would be in a different space. I think it has a lot to do with ego or the perceived ego of the club. The Tasmanians saw our ego, and the way we have been behaving at Seaford (although the past six months have started embracing it more) is not condusive to attracting new members. Same goes for NZ when we start down there.

Get over the arrogance and make the most of capitalising on bayside and peninsula and NZ

[matrix]

wonder how the nz membership will work

will it include airfare costs?!

1 (nz "home") game membership = 50 bucks, free sticker and keyring
or
5 game membership (+ 4 games in melb) for about 5000 bucks, free sticker and keyring...and 1 scarf (may or may not containe incorrect spelling)

be interesting to see how many take the plunge over there and sign up and the options that they'll get given

[The Linton Street Flash]

They don't like Seaford!

That’s rubbish. It doesn’t matter Seaford or Frankston itself. The point is that they want to capture the market down there. From St Kilda down the coast has traditionally been Saints territory, and many in the Frankston area. It might take a while, but Frankston could become a city for the Saints, a little like Geelong for the cats. To have the Family Day on the Frankston foreshore open to everyone was a start.

Unfortunately, Saints supporter have always been very fickle, more so than other supporters – the club does well, they sign up, club slides down the ladder, they drop out. Look at Richmond, a crap club for more than 30 years, with hardly any finals appearances, and they still seem to get the same membership every year. It always amazes me – one year we have almost 40,000 and now just over 27,000. Yes more will sign up, but we’ll be lucky to get 30,000.

I know a lot of saints supporters, but none of them are members.

I think this is bulls***, I'm sorry to say - marketing is about visibility. Tucking the team away in a low profile place on a back street in Chelsea was a ridiculous idea - once Frankston Oval fell through hell should have been moved to find a suitable high profile position for the team.

It will take a while to recover from this move in a marketing sense - if they ever do - I bet it doesn't last.

[plugger66]

They don't like Seaford!

That’s rubbish. It doesn’t matter Seaford or Frankston itself. The point is that they want to capture the market down there. From St Kilda down the coast has traditionally been Saints territory, and many in the Frankston area. It might take a while, but Frankston could become a city for the Saints, a little like Geelong for the cats. To have the Family Day on the Frankston foreshore open to everyone was a start.

Unfortunately, Saints supporter have always been very fickle, more so than other supporters – the club does well, they sign up, club slides down the ladder, they drop out. Look at Richmond, a crap club for more than 30 years, with hardly any finals appearances, and they still seem to get the same membership every year. It always amazes me – one year we have almost 40,000 and now just over 27,000. Yes more will sign up, but we’ll be lucky to get 30,000.

I know a lot of saints supporters, but none of them are members.

I think this is bulls***, I'm sorry to say - marketing is about visibility. Tucking the team away in a low profile place on a back street in Chelsea was a ridiculous idea - once Frankston Oval fell through hell should have been moved to find a suitable high profile position for the team.

It will take a while to recover from this move in a marketing sense - if they ever do - I bet it doesn't last.

You do realise Hawthorn train in the back streets of a housing estate. That has nothing to do with membership numbers. People dont watch training anymore and if that was the case Arden street is a popular street for cars and they aren't going to well and neither are the bulldogs in another popular street. Also even though they train elsewhere Melbourne is associated with the G. Still hasnt helped them.

I totally agree with you its about marketing though and also having fans with a bit of ticker who are prepared to job on board in the good and bad times.

[spert]

Our draw for home game sux
Wellington + MCG home games sux

Simple value for money problem, main reason we don't get reserved seats anymore

This is what I dont get. I get the part of not getting reserved seats but I dont get why people want value for money in a membership. It is basically a donation bet you still get to see 11 home games for about $180. That is great value. Actually ridiculously great value. And big deal that we have to travel to the G. Easier to park at the G and for people on the SE side of town where most support comes from it is better for public transport and its a great ground. The Wellington game has been replaced so that doesnt have any bearing anyway.

I agree don't get me wrong we have and will always get memberships, but I just don't feel like the club has been that great with membership marketing and been that 'creative' with boosting our membership numbers.

But we should definitely get 35,000 + anything less would be disappointing

I agree..if it was a school report card for marketing, I think the teacher's comment would be "can do better"

[st_Trav_ofWA]

wonder how the nz membership will work

will it include airfare costs?!

1 (nz "home") game membership = 50 bucks, free sticker and keyring
or
5 game membership (+ 4 games in melb) for about 5000 bucks, free sticker and keyring...and 1 scarf (may or may not containe incorrect spelling)

be interesting to see how many take the plunge over there and sign up and the options that they'll get given

same way the WA membership works... last year we had over 1600 members in WA , most who couldnt even get tickets to our one game in Perth due to the ticket allocation in WA to the visiting team ... for NZ members its a 3hr flight to melbourne from about $260 one way ... for WA members its a 4hr flight starting at $415 one way to get to Melbourne ... if WA members can do it and continue to be members then there is no reason why NZ members cant do the same - plus you would imagine for the next couple of years at least the club will be more accomodating to the NZ public than perhaps they are to the other interstate supporters

[matrix]

400 coins to get to melb..one way!!!!

that is a f****** rort
good lord
heres me whining when i have to pay 150 return

serious robbery at those prices

[Cairnsman]

Just as important as the headline number of members is the revenue per membership. I don't know how those figures stand these days but I do recall them from a few years ago. Back then some of the clubs with the biggest memberships had very low revenue per member figures. Collingwood have made an art form out of low revenue membership deals. Hawthorn did do the same, but I'm not sure of how it stands these days. They both managed to create a desire to belong well above the lesser profile clubs.
The key to us financially is to make NZ work and get a resolution to the revenue drain from the Etihad deal. If we consider that the outcome from games at the G is estimated to be >$2M p.a. better compared to the Etihad deal for the same crowds, that translates into an awful lot of members.
That's why the clubs getting screwed at Etihad will be happy if the AFL just equalise the deals at the G and Etihad, rather than playing into the hands of Eddie and his elites' line, about taking from the rich clubs to prop up the poor, and let them create an illusion of being the better "entrepreneurs".
The truth is the AFL has a product - it doesn't have a number of products. The product is the competition, not the clubs. The major source of revenue is the TV rights and they are sold on the basis of all 18 clubs as 1 product. The AFL recognises this by various equalisation measures (draft, salary cap). Those measures have been effective, as evidenced by the spread of contenders and winners since the early 90's. Now they need to embrace the concept and spread it to the other facets of the competition's success, like stadium deals. Why should they be so unequal, when the strains they exert put at risk components of their product, and then have to hand out money to keep clubs competitive?
A properly equalised basis of the game's revenue would allow all the clubs to compete for individual members on their merits, not to have to concentrate on having members compensate for crappy deals on where they play. Memberships could be sold in competitive deals (e.g. cheaper, if you want to boost your numbers), if some clubs didn't have to rely on memberships to stay afloat because of dud treatment in elements like where you play.
If memberships remain the headline way for clubs to provide the illusion of financial success, the real issues won't get addressed, and Eddie and his band of elites will get to keep pleading they're hard done by, and propping up the stragglers. And, that's just disingenuous crap.

Revenue is important for sure. On SEN yesterday they said Carlton got 2 million more from membership than the Tigers even though the Tigers had about 10k more members. The problem is though that membership numbers are important anyway whether revenue is good or bad and the reason is sponsorship. If i owed a big company I would rather sponsor a club with 50k membership rather than 40k whatever the actual revenue is.

And there is no excuse why our club will struggle to get 32k members this year. Its pathetic whatever the revenue is.

If I owned a big company I would be looking at exposure and reaching my desired market. Membership numbers might play a very small role in the decision making after those factors.

[plugger66]

Just as important as the headline number of members is the revenue per membership. I don't know how those figures stand these days but I do recall them from a few years ago. Back then some of the clubs with the biggest memberships had very low revenue per member figures. Collingwood have made an art form out of low revenue membership deals. Hawthorn did do the same, but I'm not sure of how it stands these days. They both managed to create a desire to belong well above the lesser profile clubs.
The key to us financially is to make NZ work and get a resolution to the revenue drain from the Etihad deal. If we consider that the outcome from games at the G is estimated to be >$2M p.a. better compared to the Etihad deal for the same crowds, that translates into an awful lot of members.
That's why the clubs getting screwed at Etihad will be happy if the AFL just equalise the deals at the G and Etihad, rather than playing into the hands of Eddie and his elites' line, about taking from the rich clubs to prop up the poor, and let them create an illusion of being the better "entrepreneurs".
The truth is the AFL has a product - it doesn't have a number of products. The product is the competition, not the clubs. The major source of revenue is the TV rights and they are sold on the basis of all 18 clubs as 1 product. The AFL recognises this by various equalisation measures (draft, salary cap). Those measures have been effective, as evidenced by the spread of contenders and winners since the early 90's. Now they need to embrace the concept and spread it to the other facets of the competition's success, like stadium deals. Why should they be so unequal, when the strains they exert put at risk components of their product, and then have to hand out money to keep clubs competitive?
A properly equalised basis of the game's revenue would allow all the clubs to compete for individual members on their merits, not to have to concentrate on having members compensate for crappy deals on where they play. Memberships could be sold in competitive deals (e.g. cheaper, if you want to boost your numbers), if some clubs didn't have to rely on memberships to stay afloat because of dud treatment in elements like where you play.
If memberships remain the headline way for clubs to provide the illusion of financial success, the real issues won't get addressed, and Eddie and his band of elites will get to keep pleading they're hard done by, and propping up the stragglers. And, that's just disingenuous crap.

Revenue is important for sure. On SEN yesterday they said Carlton got 2 million more from membership than the Tigers even though the Tigers had about 10k more members. The problem is though that membership numbers are important anyway whether revenue is good or bad and the reason is sponsorship. If i owed a big company I would rather sponsor a club with 50k membership rather than 40k whatever the actual revenue is.

And there is no excuse why our club will struggle to get 32k members this year. Its pathetic whatever the revenue is.

If I owned a big company I would be looking at exposure and reaching my desired market. Membership numbers might play a very small role in the decision making after those factors.

Well in Victoria the desired market is pretty much the same. Im not talking about a little local company, im talking about a big company. Centrebet dont sponsor us because of who follows us or where we are located. I think the more members you have then its obviously more disable to sponsor them than a smaller club. And exposure also come with a bigger membership.

[Dave McNamara]

You may not like Kennet tand I could also guess McGuire but I reckon having them in the paper all the time would sell memberships. Mcguire is brilliant at marketing. Our president is brillant at, actually who is our president?

I may not like Kennett. And I may like Kennett. You can guess about McGuire, I suppose. Knock yourself out.

How did Jeff Kennett sell memberships by be being in the paper all the time?

I believe Richmond have sold a lot of memberships. Is Gary March in the paper all the time or is he a brilliant marketer?

No Gary isnt in the paper a lot and Kennett isnt at the Hawks anymore. Richmond have on average always had a pretty good membership, the Hawks havent. Kennett when in chanrge created interest and I think if you were a Hawks supporter that would be great. We arent so most other supporters didnt like him. I have given one reason why the Hawks membership is so high. There are others like playing in Tassie but thats only 10k. I dont go along with the success of 20 years ago finally making a difference. Where is the spike in the North membership?

Whats your reason why their membership is so good? And why is ours so poor?

Pluggs, I reckon that Ian Dicker was the P&P pres' who turned things around for that club, not Jeffed. They spent most of Jeffed's reign trying to hose down his constant stream of over-the-top comments. I strongly suspect that many at that club who had to actually do the work (be that playing, coaching or administering) would have been very happy when Jeffed stood down. The fact that they managed to pinch that flag off the Hillbillies was despite Jeffed, not because of him... yet he happily basks in that glory that isn't his in any way beyond dumb luck good timing.

Disclaimer: I've never met Jeffed, only someone who once shared a smoke with him..., but regardless, I have no opinion on him personally. However I detest the way he carries on and what he stands for.

BTW, I'd bet that few of us could name the P&P's current pres'... yet his purposefully low-profile approach after the bombastics of Jeffed hasn't yet hurt their membership numbers...

BTW(2): The reason the Skonks revenue-per-membership is low is (of course) because many of them are stolen.

[plugger66]

I may not like Kennett. And I may like Kennett. You can guess about McGuire, I suppose. Knock yourself out.

How did Jeff Kennett sell memberships by be being in the paper all the time?

I believe Richmond have sold a lot of memberships. Is Gary March in the paper all the time or is he a brilliant marketer?

No Gary isnt in the paper a lot and Kennett isnt at the Hawks anymore. Richmond have on average always had a pretty good membership, the Hawks havent. Kennett when in chanrge created interest and I think if you were a Hawks supporter that would be great. We arent so most other supporters didnt like him. I have given one reason why the Hawks membership is so high. There are others like playing in Tassie but thats only 10k. I dont go along with the success of 20 years ago finally making a difference. Where is the spike in the North membership?

Whats your reason why their membership is so good? And why is ours so poor?

Pluggs, I reckon that Ian Dicker was the P&P pres' who turned things around for that club, not Jeffed. They spent most of Jeffed's reign trying to hose down his constant stream of over-the-top comments. I strongly suspect that many at that club who had to actually do the work (be that playing, coaching or administering) would have been very happy when Jeffed stood down. The fact that they managed to pinch that flag off the Hillbillies was despite Jeffed, not because of him... yet he happily basks in that glory that isn't his in any way beyond dumb luck good timing.

Disclaimer: I've never met Jeffed, only someone who once shared a smoke with him..., but regardless, I have no opinion on him personally. However I detest the way he carries on and what he stands for.

BTW, I'd bet that few of us could name the P&P's current pres'... yet his purposefully low-profile approach after the bombastics of Jeffed hasn't yet hurt their membership numbers...

BTW(2): The reason the Skonks revenue-per-membership is low is (of course) because many of them are stolen.

I dont understand any of your nicknames. Sorry. And i doubt one year of a new president would have any baring on this years figures.

[SainterK]

What's the figure now, did it bump up this week following the family day?

[Cairnsman]

Well in Victoria the desired market is pretty much the same. Im not talking about a little local company, im talking about a big company. Centrebet dont sponsor us because of who follows us or where we are located. I think the more members you have then its obviously more disable to sponsor them than a smaller club. And exposure also come with a bigger membership.

Not sure what Sydney's, Brisbanes, GCSs and GWSs membership numbers are but I'm guessing they are not the best in the league, however those clubs are on the TV and in the media pretty much everyday of the week in their respective states. Membership numbers are almost irrelevant in terms of trying to attract sponsorship from companies of any size. The big sell is the media exposure and it also helps if the companies also spends a bit of money with the TV company or media outlets that have AFL rights. Companion back scratching if you like.

[Saints43]

Some people saying that we should have over 35,000 members for the marketing department to get a pass mark.

Can anyone give me an example of a marketing department increasing a clubs membership? What was the campaign?

I'm not trying to be a smart@rse, I'm genuinely interested. I have never seen a membership campaign from Saints that has made me more or less interested in buying a membership.

[Cairnsman]

If we actually embraced the expansion opportunities to develop support in Tassie back when, or commit to the Frankston/peninsula area and get over Moorabbin we would be in a different space. I think it has a lot to do with ego or the perceived ego of the club. The Tasmanians saw our ego, and the way we have been behaving at Seaford (although the past six months have started embracing it more) is not condusive to attracting new members. Same goes for NZ when we start down there.

Get over the arrogance and make the most of capitalising on bayside and peninsula and NZ

Well said and you come pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. The Saints need to tap into the South East and also do what ever they can to own the peninsula. It might take some time but with a little vision and persistance we can become the Geelong of the east.

[sverik25]

We as a club need to to keep earning respect, and keep winning, and that's one way to boost membership. I still think the club is not marketing itself as well as it could. Clubs with strong memberships like Richmond, Geelong, Hawks to name a few, seem to be out there a lot more in public pushing memberships.

It's hard when some clubs have a lot more money to spend on their advertising campaigns than others, e.g. Essendon or Collingwood could afford to pump a lot more money into their membership campaigns than say St Kilda or North Melbourne for example. In spite of this, Saints supporters really need to show some faith in their side and some loyalty - what us Saints fans are known for - and become members this year. Merely settling for 30,000 members isn't good enough and will get us nowhere as a club. So if anyone reads this who hasn't signed up for a membership this year, get on board and help your club say strong!