Clubs and relevance ladder

[saintbrat]

who gets the attention ladder


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/f ... zrwo2.html

[saintspremiers]

Last year our TV ratings were quiet good, yet our membership poor. That's a huge problem for us - we have a disproportionate amount of TV followers vs game attendees compared to many other Vic clubs.

[Con Gorozidis]

That ladder looks about right but I cant understand why anyone would be interested in North.

I know they were great in the 70s and 90s but for some reason I find it almost impossible to watch a North game. Any other sides I can watch but I just find North so boring.

Not sure if its the jumpers or some childhood grudge. Just dunno.

[70s sainter]

I don't care what the table says well always be more relevant than north.

[Beno88]

That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.

[spert]

It shows that we have to get competitive very quickly, or we'll drop away even further. The clubs above us on the table have all won premierships later than our one and only in '66, and from my experience, have done better in getting out and flogging memberships and gaining sponsors.

[dragit]

That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.

Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.

There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.

[On the Bench]

That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.

Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.

There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.

This is the main point that this table shows, fixturing is skewing the number of viewers, it's not so much which clubs but when they play. The 2009/10 viewer numbers for the Saints would have been a lot higher, not just because they were winning but the times they played (Friday and Saturday nights).

[saintspremiers]

That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.

Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.

There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.

This is the main point that this table shows, fixturing is skewing the number of viewers, it's not so much which clubs but when they play. The 2009/10 viewer numbers for the Saints would have been a lot higher, not just because they were winning but the times they played (Friday and Saturday nights).

Good point. They really need to break it down on time slots, and over several seasons.