Do not pay too much for tickets!!!!

[terrasaint]

Bought tickets for Crystal Palace and Bristol City for 2 people via the club's web site. Received them today and paid the full price of £23 for each ticket. Inside was a leaflet informing me that if you buy tickets for Bristol City at the same time as buying C Palace tickets the latter will only cost £15. Apparently I can resolve this problem by sending the tickets back and getting an adjustment. In these times of technology why oh why cannot the website be adjusted to charge the offer price automatically if you book the two matches at the same time???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What is the point of a ticket line website if it cannot charge the correct amount?

[ant]

It's a very outdated, inflexible system, simple as that. That creaky old thing's been in use for far too long now - apart from anything else I imagine the problems it causes swell the number of support calls made to the ticket office which is expensive in itself. A custom-built solution wouldn't cost the earth! A lot of clubs seem to have booking platforms based on Ticketmaster et al but they must take a pretty sizeable slice of the profit. Keep it all in-house.

[iansums]

Interesting, I still haven't bought tickets for these two games yet.

[terrasaint]

Interesting, I still haven't bought tickets for these two games yet.

 

Buy them from the ticket office rather than the website.

[Fan The Flames]

I imagine the problems it causes swell the number of support calls made to the ticket office which is expensive in itself.

 

This, its not a very sensible business approach. If supermarkets can deal with multiple bogofs and 2 for a fiver deals it can't be beyond the talents of a geek to come up with a bit of code to deal with this. You don't even need anything clever, just have the option to buy CP tickets, BC tickets or CP & BR tickets, easy.

[Saint Garrett]

I assume they'll be in the Chapel end like the deals for other games have been this season.

[terrasaint]

Cant be sure but the leaflet does NOT specify the Chappel end.

[stevegrant]

It's a very outdated, inflexible system, simple as that. That creaky old thing's been in use for far too long now - apart from anything else I imagine the problems it causes swell the number of support calls made to the ticket office which is expensive in itself. A custom-built solution wouldn't cost the earth! A lot of clubs seem to have booking platforms based on Ticketmaster et al but they must take a pretty sizeable slice of the profit. Keep it all in-house.

There are a few factors involved here, IMO.

 

Firstly, the current system, as you rightly say, has been in use for years. I don't think there's been any functionality changes since it was first installed when we moved to St Mary's in 2001. I know for a fact that AudienceView, the company who provided the software, have continued to evolve their products over that period of time, but presumably we didn't believe it to be worthwhile either from a functionality perspective or from a cost perspective to keep the software updated. My assumption is that the club paid a (fairly hefty) fee up front and then an annual service contract to ensure it's maintained, but they clearly don't go as far as to keep the functionality updated. As far as they're concerned, it seems to serve the purpose on the limited budget they want to operate within.

 

Secondly, a custom-built solution would be VERY expensive, both in terms of development time and cost. That is why many clubs are going down the route of using existing providers such as eticketing and Ticketmaster - they have tried and tested systems in place to cope with the likely demand, so for the clubs it's pretty much an off-the-shelf solution that they can "skin" to look like their own system. To develop a new system from scratch with all the functionality most of us would like (e.g. pick an individual seat, apply for away ballots, view full order history even when you're not the lead purchaser, etc) would, at a very conservative estimate, take a team of 4 developers a year to design, develop and test, and the cost would be well into six figures (the salaries alone would do that).

 

Given the choice of three options, i.e.

1. Purchase a new off-the-shelf product from a third party, e.g. Ticketmaster, eticketing, etc, at substantial setup costs and see them take a percentage of all revenue;

2. Contract a software/web development agency to develop a bespoke system at very substantial cost and with at least a year's lead time before it's installed;

3. Persevere with the current system that can handle the basics but annoys the hell out of anyone who wants any sort of half-decent user experience, at very little cost;

 

It's not hard to see why option 3 is the one they continue to choose.

[JRM]

There are a few factors involved here, IMO.

 

Firstly, the current system, as you rightly say, has been in use for years. I don't think there's been any functionality changes since it was first installed when we moved to St Mary's in 2001. I know for a fact that AudienceView, the company who provided the software, have continued to evolve their products over that period of time, but presumably we didn't believe it to be worthwhile either from a functionality perspective or from a cost perspective to keep the software updated. My assumption is that the club paid a (fairly hefty) fee up front and then an annual service contract to ensure it's maintained, but they clearly don't go as far as to keep the functionality updated. As far as they're concerned, it seems to serve the purpose on the limited budget they want to operate within.

 

Secondly, a custom-built solution would be VERY expensive, both in terms of development time and cost. That is why many clubs are going down the route of using existing providers such as eticketing and Ticketmaster - they have tried and tested systems in place to cope with the likely demand, so for the clubs it's pretty much an off-the-shelf solution that they can "skin" to look like their own system. To develop a new system from scratch with all the functionality most of us would like (e.g. pick an individual seat, apply for away ballots, view full order history even when you're not the lead purchaser, etc) would, at a very conservative estimate, take a team of 4 developers a year to design, develop and test, and the cost would be well into six figures (the salaries alone would do that).

 

Given the choice of three options, i.e.

1. Purchase a new off-the-shelf product from a third party, e.g. Ticketmaster, eticketing, etc, at substantial setup costs and see them take a percentage of all revenue;

2. Contract a software/web development agency to develop a bespoke system at very substantial cost and with at least a year's lead time before it's installed;

3. Persevere with the current system that can handle the basics but annoys the hell out of anyone who wants any sort of half-decent user experience, at very little cost;

 

It's not hard to see why option 3 is the one they continue to choose.

 

if it is so bad / expensive, why do other clubs like Fulham, skates, coventry., arsenal, have off the shelf systems that allow you to pick your own seats?

[stevegrant]

if it is so bad / expensive, why do other clubs like Fulham, skates, coventry., arsenal, have off the shelf systems that allow you to pick your own seats?

Because they've chosen to pay that money, simple as that.

[ant]

To develop a new system from scratch with all the functionality most of us would like (e.g. pick an individual seat, apply for away ballots, view full order history even when you're not the lead purchaser, etc) would, at a very conservative estimate, take a team of 4 developers a year to design, develop and test, and the cost would be well into six figures (the salaries alone would do that).

 

Fair play, the estimates in my head were way off then. That's why I generally stick to the pretty pictures and am a designer rather than developer In retrospect I also failed to take into account the likely cost of the ongoing maintaining post-launch. All considered I'd not be surprised to see the club persevere with the current system until it becomes 100% unfit for purpose. There's obvious drawbacks to that, but you see it happen a lot. It's difficult to convince of the future savings when a significant outlay is required upfront.

Edited 29 November, 2011 by ant

[StrangelyBrown]

There are a few factors involved here, IMO.

 

Firstly, the current system, as you rightly say, has been in use for years. I don't think there's been any functionality changes since it was first installed when we moved to St Mary's in 2001. I know for a fact that AudienceView, the company who provided the software, have continued to evolve their products over that period of time, but presumably we didn't believe it to be worthwhile either from a functionality perspective or from a cost perspective to keep the software updated. My assumption is that the club paid a (fairly hefty) fee up front and then an annual service contract to ensure it's maintained, but they clearly don't go as far as to keep the functionality updated. As far as they're concerned, it seems to serve the purpose on the limited budget they want to operate within.

 

Secondly, a custom-built solution would be VERY expensive, both in terms of development time and cost. That is why many clubs are going down the route of using existing providers such as eticketing and Ticketmaster - they have tried and tested systems in place to cope with the likely demand, so for the clubs it's pretty much an off-the-shelf solution that they can "skin" to look like their own system. To develop a new system from scratch with all the functionality most of us would like (e.g. pick an individual seat, apply for away ballots, view full order history even when you're not the lead purchaser, etc) would, at a very conservative estimate, take a team of 4 developers a year to design, develop and test, and the cost would be well into six figures (the salaries alone would do that).

 

Given the choice of three options, i.e.

1. Purchase a new off-the-shelf product from a third party, e.g. Ticketmaster, eticketing, etc, at substantial setup costs and see them take a percentage of all revenue;

2. Contract a software/web development agency to develop a bespoke system at very substantial cost and with at least a year's lead time before it's installed;

3. Persevere with the current system that can handle the basics but annoys the hell out of anyone who wants any sort of half-decent user experience, at very little cost;

 

It's not hard to see why option 3 is the one they continue to choose.

 

I reckon more like 1 man job easily in 6 months to do the lot, but then its my job so what would I know

[stevegrant]

I reckon more like 1 man job easily in 6 months to do the lot, but then its my job so what would I know

It's mine as well, and I'd prefer to do a more thorough job

[The9]

Pretty sure there was an upgrade to the AudienceView system at one point since 2001, we definitely got some additional functionality around 2004/5-ish. It's still cack though.

 

The irony that aap3 have their name on the website and the kit and we have a useless ticket system (albeit probably nothing to do with them) hasn't been missed though.

[Big Bad Bob]

I reckon more like 1 man job easily in 6 months to do the lot, but then its my job so what would I know

 

Sorry, I wouldn't like to buy any of your products if that's what you think.

 

'tis my job too and I would go with Steve's guesstimate...

[Topcat]

Cant be sure but the leaflet does NOT specify the Chappel end.

 

My leaflet does say "restricted to Family Stand only".

[Fan The Flames]

Give me a six pack of Stella, a bucket of spicy wings and a box set of Ealing comedies and I would knock up something functional in Excel and Paint in an afternoon.

[hodds]

Is their a link for this deal?

 

I can't find anything on the OS.

[SaintNeil90]

You cant blame the current regime for this one. The online system and the website were put in place with lengthy contracts before Liebherr/Cortese took over. We have to wait for those contracts to expire before we can have a new website/online booking system.