ANZ Stadium Campaignengagement stats; SeatShare concept test

The Campaign •  CheckinLine presented ANZ Stadium with a unique new premium ticket offering

called SeatShare.

•  ANZ Stadium worked with CheckinLine to run a special competition, to engage the broad sport fan market, test the SeatShare concept and determine if a market exists for a SeatShare offering at ANZ Stadium.

•  Fans were enticed with the following incentives:

•  26 x free “member for a day” double passes to an upcoming game •  100 x double pass runners-up prizes •  Plus, all fans who completed all five check-ins received a one-year food &

beverage discount card to use in the stadium

•  The competition was promoted to an internal database of prospects and one post on ANZ Stadium’s Facebook page and Twitter account.

The compelling results from this concept test has lead to a full ANZ Stadium SeatShare pilot trial in 2014.

3

Results...

4

319 opt-ins

58% engaged

in the check-in process

Average 3.6 out of 5 check-ins completed

5:06 average visit duration

time (1:46 on check-

in page)

16,171 page views

50% completed all 5 check-

ins

-  A ‘gamified’ environment -  Dedicated fans -  Extremely high check-in

completion rate

5

50% of engaged users completed all 5 check-ins. - a strong opt-in prize rewarded those who completed all 5 check-ins

34  

27  

11  

22  

92  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

90  

100  

1  check-­‐in   2  check-­‐ins   3  check-­‐ins   4  check-­‐ins   5  check-­‐ins  

6

High levels of engagement per visit.

7

Users understood the process and check-ins were evenly spread each day. -  Consistent and even flow of check-in times each day -  Number of visits didn’t drop off dramatically over the campaign -  Users clearly understood and embraced the process

8

Extremely high mobile visitation rate (normally 55%) -  The CheckinLine user interface is optimized for mobile

9

What the data uncovered SeatShare concept and price sensitivity testing

The CheckinLine campaign engaged a market of highly passionate sports fans

How many different sports do you like to

watch live? 3.5

When it comes to sport, how would you describe yourself? 1% 2% 3% 13% 20% 27% 34%

Casual Observer Fanatic

Love sport Love to watch

How many different sports do you like to

watch on TV? 3.2

How many games have you attended in the last

month? 3.5 How many games have

you watched on TV in the last month? 14.8

While league is clearly dominant, other sports and live events are also a winner with this audience

41%

85%

46%

69%

51%

64%

34%

84%

40%

61%

53%

44%

AFL

Rugby League

Rugby Union

Soccer

Cricket

Special Events (concerts etc.)

Regularly watch on TV Enjoy watching live

The Concept

“We’d like to introduce you to a new concept for seating arrangements at ANZ Stadium called SeatShare, where you share a block of premium seating with other fans and only use them for the games you want. Your SeatShare subscription fee allows you to lock in 2 tickets to a game in the future. CheckinLine will then run an active standby list for each game to allocate the leftover seats not already taken by SeatShare subscribers. If you want to go to a particular game, you'll request seats for that game and check-in if required (if demand outstrips supply). You will pay a set fee for each seat you use beyond the initial sign-up.”

Traditional Ticketing Process e.g. Standard Membership

CheckinLine’s SeatShare Process

- CheckinLine’s unique queuing system provides a fair, transparent environment for SeatShare subscribers to access high demand events and enables fans to request seats only to the games they want to see.

Kind of like time-share for premium seating, SeatShare enables a stadium to increase seat yields by offering seats to more fans, generating more revenue for the stadium and providing value to fans at the same time.

Overall, there is genuine interest and excitement in the idea. However, likely take up appears moderate, with the majority neutral towards the offer

How interesting is the new concept?

3%

4%

9%

19%

27%

20%

18%

1 - Not at all interesting

2

3

4

5

6

7 - Extremely interesting

3%

6%

12%

19%

31%

17%

12%

1 - Not at all exciting

2

3

4

5

6

7 - Extremely exciting

How exciting is the new concept?

How likely would you be to take up at $350

8%

21%

12%

26%

16%

7%

9%

1 - Would definitely not take up the offer

2

3

4

5

6

7 - Would definitely take up the offer

What is it that is creating the tension between overall excitement for the concept, and willingness to take up the offer?

Price plays a role in this - $350 is felt to be in the ‘too expensive’ territory. Around $250 - $300 potentially more appealing

17%

55%

27%

1%

0%

Way too expensive

A little over priced

About right

A little under priced

Way too cheap

For what is included do you think this is...?

48%

34%

14%

2%

2%

0%

0%

9%

20%

33%

21%

11%

5%

2%

88%

11%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

$200-250

$250-300

$300-350

$350-400

$400-450

$450-500

$500+

Fair and Reasonable Too expensive Too cheap

At what price do you think this is...?

Turning point – where significantly more feel this is ‘Too Expensive’

Applying some price sensitivity algorithms makes the picture clearer

!$#!!!!

!$50.00!!

!$100.00!!

!$150.00!!

!$200.00!!

!$250.00!!

!$300.00!!

!$350.00!!

!$400.00!!

1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!

Price!Sensi5vity!by!Level!of!Excitement!

$!Fair!&!Reasonable!

$!Expensive!

-  Gentle slope indicates low levels of sensitivity -  Not a fickle market – can build value into the price offering -  Will be sustainable in the longer term

Price sensitivity in relation to interest levels showed an almost identical picture

!$#!!!!

!$50.00!!

!$100.00!!

!$150.00!!

!$200.00!!

!$250.00!!

!$300.00!!

!$350.00!!

1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!

Price!Sensi5vity!by!Level!of!Interest!

$!Fair!&!Reasonable!

$!Expensive!

However, for those who are interested in taking up the offer, they feel $350 is about right or slightly overpriced. Do we want this concept to appeal to everyone, or a niche?

82%

14% 8% 13% 10% 9% 7%

9%

71%

67% 63%

50%

64%

36%

9% 14%

17% 25%

40%

27%

57%

8%

Definitely would not

take up this offer

2 3 4 5 6 Definitely would take up this offer

Way too cheap

4

3

2

Way too expensive

…and it is a niche we are targeting

Only 6% are likely to sign up for stadium membership next year

76% consider themselves fanatics (cf. 61% for the test overall)

Attended 3.9 games in the last month

66% find the concept interesting (cf. 38% for the total)

56% find it exciting (cf. 29% for the total)

Watched 16 games in the last month

Fans were most drawn to the access and quality of the seating, while concerns mostly centre around cost and uncertainty/fear of missing out

What do you love most about this concept

What do you dislike most about this concept

“Allows me to go to some good games that I'm interested in, and in good seats”

“Everyone has an equal chance”

“Not having to go to every single event”

“Stops empty seats. Better atmosphere”

“$350. need to know more about it”

“You are at risk of not getting seats. Would need to be cheaper”

“High demand for popular events”

“There could be the possibility of not obtaining seats and not getting the value from the

membership fee”

When it comes to signing up to an ongoing relationship with the stadium, seat guarantees and priority treatment are critical

1%

5%

6%

9%

24%

28%

28%

34%

38%

43%

74%

Option to personalise seats with a company name

Dedicated customer service staff

Gourmet menus

Entertaining (guests or clients)

Full seat transferability

Access to members lounge & dining room

Car park included

Exclusivity

Priority access into the stadium

Guaranteed same seat location at every event

Good seats

What appeals to you most about stadium membership?

Of those who participated in the Check-in…

6% Are currently a member

1% 93%

Used to be a member

Have never been a member

Communications around the concept need to clearly highlight that there is opportunity to lock in the games you want and the seats you want!

Strong interest in nominating additional games above the base package – indicating a niche audience with high individual value

18%

20%

29%

12%

5%

9%

6%

0%

1%

No additional games

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

6-10

10-15

16+

11%

65%

7%

13%

3%

2%

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

6 or more

Additional games would nominate to attend

…and how many tickets would you nominate for each game

Our niche market also more likely to pay for F&B table service.

29%$ 16%$ 15%$ 20%$ 11%$ 3%$

0%$ 10%$ 20%$ 30%$ 40%$ 50%$ 60%$ 70%$ 80%$ 90%$ 100%$

Overall liklihood of paying for F&B table service

Extremely$unlikely$ Extremely$likely$

19%$ 6%$ 17%$ 28%$ 17%$ 4%$

0%$ 10%$ 20%$ 30%$ 40%$ 50%$ 60%$ 70%$ 80%$ 90%$ 100%$

Interested Fans - Liklihood of paying for F&B table service

Extremely$unlikely$ Extremely$likely$

What does it all mean? 1.  There is a strong niche likely to take up the concept and these people

are not that worried about the price. -  It’s low in price sensitivity, suggesting that we can stretch the price with a

clearly defined value proposition

2.  Those who take up are also likely to nominate for a further 1-3 games, getting two tickets for each. -  Average spend per subscriber per year estimated at $900+

3.  This concept will not only allow more fans to share the best seats, but is projected to increase ANZ Stadium average annual seat yield on these seats by 48-95% in just 6 months.

4.  This concept could be further enhanced with dynamic pricing.

-  The per-game prices could flex depending on demand, say, two weeks out from the game, to increase sales and check-in numbers

ben@checkinline.com | 0417 323 809