What does it mean when a fan has the name of a sports team as a part of his e-mail address? Logic dictates that that person may be a more avid fan, since he has attached a brand name to a personal representation of himself. But does this affinity play itself out economically, i.e., is that fan more likely to purchase a large ticket plan or spend a significant amount of money with “his” team?
To answer this question, I took a statistical point of view and elected to analyze fans based on their email addresses, and their Prospector Priority and Capacity scores. Turnkey’s Priority score predicts likelihood to purchase a sizable ticket plan from a particular team; the Capacity score predicts how much a person is expected to spend on a particular team’s tickets. Each score falls between 1-5, 5 being the highest/“best” score and 1 being the lowest. The average score of each is about 3.
To perform this analysis, I reviewed data from approximately 10 teams from each professional league. I identified and searched for a variety of team name and city text strings in each team’s base of email addresses, watching out for pitfalls like common other words or text after the “@”. I identified how many people and what percentage of total accounts these lists represented for each team, and then ran those accounts through Turnkey’s Priority and Capacity models for “their” team.
For this experiment, the overall Priority score average was 3.52 and the overall Capacity score average was 3.14, indicating that, from a distance, people who have their team’s name or city name in their email addresses are notably more likely to buy a ticket plan and are expected to spend somewhat more money on tickets than people who do not refer to their favorite teams in their e-mail addresses.
The NHL had the highest average Priority score by far at 3.69. It was also the most variant, containing the only three teams to have an average Priority score above 4 but also having two of the lowest four Priority scores (3.22 and 2.51). The other NHL teams analyzed all ranked quite highly on average Priority score, so I feel it can be said that having an NHL team name or city in one’s e-mail address makes one especially likely to become a ticket plan buyer of that team.
While the NHL holds the distinction of being proof-positive of this assessment, it’s important to note that, among all leagues, only 0.41% of people have such an e-mail address. The NHL comes in slightly above average on this statistic, at 0.46%. The NFL far succeeds the NHL and the other 2 leagues in this measure at 0.87%.
The NFL is close behind the NHL in average Priority score at 3.60. Since the percentage of fans that have a “team-related” e-mail address is much more prevalent in the NFL, combined with the fact that the NFL has more fans than the other 3 leagues, their high-scoring propensity is even more significant and should definitely play a role in ticket-selling campaigns. While the NHL has a few teams whose databases contain over 0.50% of records with “team-related” e-mail addresses (and even one at 1.31%), almost all of the NFL teams I analyzed were over 0.50%. Four were over 1%, and the highest at came in at 1.93%. This is a significant increase over the overall (four league) 0.41% average. Simply put, the NFL teams studied have lots of strong leads in their databases, based on our criteria.
The NBA and MLB profile on the lower side, with Priority scores of 3.45 and 3.30 respectively; however, this is still well above the average Priority score for a lead who does not reference his/her team in a personal e-mail address. These fans are not as common, though: they represent only 0.36% and 0.32% of their leagues’ databases, respectively. The NBA had two teams over 0.50% and MLB just one.
During this process, I found that Turnkey’s Capacity model and scores, on the other hand, do not seem to have much significance with regard to fans with “team-related” e-mail addresses. The overall four-league Capacity average for these fans is 3.14, as previously mentioned, and we would expect a person chosen at random to receive a 3-star rating. 6 teams had an average Capacity score under 3 for fans of this nature, and the highest overall score was only 3.59. This all suggests that while fans who have a team name in their email appear to be more likely to buy a ticket plan, they will not necessarily spend a significant amount more than a fan who does not. Each of the league averages was also very close to the 3.15 “overall” average; I did not find a significant difference there.
In conclusion, I believe that teams, especially those in the NFL and NHL, should consider marketing ticket plan campaigns to fans who have interacted with the team and are tied with an e-mail address expressing a fandom of said team, as they are more likely to buy a ticket plan than the typical fan. However, teams should keep in mind that those fans are likely to spend only slightly more on average than the “typical” fan.