It reminds me of credit card companies trying to come up with new schemes to make what is just another credit card seem more selective and exclusive. 

“We already have a Platinum card, what comes after that?”

“What about Plutonium?  That’s pretty rare.”

“What about a Comet Dust card!”

etc.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/28/08 at 11:36 AM ET

Next price level is “crude” and you pay by the barrel.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 07/28/08 at 11:47 AM ET

Or “unleaded” and you pay by the gallon - that works, too.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/28/08 at 11:53 AM ET

I’m so glad they reduced the number of divisional games—I’m hoping they eventually go to the 84 game schedule though, it would be like the early 90’s before expansion screwed up the balance of the schedule.

Posted by bcrt on 07/28/08 at 12:06 PM ET

Interesting that the Detroit game is not a premium game.

Posted by w2j2 on 07/28/08 at 02:04 PM ET

Not surprised to see the Toronto games as the most expensive.  The Sabres know (as do all their season ticket holders who defray the cost of their seasons by selling to Toronto fans) that the demand for Leaf-Sabre games in Buffalo is pretty inelastic.  Leaf fans who can’t get into the ACC to see a game often flock to Buffalo, and so they’ll pay a pretty price (particularly now at currency parity) to see their team.  The Sabres are then able to capitalize on that extra demand, make some revenue above what they normally would at constant pricing, and either that use extra revenue to cut prices (like the 15% decrease in gold prices) or throw the extra money towards operating expenses (like the increased cost of jet fuel for travel this season).  From an economic standpoint, it’s pretty astute.

Posted by Dan from Pittsburgh on 07/28/08 at 02:32 PM ET

Yeah, this price hike is because of Leafs fans.  It’s nearly impossible to get tickets to home games so people are just as interested in tickets to away games in Ottawa or Buffalo.  And it’s why the Sabres don’t want a team in Hamilton.

And Dan, sorry for being a bit of an economics stickler (I’m an ECO major), but in this case, supply is inelastic, not demand.  A price hike certainly will reduce the number of people willing to buy tickets, but it doesn’t matter because the Sabres can only sell a set number of tickets regardless.  Same effect in the end, though.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 07/28/08 at 03:59 PM ET

Hey Ryan, no worries. If I can be a stickler back though, I do think (though I may be confused) that both can be inelastic.  That is, I think that the marginal change in demand will be quite small relative to the change in price (resulting in a fairly steep demand curve) even if it’s not technically less than or equal to one, due in large part to the demand of the Leafs fan and the fact that I think you’d have to go quite high to hit their reservation price. It’s likely true that this is more pronounced than in the market at large, in which the demand of Buffalo fans (who have 41 chances to see their team rather than 6 or 8 for Leafs fans) is less than that of Leaf fans for these games, so it could be more elastic in the larger population than the smaller subpopulation of Leafs fans to which I was thinking of.  Either way we’re in agreement; the Sabres can raise the prices for these specific games because they only have 18,000 some odd seats to sell, and a rabid Toronto fan base that would be more than happy to buy them, likely even at double the price, given the difficulty they have getting tickets to see the Leafs at ACC.

Thanks for the response; always enjoy a good intellectual exercise.

Posted by Dan from Pittsburgh on 07/28/08 at 05:02 PM ET