ANZ Stadium, in collaboration with Checkinline, tested a new premium ticket offering called 'Seatshare' to engage sports fans and assess market viability. The campaign yielded significant engagement metrics with high completion rates for a check-in process, revealing genuine interest but also price sensitivity among participants concerning the $350 subscription fee. The concept is seen as a potential niche market opportunity that could enhance annual seat yield significantly while allowing fans to share premium seating.

1. ANZ Stadium Campaign
engagement stats; SeatShare concept test

2. The Campaign
• CheckinLine presented ANZ Stadium with a unique new premium ticket offering
called SeatShare.
• ANZ Stadium worked with CheckinLine to run a special competition, to engage
the broad sport fan market, test the SeatShare concept and determine if a
market exists for a SeatShare offering at ANZ Stadium.
• Fans were enticed with the following incentives:
• 26 x free “member for a day” double passes to an upcoming game
• 100 x double pass runners-up prizes
• Plus, all fans who completed all five check-ins received a one-year food &
beverage discount card to use in the stadium
• The competition was promoted to an internal database of prospects and one
post on ANZ Stadium’s Facebook page and Twitter account.
The compelling results from this concept test has lead to a full ANZ Stadium
SeatShare pilot trial in 2014.

3. 3
Results...

4. 4
319
opt-ins
58%
engaged
in the
check-in
process
Average 3.6
out of 5
check-ins
completed
5:06 average
visit duration
time
(1:46 on check-
in page)
16,171
page views
50%
completed
all 5 check-
ins
- A ‘gamified’ environment
- Dedicated fans
- Extremely high check-in
completion rate

5. 5
50% of engaged users completed
all 5 check-ins.
- a strong opt-in prize rewarded those who completed all 5
check-ins
34
27
11
22
92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
check-­‐in
2
check-­‐ins
3
check-­‐ins
4
check-­‐ins
5
check-­‐ins

6. 6
High levels of engagement per
visit.

7. 7
Users understood the process and check-
ins were evenly spread each day.
- Consistent and even flow of check-in times each day
- Number of visits didn’t drop off dramatically over the campaign
- Users clearly understood and embraced the process

8. 8
Extremely high mobile visitation
rate (normally 55%)
- The CheckinLine user interface is optimized for mobile

9. 9
What the data uncovered
SeatShare concept and price sensitivity testing

10. The CheckinLine campaign engaged a market of
highly passionate sports fans
How many different
sports do you like to
watch live?
3.5
When it comes to sport, how would you
describe yourself?
1%2%3% 13% 20% 27% 34%
Casual Observer Fanatic
Love sport
Love to watch
How many different
sports do you like to
watch on TV?
3.2
How many games have
you attended in the last
month?
3.5
How many games have
you watched on TV in
the last month?
14.8

11. While league is clearly dominant, other
sports and live events are also a winner
with this audience
41%
85%
46%
69%
51%
64%
34%
84%
40%
61%
53%
44%
AFL
Rugby League
Rugby Union
Soccer
Cricket
Special Events (concerts
etc.)
Regularly watch on TV Enjoy watching live

12. The Concept
“We’d like to introduce you to a new concept for seating
arrangements at ANZ Stadium called SeatShare, where you
share a block of premium seating with other fans and only use
them for the games you want.
Your SeatShare subscription fee allows you to lock in 2 tickets
to a game in the future. CheckinLine will then run an active
standby list for each game to allocate the leftover seats not
already taken by SeatShare subscribers.
If you want to go to a particular game, you'll request seats for
that game and check-in if required (if demand outstrips
supply). You will pay a set fee for each seat you use beyond
the initial sign-up.”

13. Traditional Ticketing Process
e.g. Standard Membership
CheckinLine’s SeatShare Process
- CheckinLine’s unique queuing system provides a fair, transparent environment for
SeatShare subscribers to access high demand events and enables fans to request
seats only to the games they want to see.
Kind of like time-share for premium seating, SeatShare
enables a stadium to increase seat yields by offering seats
to more fans, generating more revenue for the stadium
and providing value to fans at the same time.

14. Overall, there is genuine interest and excitement in the
idea. However, likely take up appears moderate, with the
majority neutral towards the offer
How interesting is the new
concept?
3%
4%
9%
19%
27%
20%
18%
1 - Not at all
interesting
2
3
4
5
6
7 - Extremely
interesting
3%
6%
12%
19%
31%
17%
12%
1 - Not at all
exciting
2
3
4
5
6
7 - Extremely
exciting
How exciting is the new
concept?
How likely would you be to take
up at $350
8%
21%
12%
26%
16%
7%
9%
1 - Would definitely not
take up the offer
2
3
4
5
6
7 - Would definitely take
up the offer
What is it that is creating the tension between overall excitement for the
concept, and willingness to take up the offer?

15. Price plays a role in this - $350 is felt to be in the
‘too expensive’ territory. Around $250 - $300
potentially more appealing
17%
55%
27%
1%
0%
Way too expensive
A little over priced
About right
A little under priced
Way too cheap
For what is included do you think
this is...?
48%
34%
14%
2%
2%
0%
0%
9%
20%
33%
21%
11%
5%
2%
88%
11%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
$200-250
$250-300
$300-350
$350-400
$400-450
$450-500
$500+
Fair and Reasonable Too expensive Too cheap
At what price do you think this
is...?
Turning point – where
significantly more feel
this is ‘Too Expensive’

16. Applying some price sensitivity
algorithms makes the picture clearer
!$#!!!!
!$50.00!!
!$100.00!!
!$150.00!!
!$200.00!!
!$250.00!!
!$300.00!!
!$350.00!!
!$400.00!!
1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!
Price!Sensi5vity!by!Level!of!Excitement!
$!Fair!&!Reasonable!
$!Expensive!
- Gentle slope indicates low levels of sensitivity
- Not a fickle market – can build value into the price offering
- Will be sustainable in the longer term

17. Price sensitivity in relation to interest
levels showed an almost identical
picture
!$#!!!!
!$50.00!!
!$100.00!!
!$150.00!!
!$200.00!!
!$250.00!!
!$300.00!!
!$350.00!!
1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!
Price!Sensi5vity!by!Level!of!Interest!
$!Fair!&!Reasonable!
$!Expensive!

18. However, for those who are interested in taking up the
offer, they feel $350 is about right or slightly overpriced.
Do we want this concept to appeal to everyone, or a
niche?
82%
14%
8%
13% 10% 9% 7%
9%
71%
67%
63%
50%
64%
36%
9%
14%
17%
25%
40%
27%
57%
8%
Definitely
would not
take up this
offer
2 3 4 5 6 Definitely
would take
up this offer
Way too cheap
4
3
2
Way too
expensive

19. …and it is a niche we are targeting
Only 6% are likely to sign up for stadium membership next year
76% consider themselves fanatics
(cf. 61% for the test overall)
Attended 3.9 games in the last month
66% find the
concept interesting
(cf. 38% for the total)
56% find it exciting
(cf. 29% for the total)
Watched 16 games in the last month

20. Fans were most drawn to the access and quality
of the seating, while concerns mostly centre
around cost and uncertainty/fear of missing out
What do you love most about this
concept
What do you dislike most about this
concept
“Allows me to go to some good games that I'm
interested in, and in good seats”
“Everyone has an equal chance”
“Not having to go to every single event”
“Stops empty seats. Better atmosphere”
“$350. need to know more about it”
“You are at risk of not getting seats. Would
need to be cheaper”
“High demand for popular events”
“There could be the possibility of not obtaining
seats and not getting the value from the
membership fee”

21. When it comes to signing up to an ongoing
relationship with the stadium, seat guarantees
and priority treatment are critical
1%
5%
6%
9%
24%
28%
28%
34%
38%
43%
74%
Option to personalise seats with a company
name
Dedicated customer service staff
Gourmet menus
Entertaining (guests or clients)
Full seat transferability
Access to members lounge & dining room
Car park included
Exclusivity
Priority access into the stadium
Guaranteed same seat location at every
event
Good seats
What appeals to you most about
stadium membership?
Of those who participated in
the Check-in…
6%
Are currently a
member
1%
93%
Used to be a
member
Have never
been a member
Communications around the
concept need to clearly
highlight that there is
opportunity to lock in the
games you want and the seats
you want!

22. Strong interest in nominating additional games
above the base package – indicating a niche
audience with high individual value
18%
20%
29%
12%
5%
9%
6%
0%
1%
No additional games
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
6-10
10-15
16+
11%
65%
7%
13%
3%
2%
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
6 or
more
Additional games would
nominate to attend
…and how many tickets would
you nominate for each game

23. Our niche market also more likely
to pay for F&B table service.
29%$ 16%$ 15%$ 20%$ 11%$ 3%$
0%$ 10%$ 20%$ 30%$ 40%$ 50%$ 60%$ 70%$ 80%$ 90%$ 100%$
Overall liklihood of paying for F&B table service
Extremely$unlikely$ Extremely$likely$
19%$ 6%$ 17%$ 28%$ 17%$ 4%$
0%$ 10%$ 20%$ 30%$ 40%$ 50%$ 60%$ 70%$ 80%$ 90%$ 100%$
Interested Fans - Liklihood of paying for F&B table service
Extremely$unlikely$ Extremely$likely$

24. What does it all mean?
1. There is a strong niche likely to take up the concept and these people
are not that worried about the price.
- It’s low in price sensitivity, suggesting that we can stretch the price with a
clearly defined value proposition
2. Those who take up are also likely to nominate for a further 1-3 games,
getting two tickets for each.
- Average spend per subscriber per year estimated at $900+
3. This concept will not only allow more fans to share the best seats, but
is projected to increase ANZ Stadium average annual seat yield on
these seats by 48-95% in just 6 months.
4. This concept could be further enhanced with dynamic pricing.
- The per-game prices could flex depending on demand, say, two weeks
out from the game, to increase sales and check-in numbers

25. ben@checkinline.com | 0417 323 809