When Did Wrigley Become the Star?

[jersey cubs fan]

As an outsider, I have a lot less experience with Wrigley than the rest of you-I never went before 2002, and I've still only been on weekends, so my experiences have been in the "post-scene" era, and on dates that are more popular anyway.

 

But I do have a question...is it possible that at least some of the increased attendances in the stadium have been due to the rooftops becoming "official partners," and therefore getting more expensive?

 

In other words...watching from a rooftop used to be a cheaper, and still easy way to catch a ballgame. Then the owners started building nicer bleachers, including food and beverages, etc. which (I assume) lead them to raise their prices. Then they reached an agreement with the club, and in order to offset some of the revenue they paid to the club, they raised their own prices again.

 

All of a sudden, the roofs are quite expensive, and although they have some pluses (somewhat private, food & drink included, clean bathrooms), they're also that much further away, and not necessarily a "bargain" compared to actually buying a seat in the stadium.

 

So is it possible that this drove some people from the rooftops, back into the stadium? Thus, stadium attendance, based off of tickets sold, would appear higher, but the number of people who "went to" the game remained the same or close to it?

 

Not that this would account for all of it. Just a theory, and interested in your thoughts on it.

No, it's not possible. Because prior to those rooftops going "corporate", there were very few people up there. It was a hoot to see 5 people on a rooftop, so they showed it on TV.

 

If anything, the rooftops take away what would otherwise be bleacher attendees.

[Sammy Sofa]

And I don't remember the rooftops being significantly cheaper than the cheap seats in the park "back in the day." If you went to the roofs is for the novelty of watching from the rooftops. If you just wanted to watch the game cheap you just bought cheap tickets for the game.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Anecdotal evidence may not mean much here, but in 1998 I took a group of teenagers to Wrigley and we were able to get group tickets for a group of 25 to a Saturday game in June. We didn't call about getting the tickets until after the season had already begun. Try doing that now?

[NewUserName]

As an outsider, I have a lot less experience with Wrigley than the rest of you-I never went before 2002, and I've still only been on weekends, so my experiences have been in the "post-scene" era, and on dates that are more popular anyway.

 

But I do have a question...is it possible that at least some of the increased attendances in the stadium have been due to the rooftops becoming "official partners," and therefore getting more expensive?

 

In other words...watching from a rooftop used to be a cheaper, and still easy way to catch a ballgame. Then the owners started building nicer bleachers, including food and beverages, etc. which (I assume) lead them to raise their prices. Then they reached an agreement with the club, and in order to offset some of the revenue they paid to the club, they raised their own prices again.

 

All of a sudden, the roofs are quite expensive, and although they have some pluses (somewhat private, food & drink included, clean bathrooms), they're also that much further away, and not necessarily a "bargain" compared to actually buying a seat in the stadium.

 

So is it possible that this drove some people from the rooftops, back into the stadium? Thus, stadium attendance, based off of tickets sold, would appear higher, but the number of people who "went to" the game remained the same or close to it?

 

Not that this would account for all of it. Just a theory, and interested in your thoughts on it.

No, it's not possible. Because prior to those rooftops going "corporate", there were very few people up there. It was a hoot to see 5 people on a rooftop, so they showed it on TV.

 

If anything, the rooftops take away what would otherwise be bleacher attendees.

 

I dont know when they went corporate, but back in the 70s they were just people who lived in the buildings. You couldn't go up there unless because the buildings were always locked. I am not sure when landlords finally figured that they should build bleachers and charge admission.

[Soul]

That was a nice article.

 

My Dad took me to games at Wrigley in the '70s. Been going ever since. Wrigley was always a signature place for us, but something definitely happened more recently to up the stakes on the mythology a bit. I've always assumed it was the marketing efforts of the Cubs, and I do think that has played a part. The memorable performances also helped: Sosa's HRs, Wood's 20K game (and really that season of Woody). .....actually being a winning baseball team more often.

[chasinf5s]

The rooftops really never sell out either durning most games. People are coming to wrigley and never thinking about sitting at a rooftp

[hawkcub]

2nd game I went to was around 2001 give or take a year. Sat in the bleachers. I was told by this guy next to me outside of the weekends you will only see WGN show the bleachers and lower deck because that will be the only thing selling out. Looked around and what he said made sense. Also remember that year having seat on the left field line that were fairly close to the field. After about the 3rd inning this group of 6 people moved up from there seats they paid for. Knew they seat gypsied because all of them were talking about doing that.

 

It may have started in 1998 but I wouldn't say the full transformation happened until late 2003. With 2004 being when it was full board.

[hawkcub]

I would also suggest and the writer of the article insinuated it that after 1991 or so the new stadiums (for the most part) being built were not of the cookie cutter variety. So they had character. Thus people were going for in part because of the stadiums. With Wrigley, Fenway and old Yankee stadium having the most character.

[KingCubsFan]

As an outsider, I have a lot less experience with Wrigley than the rest of you-I never went before 2002, and I've still only been on weekends, so my experiences have been in the "post-scene" era, and on dates that are more popular anyway.

 

But I do have a question...is it possible that at least some of the increased attendances in the stadium have been due to the rooftops becoming "official partners," and therefore getting more expensive?

 

In other words...watching from a rooftop used to be a cheaper, and still easy way to catch a ballgame. Then the owners started building nicer bleachers, including food and beverages, etc. which (I assume) lead them to raise their prices. Then they reached an agreement with the club, and in order to offset some of the revenue they paid to the club, they raised their own prices again.

 

All of a sudden, the roofs are quite expensive, and although they have some pluses (somewhat private, food & drink included, clean bathrooms), they're also that much further away, and not necessarily a "bargain" compared to actually buying a seat in the stadium.

 

So is it possible that this drove some people from the rooftops, back into the stadium? Thus, stadium attendance, based off of tickets sold, would appear higher, but the number of people who "went to" the game remained the same or close to it?

 

Not that this would account for all of it. Just a theory, and interested in your thoughts on it.

No, it's not possible. Because prior to those rooftops going "corporate", there were very few people up there. It was a hoot to see 5 people on a rooftop, so they showed it on TV.

 

If anything, the rooftops take away what would otherwise be bleacher attendees.

 

I dont know when they went corporate, but back in the 70s they were just people who lived in the buildings. You couldn't go up there unless because the buildings were always locked. I am not sure when landlords finally figured that they should build bleachers and charge admission.

If you watch Kerry Wood's 20K game, they pan across the rooftops at one point and you can see almost all of them being built.

[fivepercent]

I would also suggest and the writer of the article insinuated it that after 1991 or so the new stadiums (for the most part) being built were not of the cookie cutter variety. So they had character. Thus people were going for in part because of the stadiums. With Wrigley, Fenway and old Yankee stadium having the most character.

 

That, and I think the older and more rare the old parks become(Wrigley and Fenway are really the last of the old ones), the more fans appreciate them. People want to experience it before it's gone or altered.

[Monco]

The marketing of Wrigley Field goes back to P.K Wrigley in the early fifties. The announcers would refer to the park as the friendly confines, refer to the sunny days and come out to beautiful Wrigley Field. A part of it was probably because of poor teams and the reluctance of the Cubs to spend money.

Comparing today's attendance figures with years ago can be misleading. Today tickets are sold ahead of time. The attendance figures today are the number sold,not the number there. Years ago,the Cubs would always have 15,000 general admission tickets available the day of the game. The crowds were often smaller for April,May,September,and weekend games. But weekend games back in the seventies were usually pretty full,sometimes even standing room only.

[SpongeWorthy]

I sort of recollect the White Sox being more of a national attraction up until at least 97 and maybe 98 or so and Wrigley/Sammy becoming the stars of Chicago and the country after that. The Cubs weren't really national until then. No big stars, not competitive, etc. You had Harry Caray and WGN and that was about it. The Sox had Frank Thomas, MJ on the Barons, rappers wearing the caps, and generally being more competitive.

[SpongeWorthy]

I would also suggest and the writer of the article insinuated it that after 1991 or so the new stadiums (for the most part) being built were not of the cookie cutter variety. So they had character. Thus people were going for in part because of the stadiums. With Wrigley, Fenway and old Yankee stadium having the most character.

 

That, and I think the older and more rare the old parks become(Wrigley and Fenway are really the last of the old ones), the more fans appreciate them. People want to experience it before it's gone or altered.

 

This. The mythologizing of the old stadiums started in earnest in the 90s. You had Ken Burns bloviating about the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field, the retro stadium trend, and the general decline of the truly old stadium. Of course no one remembers that the Dodgers could barely get more than a few thousand people into Ebbets near the end or that Ted Williams final game at Fenway was practically empty.

 

You're starting to see Dodgers Stadium venerated in the way that Fenway and Wrigley are. Not nearly to the same extent but its definitely more of a selling point in their marketing.

[Sosa21MVP]

The marketing of Wrigley Field goes back to P.K Wrigley in the early fifties. The announcers would refer to the park as the friendly confines, refer to the sunny days and come out to beautiful Wrigley Field. A part of it was probably because of poor teams and the reluctance of the Cubs to spend money.

Comparing today's attendance figures with years ago can be misleading. Today tickets are sold ahead of time. The attendance figures today are the number sold,not the number there. Years ago,the Cubs would always have 15,000 general admission tickets available the day of the game. The crowds were often smaller for April,May,September,and weekend games. But weekend games back in the seventies were usually pretty full,sometimes even standing room only.

 

Yes. Phil Wrigley had the idea of marketing the ballpark experience over the actual quality of the team itself. I read a book called Wrigleyville that detailed that pretty well.

[Coach C]

I would also consider how much impact the 1994-1995 strike did to attendence in general.

 

Seemed like it took a long time for it to recover.

[jersey cubs fan]

2nd game I went to was around 2001 give or take a year. Sat in the bleachers. I was told by this guy next to me outside of the weekends you will only see WGN show the bleachers and lower deck because that will be the only thing selling out. Looked around and what he said made sense. Also remember that year having seat on the left field line that were fairly close to the field. After about the 3rd inning this group of 6 people moved up from there seats they paid for. Knew they seat gypsied because all of them were talking about doing that.

 

It may have started in 1998 but I wouldn't say the full transformation happened until late 2003. With 2004 being when it was full board.

 

It started in 1998, but with all the sucking that went on in the following seasons, it began to die down until 2003, but it never really went back to previous levels.

[mjohnson71]

I still remember when I was a kid in the 70's during the summer my dad would go on into the office in the morning and go out on "sales calls" in the afternoon. That meant he'd come home around 11:30am to pick me up. I'd have the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches wrapped up along with the chips in baggies.

 

We'd head to Wrigley, walk right up to the box office and buy tickets for the upper deck. The park would be a 1/4 full at best but we'd still head to our assigned seats. We would eat lunch from home, dad would have his first beer and we'd scope out the box seats. We'd then move down and have a good time watching the game.

 

Now its amazing that you need to have season tickets, plan way ahead or pay big money to go to what will usually be a 100% full ballpark. And good luck trying to move down.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still remember when I was a kid in the 70's during the summer my dad would go on into the office in the morning and go out on "sales calls" in the afternoon. That meant he'd come home around 11:30am to pick me up. I'd have the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches wrapped up along with the chips in baggies.

 

We'd head to Wrigley, walk right up to the box office and buy tickets for the upper deck. The park would be a 1/4 full at best but we'd still head to our assigned seats. We would eat lunch from home, dad would have his first beer and we'd scope out the box seats. We'd then move down and have a good time watching the game.

 

Now its amazing that you need to have season tickets, plan way ahead or pay big money to go to what will usually be a 100% full ballpark. And good luck trying to move down.

 

Yeah, this is generally the type of memory I have of going throughout the 80's and into the early 90's. Obviously, there were some relative surges due to '84 and '89, but I really can't remember ever having to plan ahead and drop as much money as you typically have to do today. It was just, "hey, I've got an idea: let's go see the Cubs."