https://sports.yahoo.com/best-worst-fans-nfl-new-study-answers-160145494.html

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2017/06/17/nfl-fan-base-and-brand-rankings-2017/



Meh. Discuss.

(06-21-2017, 02:40 PM)kdgjr Wrote: https://sports.yahoo.com/best-worst-fans-nfl-new-study-answers-160145494.html

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2017/06/17/nfl-fan-base-and-brand-rankings-2017/



Meh. Discuss.

Anything written that shows the bengals or reds in a poor light - disregard immediately. 

(06-21-2017, 02:40 PM)kdgjr Wrote: https://sports.yahoo.com/best-worst-fans-nfl-new-study-answers-160145494.html

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2017/06/17/nfl-fan-base-and-brand-rankings-2017/



Meh. Discuss.

I always hate hearing Pittsburgh fans "travel well". Where is the proof that a good amount of fans are traveling from game to game vs just being all over the place because they have a ton of bandwagon fans from the Bradshaw years?

I say this because I was just at the Reds game last Saturday and I saw a TON of Dodgers fans. There's no way that all those Dodger fans traveled across the country to watch a game in Cincinnati. I'd bet that most likely they are instead bandwagon fans because the Dodgers are doing well and in a big market.

Most fans that are visiting fans are more than likely fans of a particular team and happen to live near a different team's stadium.

Full list. If you read how they rank them, I actually think this makes sense. Is it accurate? idk but I am not bent out of shape about this.

Quote:In terms of business concepts, this “Fan Equity” measure is similar to a “revenue premium” measure of brand equity.  It captures the differentials in fan’s willingness to financially support teams of similar quality.  

In terms of business application, the social media metric has several implications both on its own merits and in conjunction with the Fan Equity measure.  For example, the lack of local constraints, means that the Social Equity measure is more of a national level measure.  so while the Fan Equity metric focuses on local box office revenues, the social metric provides insight into how a team’s fandom extends beyond a metro area.

Another way to look at fan quality is to look at how a team draws on the Road.  In the NBA these effects are pronounced.  Lebron or a retiring Kobe coming to town can often lead to sell outs.  At the college level some teams are known to travel very well.  A fan base that travels is almost by definition incredible passionate.

Fan equity would probably be spot on. I know myself find myself shrinking my wallet to the Bengals. judging by so many people saying they'll do the same, this probably is pretty close.

The road equity is another where I am not sure we can say without a doubt they we have more fans spread across more areas (outside metro/local area) than the above teams.

Road equity is also another one I am finding a hard time convincing myself should be higher. Maybe if we had a few Super Bowls....

In other words, band wagon fans mean everything. Who cares? Measure loyalty, sticking around no matter how many bad times there are, then get back to me. It takes a helluva lot more to be a Bengals fan than a Pats fan. Another bullshit article from a guy who thinks he's a writer.

(06-21-2017, 02:49 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Anything written that shows the bengals or reds in a poor light - disregard immediately. 

Trolls troll.  It's what they do.

I'm more surprised that the Chiefs are at 32. That fan base has had a good reputation for 20+ years.

What surprises me is the Browns still have fans left.

I just gave a cursory glance, but this seems more like a measure of each team's equity as a brand rather than the mettle of the fans themselves. The Bengals have the following things going against them:

smaller market
new-ish team/no history of success to fall back on
an owner who doesn't build brand equity

The Bengals have been either disappointing or an outright on or off the field joke for most of their existence. The Bengals are also an unattractive option for a "secondary team" as well. I've seen a lot of Steelers/Seahawks or Packers/Giants fans in my day because they like the idea of having a secondary team in the other conference that they feel shares their toughness and attitude (aka, bandwagon and winning).

Fair or foul, stuff like that kills our ability to attract casual or out-of-market fans which is a big part of what people decide "good fandom" to be. I personally understand this because I'm from Pittsburgh and I'm a Celtics fan (no local NBA team, and it was the 80s and many of my friends who started watching in the 90s are Bulls fans), Cubs fan (they stunk like the Pirates but did so in a more lovable way and they didn't get rid of players the second you started to like them) a Bengals fan (it was the 80s and I wanted to be different and I picked the team that was beating the local favorites).

The Bengals look very much like any other business that is built by a first generation and then middlingly maintained or sold by subsequent ones. If the Bengals were a widget-producing factory founded by Paul Brown in Cincinnati, Mike Brown would have moved the plant to Mexico by now and/or sold it in some sort of merger.

(06-21-2017, 03:00 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Full list. If you read how they rank them, I actually think this makes sense. Is it accurate? idk but I am not bent out of shape about this.

I find it pretty hard to fathom that a fan base that has stuck by the Bengals during this ridiculous drought is so lowly considered. I can't agree with this information. I think some of it is accurate, but this fan base is pretty freaking loyal.

For the key word being "equity" this seems about right.

Bengals would probably place higher on a fan loyalty chart as we don't seem to have many if any bandwagon fans.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

(06-21-2017, 06:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm more surprised that the Chiefs are at 32. That fan base has had a good reputation for 20+ years.

That suprised me too. Aren't they supposedly one of the loudest crowds in the league to play against at home?

It's got to be inaccurate. No way we score higher than Chiefs and lower than Lions.

(06-21-2017, 02:40 PM)kdgjr Wrote: https://sports.yahoo.com/best-worst-fans-nfl-new-study-answers-160145494.html

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2017/06/17/nfl-fan-base-and-brand-rankings-2017/



Meh. Discuss.

My only input on "studies" like these is that I would need to see the fan bases of a few of those so-called top ranked teams after just 1/5th of what the Bengals experienced in the 90s.

The Packers would probably be #1 on my list.  Even when they sucked big-time, they always had fans all over the country.  The Bears are similar in that arena, and they have had a pretty long era of suckage.  I would put the Bills in that category as well.  

Patriots had a few fans before the Brady era, but no where near the legion they have now.  

I would put my beloved Bengal's fan base somewhere in the middle.  They actually travel well and have sold out a decent sized stadium in a smaller metropolis for decades.  A consistent punching bag from ESPN and others, Bengals fans proudly stick their chest out with knowledge of the Super Bowl teams that were innovators (no-huddle, Ohio River Offense) and their founder that created all kinds of things (facemask) that helped make the NFL what it is today.

The NFL might like to take as many shots at the Bengals as they can, but they should realize that without them or their founder, the league might look different than it does today.  

(06-21-2017, 02:55 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I always hate hearing Pittsburgh fans "travel well". Where is the proof that a good amount of fans are traveling from game to game vs just being all over the place because they have a ton of bandwagon fans from the Bradshaw years?

I say this because I was just at the Reds game last Saturday and I saw a TON of Dodgers fans. There's no way that all those Dodger fans traveled across the country to watch a game in Cincinnati. I'd bet that most likely they are instead bandwagon fans because the Dodgers are doing well and in a big market.

Most fans that are visiting fans are more than likely fans of a particular team and happen to live near a different team's stadium.

I've hated that phrase for as long as they've used it. I'm in the middle of GD Illinois and I see stillers footbawl shit all over the place.

(06-22-2017, 03:59 AM)MasonDT70 Wrote: For the key word being "equity" this seems about right.

Bengals would probably place higher on a fan loyalty chart as we don't seem to have many if any bandwagon fans.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

That's because it's literally impossible to be a bandwagon Bengals fan. There's never been a bandwagon to jump on. Just a heavy drinking wagon to get you to the point where you're numb enough to laugh it off.

I think Bengal fans are loyal and great fans! They stick with their team.

(06-22-2017, 01:34 AM)coachmcneil71 Wrote: I find it pretty hard to fathom that a fan base that has stuck by the Bengals during this ridiculous drought is so lowly considered. I can't agree with this information. I think some of it is accurate, but this fan base is pretty freaking loyal.

Yeah, I totally agree with everything you said. Was just trying to look at this from a non-biased perspective, and found myself not arguing with alot of what was reported. I think we have very passionate & loyal fans, but I also realize the huge elephant in the room with this franchise (no titles and recent PO success) has somewhat tainted this franchise. If the Bengals had a Super Bowl or two, we'd be much, much higher on the list. 

Meh... I don't necessarily disagree with it, but this list is based mainly on which team has the most fans, not the "best" fans. I wouldn't say a team who's fanbase is +75% bandwagoners has great fans but what do I know?

I also think fan thuggery should be a factor... But I guess they can't really measure that. Though I'm sure steeler and cowboy fans would be near the top of the list.