Did the prize increase result in increase attendance in Jr & Srs. A study please read
- Thread starter JohnnyBlaze
- Start date
- Status
psychup2034
New Member
Nope. There are two ways for a percent to go up. The numerator (total number of masters) could go up, or the denominator (total number of total players) could go down.
In the case of Fall Regionals, both went down. The total number of Masters went down, but not as much (percentage-wise) as the total number of total players. In other words, the denominator dropped relatively more than the numerator (percentage-wise). This implies that percentage-wise, Pokemon lost more total Juniors and Seniors than Masters for Fall Regionals. This was an expected consequence of splitting Regionals into 3 weekends.
If anything, the decision was a failure because Juniors and Seniors total attendance went down. However, I'm not ready to call the decision a failure yet, as I think the questionable decision to split Regionals into 3 weekends (without increasing the total number of Regionals) was the main reason why total Juniors and Seniors attendance numbers went down.
The only Regionals that can be compared are Indiana's (which went up) and possibly NorCal to SoCal. Others cannot be compared as there are vast differences in the demographics.
Diaz
New Member
Why can't you compare Philly regionals last year to this year?
psychup2034
New Member
I'm not comparing specific Regionals to specific Regionals. I'm comparing total attendance numbers. The key word is total. The total number of Juniors went down. The total number of Seniors went down. The total number of Masters went down.
Nonetheless, there will still be people who think it was the right decision to split Regionals into 3 weekends. Oh well.
FirestormXVI
Member
Er, are you comparing the total of 5 regionals to the total of 7 regionals? I think there's a pretty obvious flaw in making a conclusion based on that...
People are jumping the gun here. The first post isn't even related to the topic title (increase in attendance =/= percentage of attendance) and there haven't been enough events to figure out if TPCi's experiment has been a success or not.
psychup2034
New Member
Absolutely not. It is the same population of potential players going to the 5 Regionals as are going to the 7 Regionals. By decreasing the number of Regionals per weekend, Pokemon is hurting its efforts to grow the Junior and Senior decisions, offseting whatever gains (if any) were made by increasing prize support to Juniors and Seniors.
True, but any change in attendance can be attributed to ease of access (or in this case, lack there of) as well as the change in prize structure. This ease of access issue could cause attendance to not increase in a significant way (remain static) for each INDIVIDUAL regional. If attendance of each individual regional remains the same comparing the total of 7 events to 5 events is indeed unfair.
Good to see another older player, I'm mostly in the same boat as you and would agree with what you said re divisions
FirestormXVI
Member
No. With a decreased number of regionals per time, there's an increased distance between many players and an event. What should be happening is less total people on one date across all events, but more players per event. As a result, by the end of the season, there should be higher attendance numbers in total. I think what I said is true so far.
Indiana
October 2012
- Masters- 329
- Seniors-98
- Juniors-52
- Event Total-479
- Master-198
- Senior-63
- Junior-54
- Total: 315
October 2012
- Masters-253
- Seniors-89
- Juniors-30
- Total-372
- Masters: 185
- Seniors: 82
- Juniors: 54
- Total: 321
October 2012
- Masters-261
- Seniors-77
- Juniors-58
- Event Total-396
- Masters - 259
- Total: 429
Pennsylvania
October 2012
- Masters: 300+
- Seniors: 78
- Juniors: 60
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Here are the reported attendance numbers for the Fall and Spring regionals last year.
I concur with Firestorm...given the same number of events spread across three dates instead of two, I would expect the same people to attend at least the same two geographical events they attended last year, and adding the opportunity to attend a third one if desired. That means after all three dates, net attendance should be greater.
I concur with Firestorm...given the same number of events spread across three dates instead of two, I would expect the same people to attend at least the same two geographical events they attended last year, and adding the opportunity to attend a third one if desired. That means after all three dates, net attendance should be greater.
I think a better way to measure would be to get some opinions from a decent-sized chunk of players who did (and players who didn't) attend to determine how significant the prizes were in their decision. That's probably significantly more useful and accurate than raw attendance numbers. Of course, it's also much harder for us to get that information as forum members.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
^^ But it is an interesting point, taken to another level: given the smaller turnout in Juniors and Seniors, it's "easier" to achieve at last fourth place and win travel compensation. Maybe that will encourage those families to invest in attending the third Regionals, or at the least make them feel more justified in going to the two. When families have multiple kids in Junior or Senior division, that increases their odds of winning that top spot even. All in all, there can be multiple benefits to the decision of 3 Regionals or this prize structure, and it's still difficult to damn the decision based on the information we have so far.
psychup2034
New Member
I'm going to assume that Pokemon's goal of splitting Regionals into 3 weekends is to grow the game. After all, they did say that splitting Regionals into 3 weekends will allow for there to be a Pokemon event every month of the year!
With that premise in mind, what makes more sense to measure? The net attendance across all 3 dates, or the unique attendance across all 3 dates? Clearly, it is the unique attendance across all 3 dates that measures how much how much the game is growing. This is because there is a lot of overlap between the attendees of each event. For example, I will go to 3 Regionals this year (Philadelphia, Oregon, and New England). If I register as a +3 to the net attendance, as opposed to the +2 I registered last year because there were only 2 Regionals, does that mean the game is growing? Nope. It just means that there are more Regionals. Comparing the total attendance on any given Regionals date is a better proxy of unique attendance (of all Regionals events over a season) than comparing the net attendance.
Here's another example. The net attendance of Cities is much, much greater than Regionals. Does that many, many more people attend Cities than Regionals? No. The really high net attendance of Cities is contributed mainly because there are so many Cities events. (In reality, there are probably more unique attendees of Cities than Regionals, but not to the order of magnitude that doing a net attendance comparison would imply.)
I hope that I have clearly demonstrated why net attendance is a terrible measure of whether the game has grown or not. As yoshi1001 suggested, a survey would be a superior indicator of whether prize support or travel costs factored into parents' decisions to take their children to Regionals events. However, in absence of a survey, the total attendance across all events for any given Regionals date is a better measure of the growth of the game because one can be sure that it only captures unique attendance.
JandPDS
New Member
Big problem is too many weeks of Regionals this year. We are allready involved year round with our League and Prereleases and everything. Plus we do have other things in our lives besided Pokemon.
Ww just did not see any resason to attend a fall regionals this year as he closest one was a 4 hour
flight away. We will be attending winter regionals that is a 5 hour drive south, and Spring Regionals that is a 2 hour drive north. No real incentive to attened 3 of them in one year.
As for age divisons yes we do need a 4th, but I don't think you need to cut to a 30+ age group.
I would like to see 10-, 11-15, 16-20 and 21+ that would even things out better.
Ww just did not see any resason to attend a fall regionals this year as he closest one was a 4 hour
flight away. We will be attending winter regionals that is a 5 hour drive south, and Spring Regionals that is a 2 hour drive north. No real incentive to attened 3 of them in one year.
As for age divisons yes we do need a 4th, but I don't think you need to cut to a 30+ age group.
I would like to see 10-, 11-15, 16-20 and 21+ that would even things out better.
UnpokemonMom
New Member
I don't know about nationals and worlds, but if you want to increase attendance for juniors at regionals, ensure that all of them get some kind of prize.
Yes, it's silly, like how all the kids in soccer for U6 get "trophies" just for playing, but to be at regionals all day and get nothing is incredibly discouraging and depressing for the little kids.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Right, so the more opportunities there are to play Pokémon competitively, the more people will hopefully be able to show up...both existing players and new players. With only one month passed, these initial numbers require a big asterisk next to them. A change like this requires time for the effect to be measurable. So I'd agree that it's a goal, but "grow the game" is a long-term goal.
There can be other goals for this move too...I doubt there was only one thing considered when they made this change. For instance, the goal of giving players more chances to earn Championship points. They probably envisioned this at least two years ago when there was only one Regionals....and expanding to two the next year and three the following year was a logical progression.
---------- Post added 10/17/2012 at 09:49 AM ----------
As a fellow parent, I'd like to debate this for a moment. I also despise those trophies that everyone gets, because it does nothing to prepare them for true disappointment or encourage them to try harder. Not everyone can win. Instead, the opportunity is there as a parent to reward your own child if you think they performed (and even behaved!) well. Troll and Toad was the vendor on hand in Indiana, a parent could easily buy a prize for their own child. I don't believe Pokémon has to do this for us.
It's also worth mentioning there often are raffles and coloring contests and other activities, as well as the prizes winnable in side events.
If you still don't agree, what kind of prize would have been appropriate?
---------- Post added 10/17/2012 at 09:52 AM ----------
I'm unaware how this would make a difference and in what way. I tried to look up JohnnyBlazes' posts but couldn't pinpoint the reasoning. Would you mind sharing?
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't agree with that. When a player who has just aged up into Masters this year is getting 2nd place at a 329-player Regionals, I don't think Masters needs to be split up.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
Keep in mind that adding a fourth division means chopping up the monetary value of the prizes even more to each division. Would you like to finish 4th at a tournament and get no travel stipend (while third does), because one had to be chopped out of each division in order to feed it into the new, fourth division?
I'm all for arguing that the dividers between current divisions should be moved around, but to argue for extra divisions is a massive case of be careful what you wish for.
I'm all for arguing that the dividers between current divisions should be moved around, but to argue for extra divisions is a massive case of be careful what you wish for.
JohnnyBlaze
New Member
Out of the 68% of Pokemon Players that participated in this Fall's Regionals, those players were in the Masters division. Yet this was the division that received the lesser prize support out of the 3 age divisions. Did Masters care about this? Apparantly not because look at the high numbers that attended Fall Regionals. Im all for growing the game for Jrs and Srs but offering less prize support for the audience that is participating and supporting this game will only alienate Masters from Pokemon into other card games and how is this growing the product in the long run? Someone please answer that question.
Listen I love Pokemon and have supported this game for over 10 years with my family and will continue to do so. I just personally feel that Pokemon is sliding down a slippery slope and I dont want to see it fail like it did under WOTC. (That is an entirely different story) but Ive seen it before and just want to be proactive as a supporter of the game. I feel that it is no longer a family game anymore and I know Tcpi does not dictate the prices of the secondary market. But guess what they do dictate whether or not they print a card as a secret rare and the raritys of these cards. As a family it is getting more and more expensive to come up with 5 competitive decks. Im not just a PokeParent but I am also a very competitive player.
Listen I love Pokemon and have supported this game for over 10 years with my family and will continue to do so. I just personally feel that Pokemon is sliding down a slippery slope and I dont want to see it fail like it did under WOTC. (That is an entirely different story) but Ive seen it before and just want to be proactive as a supporter of the game. I feel that it is no longer a family game anymore and I know Tcpi does not dictate the prices of the secondary market. But guess what they do dictate whether or not they print a card as a secret rare and the raritys of these cards. As a family it is getting more and more expensive to come up with 5 competitive decks. Im not just a PokeParent but I am also a very competitive player.
- Status