Is there any evidence that Wembley spectaculars, Twickenham double-headers etc. pay off?

There's always the claim that they provide greater public awareness of the game and generate more footfall at the participating sides' grounds.

But is there any evidence (short of hearsay and conjecture) that

1. Any spectacular has ever made money (either short, medium or long) term?
2. Home crowds have increased?
3. TV audiences are increased by the big-venue attraction

Or any other measure...

Saracens have recently managed to build on all the exciting promos to gain a foothold in Barnet which enables them to match the promotion criteria.

I agree I would like to know the money made/lost with these big game ventures. But we do see very large crowds for these matches now. So there must be a benefit as more people see Rugby in person. Many of the people who attend these matches are probably not the die-hards that we are. Consequently, this has to help grow Rugby because if seeing this great sport in person doesn't get a person hooked, then nothing will. Make sense?

I don't have stats, but anecdotally I recall these features seem to get more space in the newspapers and on some web sites. But, as with any marketing initiative, there is information somewhere.

Finally, I like these events. Would love to see more of them.

With only anecdotal evidence, the non-rugby crowd I took to Wembley loved the match and the occasion and have expressed interest in attending more matches

IIRC Mark Evans once said that, at the prices Quins set for the Big Game, they make the same money as they would for a normal game when they sell 50k tickets, and the implication was that that anything above that was effectively pure profit, even at £10 a ticket.

So last year's Big Game was worth an extra £300k or so to Quins - not a huge amount in turnover terms, but quite a big swing in profitability terms.

Plus, there are a number of hard-to-quantify halo benefits - if some of those new spectators become regulars or season ticket holders that's worth a bit (Quins' policy has always been "fill the stadium, then build more capacity" - ME's rule of thumb was that you need about 15,000 spectators per game to be sustainable, and if that edges us towards that from the current non-BG average of about 12.5k, it's good news). And regular spectacles that earn rugby a prime slot in the TV schedules can only be good for the game as a whole.