https://knightnewhousedata.org/reports/66031a74
I believe 2021 is actually for the 2020-2021, the COVID year. The 2018 year would be CLF’s 2017 4-8 team. Overall we fare very well opposed to the rest of the AAC schools. I averaged the median of the schools who participated in this study over four years as well as UC’s numbers during that same time period. Some highlights:
Other Revenue-defined as compensation from third parties, game program, novelty, parking and concessions, sports camps and clinics, athletic endowments and other operating revenue
AAC Avg: $1,678,322.50
UC Avg: $7,207,672
Corporate Sponsorships- revenue from royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships
AAC Avg: $4,763,181.70
UC Avg: $7,927,337
Donor Contributions
AAC Avg: $7,930,481.20
UC Avg: $8,909,570.50
Competitive Guarantees- revenue for buy-games and neutral site game
AAC Avg: $35,602.75
UC Avg: $727,553.75
NCAA Distributions, Media Rights, and Post Season FB
AAC Avg: $3,778,886.70
UC Avg: $7,802,426.70
Ticket Sales
AAC Avg: $1,731,671.20
UC Avg: $2,172,410
Institutional Support
AAC Avg: $18,971,814
UC Avg: $30,324,167.75
(05-18-2022 08:25 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://knightnewhousedata.org/reports/66031a74
I believe 2021 is actually for the 2020-2021, the COVID year. The 2018 year would be CLF’s 2017 4-8 team. Overall we fare very well opposed to the rest of the AAC schools. I averaged the median of the schools who participated in this study over four years as well as UC’s numbers during that same time period. Some highlights:
Other Revenue-defined as compensation from third parties, game program, novelty, parking and concessions, sports camps and clinics, athletic endowments and other operating revenue
AAC Avg: $1,678,322.50
UC Avg: $7,207,672
Corporate Sponsorships- revenue from royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships
AAC Avg: $4,763,181.70
UC Avg: $7,927,337
Donor Contributions
AAC Avg: $7,930,481.20
UC Avg: $8,909,570.50
Competitive Guarantees- revenue for buy-games and neutral site game
AAC Avg: $35,602.75
UC Avg: $727,553.75
NCAA Distributions, Media Rights, and Post Season FB
AAC Avg: $3,778,886.70
UC Avg: $7,802,426.70
Ticket Sales
AAC Avg: $1,731,671.20
UC Avg: $2,172,410
Institutional Support
AAC Avg: $18,971,814
UC Avg: $30,324,167.75
The one comparative measure that seems disparate to me is Ticket Sales, in that UC is so close to that conference average. I'll guess it's not a facility size limitation given we're in with schools with considerably smaller stadia and arenas in many cases. And I can't believe ticket revenue at places such as Temple and Tulsa compare favorably. If anything, it may suggest we are underpriced on tickets, which I believe is the case.
If we want to sustain P5 competitive results, ticket revenues have to increase.
(05-18-2022 10:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 08:25 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://knightnewhousedata.org/reports/66031a74
I believe 2021 is actually for the 2020-2021, the COVID year. The 2018 year would be CLF’s 2017 4-8 team. Overall we fare very well opposed to the rest of the AAC schools. I averaged the median of the schools who participated in this study over four years as well as UC’s numbers during that same time period. Some highlights:
Other Revenue-defined as compensation from third parties, game program, novelty, parking and concessions, sports camps and clinics, athletic endowments and other operating revenue
AAC Avg: $1,678,322.50
UC Avg: $7,207,672
Corporate Sponsorships- revenue from royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships
AAC Avg: $4,763,181.70
UC Avg: $7,927,337
Donor Contributions
AAC Avg: $7,930,481.20
UC Avg: $8,909,570.50
Competitive Guarantees- revenue for buy-games and neutral site game
AAC Avg: $35,602.75
UC Avg: $727,553.75
NCAA Distributions, Media Rights, and Post Season FB
AAC Avg: $3,778,886.70
UC Avg: $7,802,426.70
Ticket Sales
AAC Avg: $1,731,671.20
UC Avg: $2,172,410
Institutional Support
AAC Avg: $18,971,814
UC Avg: $30,324,167.75
The one comparative measure that seems disparate to me is Ticket Sales, in that UC is so close to that conference average. I'll guess it's not a facility size limitation given we're in with schools with considerably smaller stadia and arenas in many cases. And I can't believe ticket revenue at places such as Temple and Tulsa compare favorably. If anything, it may suggest we are underpriced on tickets, which I believe is the case.
If we want to sustain P5 competitive results, ticket revenues have to increase.
Free student tickets (roughly 20% of the stadium) and incredibly affordable season and single game tickets contribute greatly to that. Also, I'd imagine having no football ticket revenue on the best year, to that point, that we had experienced in quite some time plus no basketball ticket sales for one of the years probably contributes to that number being closer to the average as well.
(05-18-2022 10:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 08:25 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://knightnewhousedata.org/reports/66031a74
I believe 2021 is actually for the 2020-2021, the COVID year. The 2018 year would be CLF’s 2017 4-8 team. Overall we fare very well opposed to the rest of the AAC schools. I averaged the median of the schools who participated in this study over four years as well as UC’s numbers during that same time period. Some highlights:
Other Revenue-defined as compensation from third parties, game program, novelty, parking and concessions, sports camps and clinics, athletic endowments and other operating revenue
AAC Avg: $1,678,322.50
UC Avg: $7,207,672
Corporate Sponsorships- revenue from royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships
AAC Avg: $4,763,181.70
UC Avg: $7,927,337
Donor Contributions
AAC Avg: $7,930,481.20
UC Avg: $8,909,570.50
Competitive Guarantees- revenue for buy-games and neutral site game
AAC Avg: $35,602.75
UC Avg: $727,553.75
NCAA Distributions, Media Rights, and Post Season FB
AAC Avg: $3,778,886.70
UC Avg: $7,802,426.70
Ticket Sales
AAC Avg: $1,731,671.20
UC Avg: $2,172,410
Institutional Support
AAC Avg: $18,971,814
UC Avg: $30,324,167.75
The one comparative measure that seems disparate to me is Ticket Sales, in that UC is so close to that conference average. I'll guess it's not a facility size limitation given we're in with schools with considerably smaller stadia and arenas in many cases. And I can't believe ticket revenue at places such as Temple and Tulsa compare favorably. If anything, it may suggest we are underpriced on tickets, which I believe is the case.
If we want to sustain P5 competitive results, ticket revenues have to increase.
As I look at the report the only school that had more ticket revenue than UC was Memphis. The Tigers football teams were very good for the first three seasons of this report and the stadium had more seating than Nipper. Plus they get 16,000+ to their basketball games. I suspect, especially on the basketball side, they have a lot of premium seating.
Both points are well taken on the ticket revenue question.
I do have some fear that UC made hay with ticket sales at "minor league" pricing, much as FCC did during those early Nippert years. That has proven to be a good strategy, especially complementing the tremendous on-field success we've enjoyed.
Will a majority of those fans be willing to pay considerably more in the coming years when UC hosts an Oklahoma State or Baylor? I think so...and I hope so. It's a reasonable expectation that we all pay more and I still don't think it will approach prices at the legacy football factories, such as the one up I-71.
(05-18-2022 03:27 PM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]Both points are well taken on the ticket revenue question.
I do have some fear that UC made hay with ticket sales at "minor league" pricing, much as FCC did during those early Nippert years. That has proven to be a good strategy, especially complementing the tremendous on-field success we've enjoyed.
Will a majority of those fans be willing to pay considerably more in the coming years when UC hosts an Oklahoma State or Baylor? I think so...and I hope so. It's a reasonable expectation that we all pay more and I still don't think it will approach prices at the legacy football factories, such as the one up I-71.
I don't know that I'd consider FCC and UC ticketing to be the same. I believe FCC offered up somewhere around half of the inventory in the first two years as completely free tickets to students and youth clubs in order to try to build a new fanbase, and clearly a rather fickle one. Also, I'd imagine that UC, with actual on-field success, can weather a pricing increase far better than FCC what with their last place performances year over year (this year notwithstanding...yet...)
Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
(05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
(05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Well (and succinctly) said! UC has been on a decade long, mostly steady climb in terms of selling seats and filling Nippert. Filling and energizing that student section takes the experience to a whole different level for the rest of us.
In terms of fan experience, it's simply the best it's ever been and I'll venture to say among the best in the country because of the intimacy of the facility. The tightrope athletics will have to walk will be increasing revenue without adversely impacting attendance and participation. That beats the problems UC had 30 years ago: promoting "buy one, get one" ticket vouchers at Skyline Chili and still having 2/3 of Nippert empty. We've come a long way.
(05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
(05-19-2022 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
Our local HQ of Kroger seems to do more for UK and UL than for us. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that way.
(05-19-2022 08:14 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
Our local HQ of Kroger seems to do more for UK and UL than for us. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that way.
They do...they own this market regardless of if they throw any money to us or not. You, being the ever present mind of finance, should know that spending marketing dollars in a market you already wholly control is just bad business.
(05-19-2022 08:57 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 08:14 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
Our local HQ of Kroger seems to do more for UK and UL than for us. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that way.
They do...they own this market regardless of if they throw any money to us or not. You, being the ever present mind of finance, should know that spending marketing dollars in a market you already wholly control is just bad business.
I understand the concept I was just pointing it out as an example of our local FF not really giving us much support. UH has Fertitta and Memphis has Smith and OKS had Pickins. I guess our best is Lindner's and Wyler.
(05-19-2022 09:13 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 08:57 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 08:14 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
Our local HQ of Kroger seems to do more for UK and UL than for us. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that way.
They do...they own this market regardless of if they throw any money to us or not. You, being the ever present mind of finance, should know that spending marketing dollars in a market you already wholly control is just bad business.
I understand the concept I was just pointing it out as an example of our local FF not really giving us much support. UH has Fertitta and Memphis has Smith and OKS had Pickins. I guess our best is Lindner's and Wyler.
Yep...individual donors are very different than large corporations though, especially when those donors are billionaire alumni who own private corporations instead of publicly traded ones where their decisions are not beholden to investors. The people who think the F500 companies in Cincinnati are just going to toss cash at schools like UC just don't understand how administration of a publicly traded company works
As far as I'm aware, we only have two billionaire alums, both of whom are from inherited wealth, not generated wealth, meaning they have less of an affinity for the impact that the University had on their lives. Carl Jr. was the one who donated all of the money to UC (the one who generated his own wealth)...the sons have done next to nothing outside of milk the University for a stadium.
Unfortunately, donor development has as much, if not more, to do with how the individuals came upon their wealth as to if they'll donate it to certain entities.
(05-19-2022 08:14 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2022 07:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2022 10:06 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to me as though even a significant increase in ticket revenue would still be a fairly small percentage of overall revenue.
Get all the cash we can, but not at the expense of having unused seats.
Agree with this. Its more important to be a consistent sellout than to just gouge fans with high ticket prices and make them question whether the investment is worth it.
This is exactly what happened to me with the NFL and MLB. I used to go to at least one Bengals game and 8-10 Reds games a year. Now I go to less than one Bengals games a year and only 1-3 Reds games a year. The cost to go to multiple games a year just isn't worth it anymore.
I go to every Bearcats football game because its affordable and I get an entire days worth of fun (tailgating + game).
UC's revenue generation should start with corporate sponsorships. There are many large corporations in the area that are not yet on board with supporting UC athletics.
And don't need to be, specifically because they are local, well-known corporations. The fact that we think these local Fortune 500 companies are going to cut checks for us in Cincinnati is a special kind of regional delusion.
Our local HQ of Kroger seems to do more for UK and UL than for us. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that way.
Kroger’s CEO, Rodney McMullen, is a UK grad
Ticket pricing has been talked about in this thread and I'm sure you're all aware already but ticket prices are increasing for next season
https://gobearcats.com/sports/2021/10/19...-plan.aspx
From what people have reported about single game ticket availability, even with the increased prices, tickets have sold extremely well
I think steadily increasing the ticket prices (enough to cover inflation and then a bit more) is the way to go as long as the bottom doesn't fall out for the program in terms of on-field success. Just don't do too steep of an increase at once, as I feel like that always creates resentment that (at least for a while) negates the benefits. If, say, a ticket is at $100 now and you want to get to $150 in 5 years time, trying to "rip off the band-aid" and jump most of the way there in one year is going to backfire at a time when you're still trying to build fan support to a P5 level. Can't risk turning away potential new fans before they even have a chance to experience Nippert.
(05-19-2022 11:30 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I think steadily increasing the ticket prices (enough to cover inflation and then a bit more) is the way to go as long as the bottom doesn't fall out for the program in terms of on-field success. Just don't do too steep of an increase at once, as I feel like that always creates resentment that (at least for a while) negates the benefits. If, say, a ticket is at $100 now and you want to get to $150 in 5 years time, trying to "rip off the band-aid" and jump most of the way there in one year is going to backfire at a time when you're still trying to build fan support to a P5 level. Can't risk turning away potential new fans before they even have a chance to experience Nippert.
Bolded, agreed. A price increase on ANYTHING in this inflationary economy is the new normal and we now expect it but doing this incrementally each year beats trying to play catch up five years from now with a jarring 50% increase.