Season Ticket Buyer Value and Secondary Market Options
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports franchises derive significant portions of their revenues from season ticket holders. A development that may affect season ticket management is the growth of legal secondary markets. We develop a structural model that integrates both the supply and demand sides of the secondary market into season ticket buyers’ ticket purchase and usage choices. We use a panel data set that combines season and single ticket purchase records with ticket usage data to investigate the value of secondary markets. We estimate that the secondary market increases the team’s season ticket revenues by about $1 million per season. At the level of the individual season ticket customer, we estimate an increase in customer lifetime value ranging from $1,327 in the lowest quality seat tier to $2,553 in the highest. In terms of value to the customer, the average dollar value of having a secondary market is $138 per season ticket. Across segments, the secondary market provides the equivalent of a 4% discount in the premium seat tier versus an 11% discount in the economy seat tier. Whereas the secondary market creates more value in the premium-ticket tier segments, the secondary market has the most impact on behavior in the low price oriented segment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it