Mike Chen's Hockey Blog
Next entry: What Does Gary Bettman Actually Do?
Previous entry: Campbell: The Hands Of Fate
Even Canadian Attendance Dips When Teams Lose
by Mike Chen on 06/01/09 at 10:00 AM ET
Comments (8)
From Gary Bettman’s State of the League presser before Game 1:
We believe that our franchises can all be successful where they’re currently located. And somebody could have asked me the same question that you just asked eight years ago about the Canadian franchises. They could have said; ‘Why do you have any franchises other than Toronto or Montreal?’ eight or ten years ago, because the buildings in all the other places were two-thirds to half empty.
Well, that’s a little bit of an exaggeration...but it’s not totally false. Though perhaps Bettman got his tongue tied and meant that the buildings were 2/3 full to half empty. A 2/3 empty building is pretty freakin’ empty.
Andrew’s Stars Page has attendance numbers dating back to the 1980s, and you can see that Canadian strongholds Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver went through their own lean stretches. As with most attendance woes, a lot of this was based on performance. Even for the most die-hard hockey fan, it’s hard to consistently shell out cash for a crappy product.
Calgary Flames
Peak 1990s Attendance: 19,986 (90-91; renovations in 1994 reduced this to 19,289).
Low point: 16,847 (97-98), 16,202 (98-99), 15,322 (99-00), 16,623 (00-01), 15,718 (01-02)
Edmonton Oilers
Peak 1990s Attendance: 16,843 (90-91, capacity)
Low point: 13,478 (93-94), 13,124 (94-95), 12,335 (95-96)
Vancouver Canucks
Peak 1990s Attendance: 17,795 (95-96, GM Place opens)
Low point: 15,803 (98-99), 14,642 (99-00)
Not surprisingly, these low points are consecutive periods where the team just wasn’t that good. The Canucks failed to qualify for the playoffs from the 96-97 season to the 00-01 season, and smack in the middle of that comes these low attendance numbers. The Oilers failed to make the playoffs in four straight years starting with the 92-93 season, and Edmonton’s attendance dropped in the second year of that bad streak. The Flames didn’t make the playoffs for seven straight seasons, and not surprisingly, the dip in attendance started in the second year of that streak.
Think about it this way: when teams go from good to bad, there’s usually one transition year where expectations are high and everything goes wrong. During that year, attendance usually starts strong and begins to trail off as the playoffs seem further and further away. The following year, attendance takes a big hit, and it goes up and down depending on how long the non-playoff streak lasts.
Every team has its ups and downs, though the valleys are often determined by the team’s market and its level of corporate sponsors filling the seats (like in New York or Toronto). The economy factors in also, such as Detroit’s dip in attendance in 07-08.
This isn’t condoning or condemning the move of the Phoenix Coyotes. It’s simply saying that the argument about attendance can’t fully be supported until the team has consistent on-ice success with a good facility. Even the most fanatical of hockey markets will see a dip in attendance when the team misses the playoffs for a few years.
Would Phoenix ultimately support a good team? I don’t know the market well enough. We’ve seen pretty consistent long-term success in non-traditional markets like San Jose and Dallas, and we’ve seen the New Jersey Devils fight attendance problems coming off Stanley Cups. To cement yourself into a community, you need to win, you need good management, you need good public outreach, and you need an identifiable personality that the fans can connect with (whether that’s a superstar or grinder, it doesn’t matter).
This isn’t about fan support or traditions, it’s about making money. If local businessmen decide that they could make money in the Phoenix/Glendale area—either directly through the team’s accruing value or indirectly by commercial development around the arena—then they’ll buy the team. If they don’t see value in that, then the team goes elsewhere following the standard rules and processes of all sports leagues.
And one thing I can guarantee is this: despite all the overtures about Southern Ontario deserving another team, if the Hamilton Ex-Coyotes put up the same on-ice record as Phoenix has seen for the past decade or so, you’d have the same attendance problems.
People like winners. People don’t like losers. There’s plenty of data to support that, despite the market.
Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Attendance, Calgary+Flames, Edmonton+Oilers, Phoenix+Coyotes, Vancouver+Canucks,
Comments
I’d like to see (especially for the past few seasons) a number that boils attendance and average ticket price into something digestable. After all, there ain’t no season-tickets-for-$49.50-a-month at the Saddledome or Scotiabank Place.
And to your point about Bettman’s choice of words, Mike - yeah, he’s been so honest and upfront with the fans through this whole thing. I’m sure his intent with the 2/3s empty comment wasn’t at all to deceive. We can totally trust him.
Posted by Josh from Fort St. John, BC on 06/01/09 at 12:32 PM ET
One thing about cost during those lean periods...back then, the Canadian dollar was beginning its swoon while team costs were going way, way, way up. So you had two different economic forces going in different directions, plus a crappy on-ice product. Put all that together and it’d be hard to fill a building anywhere, at least not without the prospect of free beer.
(Hey, there’s an idea for struggling markets.)
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/01/09 at 01:10 PM ET
OMG, say it ain’t so! If that’s the case move a team back to Hartford. Or wait ... move a team to KC or Vegas! Zero percent to 100 percent is a hell of an increase!
Posted by auxlepli on 06/01/09 at 02:56 PM ET
I would like to know what the minor hockey situation is like in the Phoenix metro area. Don’t get me wrong, there is no better marketing strategy than a winning hockey team, but it won’t take hold in the community without kids getting involved which then gets their parents involved. From what I hear, minor hockey is starting to take hold in places like Raleigh and Columbus. I have not heard the same regarding Phoenix. If the Great One can’t get Phoenix metro area residents into hockey, I doubt it will ever be successful in the desert.
Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 06/01/09 at 04:46 PM ET
I wish I could argue the same for the ECHL Las Vegas Wranglers. We’ve gone to the WCFs three of the last four years and I’ve only seen maybe two playoff sellouts at home and those tickets are an unbelievable $25 for seats three rows behind the bench or glass. One of the games this past year had an attendance of 5,700+ (the biggest of this past playoff year) in a 7,778 seat arena but I guarantee you HALF of those tickets was comps.
The entertainment dollar in Las Vegas is just waaaay too competitive.
Posted by SYF from Las Vegas, NV on 06/01/09 at 05:04 PM ET
comparing the attendance in vancouver or edmonton through the “lean years” to phoenix is ridiculous. for one, tickets in canadian cities are much more expensive than sun belt cities, the teams spend more towards the salary cap, have better media deals, etc, etc, etc. plus those attendance numbers on the stars page are not really useful without the actual percentages attached.
for some better info on attendance go to http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2008. it only goes back to 2001 but gives you a lot more detail. another resource for this argument is http://teammarketing.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/Fan Cost Index/NHL/NHL08-09.pdf, which shows detailed ticket price info (and stadium purchases) for each team. there is also a link somewhere that i can’t find right now to stubhub’s average resale prices for each of the 30 teams which clearly shows the top 5 teams are the canadian teams, minus ottawa which is slightly lower.
my point is that canadians are much much more likely to spend money on a hockey ticket than people in “non-traditional hockey markets”, regardless of how their team is performing in a given season. hamilton people will most definitely show up to the rink in higher numbers than phoenix people, even given the same on ice product.
Posted by bitterguy from san francisco, ca on 06/01/09 at 05:08 PM ET
Except that Phoenix, even in it’s best years, barely touches Vancouver and Calgary in their worst.
Phoenix’s best season (attendence-wise) was their first, with an average of 15604/game. In 12 years, they have never again reached that number.
And, as has been pointed out several times here already, you need to include average ticket price into this equation. Actually, team revenue is the real number you want.
Posted by Fultron on 06/02/09 at 03:10 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
What Do You Expect From A Rookie Season?
About Mike Chen’s Hockey Blog
Mike Chen prides himself in being the only hockey writer integrating puck discussion with both Morrissey quotes and Star Wars references. Since 2004, he’s blogged about all things hockey and currently contributes to FoxSports.com, the Battle of California, and RotoRob.
Questions? Comments? Hate mail? Contact Mike here.
I’m waiting for the comments from folks who will ignore these statistics, claim Canada has always feverently supported their NHL franchises (facts be damned), and further call for Florida, Nashville, and Atlanta to be relocated without really regarding the problems in those individual markets and instead claiming those markets are unwilling to support hockey, despite facts to the contrary.
(Who, bitter? Me? You don’t say ...)
Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 06/01/09 at 12:22 PM ET