UNLV Campus Improvement Authority Board STADIUM MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS March 27, 2014 1 STUDY PROCESS PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. PREMIUM SEATING DEMAND • Annual COI • Local Constituents (i.e. Donors, Ticket Buyers, Corporations, Residents) 2. EVENT UTILIZATION & BUILDING PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS • Event Promoter Interviews • Comparable Venues • Industry Knowledge / Experience 3. NEXT STEPS • Building Costs • Financial Projections • Economic Impact Analysis • Funding Analysis 3 UNLV ATHLETICS & 2 ALUMNI SURVEY STUDY OVERVIEW STUDY COMPLETION STATISTICS SURVEY TOPICS Percentage • Attendance History Surveys of Population Margin • Seat Location Group Population Completed Participating of Error (5) Athletic Donors (1) 2,652 415 16% 4.4% • Project Support Season Ticket Holders (2) 3,312 124 4% 8.6% • Attendance Impact Occasional Ticket Buyers (3) 6,247 335 5% 5.2% • Priority Seat Interest Other (4) 141,295 935 1% 3.2% • Premium Seating TOTAL 153,506 1,809 1% 2.3% • Price Sensitivity (1) Includes Rebel Athletic Fund Donor.s (2) Consists of football and men's basketball season ticket holders who are not RAF donors. • Lease Terms (3) Consists of occasional football and men's basketball ticket buyers who are not RAF donors or season ticket holders. (4) Consists of other university constituents and other TMC/SBS ticket purchasers that are not RAF donors or ticket buyers. • Desired Design Features (5) Based on 95% confidence interval. • Importance of Amenities A total of 1,809 surveys were completed to provide a basis for • Donation Cannibalization determining demand for potential premium seating in a new • Food & Beverage Preferences multi-purpose on-campus stadium. • Other Event Attendance • Demographic Data • Other Input 5 CURRENT STATUS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS ALL RESPONDENTS SURVEY GROUP BREAKDOWN Athletic Donors Season Ticket Holders Alumni/ 76.8%/ MBB Season Ticket Holder 83% MBB Season Ticket Holder 80% Other/Ticket/Buyer/at/TMC/ 24.9%/ Alumni 59% Alumni 75% FB Season Ticket Holder 50% FB Season Ticket Holder 56% Men's/Basketball/Season/Ticket/Holder/ 24.5%/ Other TMC Ticket Buyer 46% Other TMC Ticket Buyer 42% Other SBS Ticket Buyer 27% Other SBS Ticket Buyer 27% Rebel/Athle=c/Fund/Donor/ 22.9%/ Occasional FB Ticket Buyer 21% Occasional FB Ticket Buyer 23% Occasional/Men's/Basketball/Ticket/Buyer/ 20.0%/ University Donor 18% Faculty/Staff 23% Occasional MBB Ticket Buyer9% Occasional MBB Ticket Buyer 19% Occasional/Football/Ticket/Buyer/ 18.9%/ Corporate Sponsor 4% University Donor 17% Faculty/Staff 3% Current Student 4% Facilty/Staff/ 16.4%/ Current Student 1% Corporate Sponsor 3% Football/Season/Ticket/Holder/ 15.3%/ Occasional Ticket Buyers Other Other/Ticket/Buyer/at/Sam/Boyd/Stadium/ 14.1%/ Alumni 92% Alumni 79% University/Donor/ 10.6%/ Occasional MBB Ticket Buyer 90% Faculty/Staff 22% Occasional FB Ticket Buyer 67% Current Student 8% Current/Student/ 5.9%/ Other TMC Ticket Buyer 47% Other TMC Ticket Buyer5% Other SBS Ticket Buyer 27% University Donor 5% Corporate/Sponsor/ 1.2%/ Faculty/Staff 15% University Donor 14% Other SBS Ticket Buyer2% No/Affilia=on/ 0.2%/ Current Student 7% No Affiliation 0% Corporate Sponsor 0% Corporate Sponsor 0% 0%/ 10%/ 20%/ 30%/ 40%/ 50%/ 60%/ 70%/ 80%/ 90%/ Faculty/Staff 6 REBEL ATHLETIC FUND DONOR GIVING STATUS Composition Comparison Total Surveys Percentage Actual Surveys Donor Level Members Completed Surveyed Membership Compostion RAF Contributor ($1-­‐$99) 340 50 14.7% 12.8% 12.1% Player's Circle ($100-­‐$249) 404 49 12.1% 15.2% 11.8% Starter's Circle ($250-­‐$499) 228 37 16.2% 8.6% 8.9% Varsity Circle ($500-­‐$1,499) 705 107 15.2% 26.6% 25.8% MVP Circle ($1,500-­‐$2,499) 353 60 17.0% 13.3% 14.5% Rebel Circle ($2,500-­‐$4,999) 319 53 16.6% 12.0% 12.8% All-­‐American Circle ($5,000-­‐$7,499) 89 20 22.5% 3.4% 4.8% Scarlett & Gray Circle ($7,500-­‐$9,999) 29 13 44.8% 1.1% 3.1% Coaches Circle ($10,000-­‐$19,999) 123 12 9.8% 4.6% 2.9% Champion Circle ($20,000-­‐$49,999) 53 4 7.5% 2.0% 1.0% AD's Circle ($50,000 and above) 9 9 100.0% 0.3% 2.2% TOTAL 2,652 414 16% 100% 100% Overall, a representative sample of current Rebel Athletic Fund donors were surveyed based on the current membership composition 7 SAM BOYD STADIUM RATING REASONS FOR NEGATIVE RATING • Lack of paved parking AthleBc#Donors# 2%# 30%# 42%# 26%# • Stadium location • Lack of audio/visual capabilities Season#Ticket#Holders# 6%# 37%# 50%# 7%# • Seat comfort • Aesthetically unpleasant • Lack of UNLV branding Occasional#Ticket#Buyers# 2%# 30%# 51%# 18%# • Poor game day atmosphere • Condition of restrooms Other# 6%# 30%# 49%# 15%# • Outdated and tired looking • Poor food selection and quality 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%# • Lack of shaded seating Excellent# Good# Fair# Poor# Overall, approximately 34 percent of respondents rated Sam Boyd Stadium positively (excellent or good) 8 UNLV HOME FOOTBALL GAME ATTENDANCE Games& A(ended& Annually& 5$ 4.1$ 4$ 3.7$ 3$ 2$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 1$ 0$ Rebel$Athle3c$Fund$ Season$Ticket$Holders$ Occasional$Ticket$ Other$ Donors$ Buyers$ Overall, respondents attend an average of 1.9 home games annually 9 WHY NOT ATTEND MORE HOME GAMES SAMPLING OF OTHER REASONS CITED: Inconvenient stadium locaEon 46% • Lack of shaded seating Live too far away 39% • Poor tailgating scene Team performance 39% • Belligerent fans • Difficult to bring young children Traffic congesEon 22% • Prefer to watch on TV Time conflicts 17% • Dirt parking lot No interest in football 15% • Overall poor game day experience Seat comfort 15% • Late game times • No discount for faculty/staff Weather condiEons 13% No interest in college football 8% Other 7% Ticket price 7% Quality of opponents 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% *Asked of respondents attending two or fewer home football games per year 10 NUMBER OF TICKETS PURCHASED PER GAME #"Tickets" Purchased" Per"Game" 4# 3.3# 3# 2.8# 2.4# 2.0# 2# 1# 0# Rebel#Athle0c#Fund# Season#Ticket#Holders# Occasional#Ticket# Other# Donors# Buyers# Overall, respondents purchase an average of 2.6 tickets per game 11 CURRENT SEAT LOCATION Sideline#(Purple#SecDons)# 30%# End#Zone#(Yellow#SecDons)# 24%# Priority#2#(Brown#SecDons)# 9%# Priority#3#(Orange#SecDons)# 8%# Don't#Know/Not#Applicable# 8%# Student#Seats# 8%# Priority#1#(Red#SecDon)# 7%# Club#Seats# 2%# Value#End#Zone#(Light#Blue#SecDons)# 2%# Visitor's#Seats# 1%# Luxury#Suite# 1%# 0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%# 35%# 12 NEW MULTI-PURPOSE ON-CAMPUS STADIUM NEW STADIUM DEVELOPMENT ATTITUDE Season Occasional New Multi-­‐Purpose Stadium Athletic Ticket Ticket Development Attitude Donors Holders Buyers Other Overall Very Positive 81% 77% 75% 57% 67% Somewhat Positive 12% 14% 13% 19% 16% Neutral 3% 2% 3% 9% 6% Somewhat Negative 3% 2% 5% 7% 6% Very Negative 1% 4% 4% 8% 6% Total Positive Attitude 92% 91% 88% 76% 83% NEW STADIUM ATTENDANCE IMPACT Season Occasional New Multi-­‐Purpose Stadium Athletic Ticket Ticket Attendance Impact Donors Holders Buyers Other Overall Attend MORE UNLV home games 62% 57% 79% 58% 63% Attend the SAME NUMBER of UNLV home games 35%15%18% 23% Attend FEWER UNLV home games 1% 5% 3% 1% 2% I would NOT ATTEND any UNLV home games 2% 3% 3% 23% 13% 13 NEW STADIUM DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCE Retractable$Roof$Stadium$ 8.4$ Domed$Stadium$ 7.0$ Open1Air$Stadium$with$Shading$System$ 6.2$ Open1Air$Stadium$ 4.3$ 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ 5$ 6$ 7$ 8$ 9$ 10$ Very% Very% Nega)ve% Posi)ve% 14 TICKET PRICE INCREASE SENSITIVITY RESPONDENT SUPPORT FOR TICKET PRICE INCREASES: • $25 per game: 14% $25$per$game$($175$increase$per$season)$ 14%$ • $20 per game: 26% • $15 per game: 44% $20$per$game$($140$increase$per$season)$ 12%$ • $10 per game: 73% • $5 per game: 90% $15$per$game$($105$increase$per$season)$ 18%$ $10$per$game$($70$increase$per$season)$ 29%$ $5$per$game$($35$increase$per$season)$ 17%$ No$increase$ 10%$ 0%$ 5%$ 10%$ 15%$ 20%$ 25%$ 30%$ 35%$ 15 PRIORITY SEATS PRIORITY SEAT INITIAL INTEREST TOTAL POSITIVE PEER INSTITUTION PRIORITY INTEREST 82% AthleBc#Donors# 33%# 29%# 26%# 12%# 73% Season#Ticket#Holders# 15%# 23%# 35%# 27%# 58% Occasional#Ticket#Buyers# 7%# 12%# 39%# 42%# Other# 7%# 8%# 26%# 59%# 41% 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%# Definitely#interested# Likely#interested# Possibly#interested# Not#interested# 16 PRIORITY SEAT LOCATION PREFERENCE PRIORITY SEAT LOCATION PREFERENCE & PRICE SENSITIVITY Between#40's#($300#annual#dona<on#or#more)# 26%# Between#the#20's#to#40's#($200#to#$300#annual#dona<on)# 33%# Goal#line#to#the#20's#($100#to#$200#annual#dona<on)# 20%# Corners#of#the#End#Zone#($50#to#$100#annual#dona<on)# 8%# End#Zone#(No#annual#dona<on)# 7%# I#would#not#buy#priority#season#<ckets# 5%# 0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%# 35%# 40%# Respondents would purchase an average of 2.6 priority seats per account 17 PREMIUM SEAT INITIAL INTEREST INITIAL INTEREST IN CLUB SEAT, LOGE BOXES AND LUXURY SUITES AthleBc#Donors# 57%$ 43%$ Season#Ticket#Holders# 35%$ 65%$ Occasional#Ticket#Buyers# 40%$ 60%$ Other# 29%$ 71%$ 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%# Yes# No# 18 CLUB SEATS CLUB SEAT & LOUNGE IMAGES • Prime locations • Lower bowl or press box level • Located outdoors and covered • Wider chair back seat SOUTH CAROLINA • More leg room • Preferred parking • Access to private lounge • Private restrooms • Television monitors TENNESSEE MICHIGAN • Upscale food & beverage service • First right to purchase other event tickets CAL MICHIGAN 19 CLUB SEAT INITIAL INTEREST Athle?c#Donors# 15%# 12%# 22%# 50%# Season#Ticket#Holders# 10%# 13%# 9%# 32%# Occasional#Ticket#Buyers# 7%# 11%# 19%# 36%# Other# 8%# 7%# 9%# 25%# 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# Definitely#interested# Likely#interested# Possibly#interested# Overall, 33 percent of all survey respondents indicated some level of positive interest(definitely, likely or possibly interested) in club seats based on a description of club seat location and amenities, but before potential prices were introduced.