Do Increases in Attendance Mean That Much?

If you read about the WNBA Finals - both on message boards and in the regular press - there's a lot of hype as to how well attended these finals are. The Indiana Fever have been drawing crowds - real crowds, not just giveaway seats - in excess of 15,000. This is seen as a good sign for the WNBA.

And yet, Malcolm Wells over at Swish Appeal points out that well attended finals matches rarely translate into long-term success:

Indeed, attendance has been flat across the league since 2004 at an average of 8000 fans per game, down from the early highs of 10,000 at the WNBA's early peaks. Winning a title in this league doesn't even guarantee greater turnouts. Whereas the Phoenix Mercury have seen a 10% attendance boost since winning their title in 2007, the Detriot Shock have lost 20% of its per game attendance this season despite winning titles in 2006 and 2008. Even a sellout crowd of the magnitude that has shown up for Game 3 need not mean that the WNBA is approaching primetime - Sunday's game is only the fifth largest sellout in the five year history of the WNBA Finals. Those other four sellouts have not translated into sizable attendance gains.

I'm sure that I can get from someone a list of the best-attended WNBA games. It would interesting to draw a chart to see if there's a correlation between high single-game attendance and an increase in overall attendance - but I'm going to agree with Wells that there probably isn't one. We had 10,000 + fans at Philips Arena attend the Dream/Sparks game - many of them bused to Philips from Tennessee courtesy of one Pat Summitt. However, that uptick in attendance didn't translate in the long run to fannies in seats.

Wells also writes about the increase in demographics from ESPN2, which can be found at WNBA.com:

WNBA on TV:

The WNBA regular season on ESPN2 concluded with an average of 269,000 viewers, up 8% versus last season (248,000 viewers).
Regular season games on ESPN2 saw increases in key demographics including men 18-34 (+9%), men 18-49 (+14%), men 23-54 (+23%).
.

As Wells writes, without the base numbers, it doesn't mean much of anything but we do know that overall numbers are up eight percent. However, WNBA.com didn't report similiar increases among women. This leaves the possibility that if the WNBA breaks through and becomes a thriving league, it might be carried on the backs of male viewers. This would be a paradoxical development as the WNBA was predicated to being not just a women's sport, but a sport for women, a sport that would bridge women who had never traditionally been interested in sports into becoming active, enthusiastic sports fans. (And who would hopefully become NBA fans - Stern is one smart puppy.)

It makes one wonder how coverage of the sport - and how the issues of sport and gender - would change if a greater percentage of the WNBA fanbase was made up of male fans.

Some Dream Demographics

On the sponsorship page of the Dream, we find this interesting bit of demographics:

77.7 of Dream game attendees are women.
The average age of a game attendee is 39.

Of course, we don't know if that average is a median, a mean, or a mode. I generally agree with the assertion that the Dream audience skews towards older women.

There's an article from Advertising Age. Their definition of "older women" is women between 50 and 70, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

Women 50 to 70 are particularly important to banks, brokerages and insurance companies.

It's a pity that the kinds of businesses best able to take advantage of this demographic opportunity are the ones that are suffering the most in the Great Recession.

The WNBA: New Customers vs. Repeat Business

Someone once wrote that all of women's basketball fandom could be split into three groups. There might be some overlap, but not a lot:

a) the elderly,
b) males taking their young (under 13) daughters so that the daughters will have strong women as role models, and
c) lesbians.

Let's take this bold statement as a jump-off point, and accept it uncritically as fact. The above group is the "repeat business" of the WNBA - these are the WNBA's potential core base, who are going to keep coming to games come what may. They have bought in.

The question is in which direction should the WNBA go if it is to survive? It seems that 100 percent of the emphasis on the WNBA financial future is about new business - we need more fans in the seats. We need better attendance. We no longer need repeat business, we need new customers instead.

Indeed, that appeared to be the emphasis on WNBA advertising from 1997-2000. The goal was to market to the yuppie crowd, and make the WNBA audience a "family audience" - mom, dad, Junior and little Sis. The impression I got from brief glances at the WNBA during the 20th century was that this was to be some vast, untapped market.

Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. For whatever reason, the WNBA couldn't grab that middle class young professional demographic. Rumor has it that when these middle class right-leaning families came to Utah Starzz games, they were taken aback by the loud and proud lesbian presence - in Utah. (Did they believe that lesbians did not exist in Salt Lake City?) It would have been unseemly for the WNBA to purge the lesbos, so they lost the Young Republicans.

In the 21st Century, the WNBA began looking for some new, heretofore untapped audience. It appears that they settled on attempting to grab fans that had some hesitation about attending a WNBA game because they believed that the quality of play of women's basketball wasn't very good. This culminated in the self-abasing commercials of the 2008 season where players were forced to repeat humiliating lines on camera as to how bad women's basketball was - with video clips to prove the opposite. The new commercials not only confirmed the prejudices of their target audience but alienated their core audience. The core audience had enough problems dealing with the red-bellied woodpeckers out there; they didn't need the WNBA parroting the arguments of the enemy, even if in jest.

One gets the suspicion that the WNBA doesn't particularly like its core audience and if a magic wand could be waived and all three groups above could be replaced by some corn-fed midwestern demographic it would be the solution to all of the WNBA's problems.

This is a shame, because the solution the to WNBA's financial problems might not be in the hunt for new customers - which should, of course, not be abandoned - but to pay more attention to its core base.

One rule of marketing is that is costs more money to create a new customer than to service an old one. Furthermore, it also costs less money to keep an old customer than a new one, because "brand loyalty" sets in. Let's suppose that the WNBA needs to increase its revenues by 20 percent to survive another year. Which do you think would be the more difficult task?

a) get the core base to put up another 20 percent in revenue, or
b) try to increase your fan base by 20 percent and keep revenue charges the same?

I suggest that a) is easier than b). The a) group is more likely to spend money anyway; you just need to give them a reason to open their wallets.

Therefore, instead of looking for new fans the WNBA should market more effectively to its older ones. This could be a three-pronged effort:

1. Commercials that appeal to the elderly base and the family base. You could theoretically appeal to both bases at once. If I were doing commercials for the WNBA, I would emphasize the link between the current WNBA players and their parents. You see Diana Taurasi all the time, but you never see her parents.

A commercial would be narrated by Mr. and Mrs. Taurasi emphasizing the pride they have in Diana's accomplishments. Diana would not have any lines in the commercial, but we would see her play. Diana might appear at the end with her parents, and the messages would be....

...I am a strong child of strong parents
...my parents nurtured me to achieve my dreams
...I am proud of my parents
...my parents are proud of me

Let's see the red-bellied woodpeckers out there mock parenthood. If you get a set of parents that look elderly and wise enough, it would appeal both to the elderly - "hey, that player is just like our granddaughter!" and to the male (married or divorced) who is looking for something to do on a weeknight or weekend with his daughter. If the WNBA is looking to create a family atmosphere...my suggestion is that you emphasize the families that actually exist. If you can get Angel McCoughtry playing one-on-one with her dad in a commerical, that would be great.

2. Commercials that explicitly appeal to the lesbian fanbase. It's time. They have a network for that and everything...ever hear of LOGO?

Face it, of the three groups above, it's the lesbians that have the income. Whenever I go to Dream games, the season ticket areas are packed with older, graying lesbians that own their own businesses, that are executives in companies, that have a lot of disposable income. And, inexplicably, the WNBA would like to ignore that.

Don't worry about getting the reputation of being a "lesbian league". The red-bellied woodpeckers have made that argument for 13 years; they won't be convinced of anything.

If a player is willing to come out of the closet, let her come out and do commercials on LOGO or elsewhere. Hanging out with a bunch of women (the sexual orientation doesn't have to be stated) and just having a lot of fun. "I can be with my friends in the WNBA," would be the message. The WNBA is your friend. Come to the games.

Hell, I'd go all out and see if LOGO could put together a WNBA studio show. Maybe even televise a few games. Why the hell not? I'm sure that a few fiery lesbian fans as announcers could give Art Eckman a run for his dollar. Where is the lesbian Charles Barkley as announcer? Don't tell me that the Lesbian Nation has no opinionated women in it!

In short, in times this bad economically, I suggest to the WNBA that it stop running after the pot of gold behind the ever-further-away rainbow and reach out to what it has. Word of mouth helps business a lot more than the most spectacular commercials anyway. To borrow an old sterotype, it's time for the W to stop trying for the spectacular slam-dunk and put its emphasis on the old-school game.

The WNBA and Minority Viewers

Which American sport has the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic, white fans (and therefore, the highest percentage of "traditional minority" fans)?

According to this link, the list goes as follows:

1) WNBA: 60 percent non-Hispanic white
2) soccer: 61 percent non-Hispanic white
3) men's or women's tennis: 67 percent non-Hispanic white
4) NBA: 69 percent non-Hispanic white

What sport has the highest percentage of non-Hispanic, white fans? The NHL with 85 percent.

Interesting.