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

    • The only thing I said was he was part of the staff that made part of the decisions, and that I am judging the decisions made by that group as a whole. As assistant GM, you can pretty much guarantee his input held more sway than an intern or the guy that takes coffee requests. Fitterer didn't operate in a vacuum. Neither does Morgan now. While Fitterer did have the ultimate decision, to say that Dan had no input in ranking boards, evaluating FAs, trade offers or anything else would be asinine. We all know he did. Otherwise what the hell was his job as assistant GM? He wouldn't have been kept for 3 years if he was arguing every decision Scott ever made.    And the actual quote was "Morgan has done a bang up job in the draft and FA. Compared to what the last guy did, he is kicking ass and taking names." So is XL kicking ass and Brooks taking names from last years draft or did I get it backwards? We took Wallace over Payton Wilson because he was an injury risk after trading up for a RB with a torn ACL? Which one of the kicking ass and taking names was that?  Maybe we should review the thousands of gameday posts calling for XL to get off the field because he's a bust and can't catch a cold. We could review the posts about Brooks but... And Wilson. He's at 118 tackles this season vs 36 for Wallace.  I gave credit to Dan for a good draft this year. But I'm also not ignoring last year's draft either since he did that one after the last guy too.  That's not a strawman. 
    • And then, in week 18, we can take Mayfield out of the game and whoop Bridgewater's @$$ for good measure! Let the former QB revenge train roll on!!
    • If we keep our guards in tact ($$$) and go with Mays at C, some OT depth would be nice. I think we should be happy about CB with Thornton's development (pre injury) and Smith Wade. I think Ransom is developing nicely, but I would like to see a FS type for situations. We suck at ILB and Edge (as a whole). We should be OK at RB.  I hope we sign Dowdle to a short contract. QB?  There are signs of hope and development.  (I don't like our backup QB) TE?  Good draft for TE, but I think we are developing with Evans, Sanders, and Tremble. WR?  A #2 with Coker and Horn in the slot.  XL?  What is that? We should be good in 2026. Morgan does more than draft.  Free agency has been strong too.  (Just emptying my brain on your comment--sorry)
×
×
  • Create New...