Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Lower concession prices...Higher profits?


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

I sent this exact feedback to "Spectrum Center" last time I went to an event there. Prices were so high on everything in the arena the we opted to only buy a drink each and just not partake in anything else. I'd have been fine spending money but there was no value in what we were purchasing and it was totally cost prohibitive. If they would lower prices we would have spent far more than we did and likely enjoyed ourselves more. Plus, if you get folks drinking the purse strings tend to loosen up a bit more. But at $10-15 per BEER we weren't enticed to purchase anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snake said:

Yeah I never really understood the movie popcorn theory. The more affordable you make something the more people buy. 

There was an interesting segment on the show Brain Games about that one time. They had a showing of a movie one night and had only small and medium popcorn. The small was $3 and the large was something like $7. The first night almost everyone bought the small. Then the second night they added a large for $8. The second night almost everyone bought a large. That perceived value of the large over the medium effectively tricked people into thinking it was a value to pay $9 for something that would cost them less than a dollar to make at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigpoppa said:

There was an interesting segment on the show Brain Games about that one time. They had a showing of a movie one night and had only small and medium popcorn. The small was $3 and the large was something like $7. The first night almost everyone bought the small. Then the second night they added a large for $8. The second night almost everyone bought a large. That perceived value of the large over the medium effectively tricked people into thinking it was a value to pay $9 for something that would cost them less than a dollar to make at home.

Well yes playing on stupid people has always worked. Like. 99 instead of 1.00.

Still if you lower the total price each person buys something and doesn't share the total revenue goes up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

Is this showing profits are higher or that people spent more money? Because they're different things. 

They looked at it from both sides.

Quote

One caution: Mimicking the Falcons’ concessions approach is not simply a matter of a team deciding to mark down prices. Blank and his staff did it by abandoning the traditional vendor structure and crafting an operator relationship that allowed the Falcons more control over prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These places would rather make one slow nickel than five fast pennies. And honestly as long as it takes to get through the lines now, I can't imagine how bad it would be if half the attendees weren't refusing to participate in being fleeced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That new home page looking sexy and thicc
    • Serious question:  Why LG and not RG?  There may be something I do not know, but Hunt's contract is huge and he could be let go after this season (post june 1 cut) and it would save the Panthers a ton of money.  Extending him would be paying a G who is in his mid 30s guaranteed money (and I do not see that as a terrible thing).  So if we release him at age 31, we save $19m.  I like him, but at 31, will he be worth the mega contract?   LG Damien Lewis has actually outperformed Hunt and he is a year younger.  He would also save less vs. the cap and leave less in the dead cap pool.  While his current contract expires after the 2027 season, he is a better prospect (IMO) to extend because only 50% of his current contract was guaranteed.  Here are his contract numbers.   Now, getting to Ickey--he could want LT money if he is offered a second contract.  If we pay him LT money to play either G positions, we are likely overpaying.  Secondly, the injury he suffered could be one that limits his productivity.  Ickey was improving, but he was an average LT.  The only way I re-sign Ickey is to have him accept a G contract and make a lot of it incentive based.     I feel like I am missing something, but in my mind, Ickey was always a guard if you consider the fact that he is an average OT and would be a great G.  Is that still the case (injury)?
    • Supplemental draft uses picks from next year. So a team were to draft him in the 1st, their upcoming 1st next draft would no longer be available. There have been some notable players that were obtained in the supplemental draft, such as Kosar. It doesn't necessarily happen every year either, and is more on a as needed basis. The gambling trouble is a big red flag for teams, and maybe pushes him down to a 4th? Not sure a team would use a 1st on him.
×
×
  • Create New...