Can anybody explain to me the prices listed there and the prices people
actually paid for the gigs?
(499 versa 2.400 for Section A front row for instance)

And can one of my IORR'rers tell me, what is ca. the production cost for one show.

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I know that seats behind the stage are not used and that was Not my question. My question was why they can fill Olympic Stadium in Berlin nearly to capacity and Rose Bowl only 60% with a sellout. I don't understand this.

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I know that seats behind the stage are not used and that was Not my question. My question was why they can fill Olympic Stadium in Berlin nearly to capacity and Rose Bowl only 60% with a sellout. I don't understand this.

Berlin’s Olympic Stadium has a larger (longer and wider) field than the Rose Bowl. More floor tickets available. For a typical football stadium, they can only use around 55-60% of the stadium seats, with an end stage configuration.

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I'm guessing it's based on what was sold in the 3 plus months or whatever, therefor, showing "demand", hence where they put the stage in terms of seats sold. If demand is greater, they simply move the stage back and open up seats.

Neither happened for U2 or the Stones in New Orleans.

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I know that seats behind the stage are not used and that was Not my question. My question was why they can fill Olympic Stadium in Berlin nearly to capacity and Rose Bowl only 60% with a sellout. I don't understand this.

They made a rule many years ago that capacity i.e. "sold out" was defined at the day of the show, more or less. So with the Stones all shows will be sold out.

It is quite normal to push the stage forward in large stadiums, so that it does not look empty or half sold.

In short they did not sell out the US shows, because ticket prices were too high.

For those who have invested in a show/tour, any money is money. 40,000 x $250 = $10 million. 60,000 x $150 = $9,000. There is more money in 40,000 at a high priced show, than 60,000 at a low priced show.

Bjornulf

Quote
hockenheim95
Can anybody in this world tell me how it is possible that only 57.000 people were at the Rose Bowl while it has a capacity of 92.000?

This doesn't count platinum packages or bands taking their own stack off the top and scalping them on the side. There were probably a good 6-8,000 more in actual attendance.

[en.wikipedia.org])

Quote
bv

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I know that seats behind the stage are not used and that was Not my question. My question was why they can fill Olympic Stadium in Berlin nearly to capacity and Rose Bowl only 60% with a sellout. I don't understand this.

They made a rule many years ago that capacity i.e. "sold out" was defined at the day of the show, more or less. So with the Stones all shows will be sold out.

It is quite normal to push the stage forward in large stadiums, so that it does not look empty or half sold.

In short they did not sell out the US shows, because ticket prices were too high.

For those who have invested in a show/tour, any money is money. 40,000 x $250 = $10 million. 60,000 x $150 = $9,000. There is more money in 40,000 at a high priced show, than 60,000 at a low priced show.

Thank you Bjornulf. This last point is exactly on point. I have a good friend who loves today's music as much as she loves classic rock (we're both in our 30s), and wanted to see Beyonce when she announced a show at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro around the same time the Stones announced a show when No Filter first got announced in 2018. She and I were talking about the prices, and she was shocked at Beyonce's floor tickets: $500 apiece. Same with me and the Stones: I told her that front stage GA tickets were about $1,200 (compared to 1981, when GA tickets were, adjusted for inflation $45 apiece.)

It's really getting to the point where concerts are getting priced out of reach for most people. Before the Stones show last July, the last major concert I went to was 2013, when the Stones played Boston with Mick Taylor. And it was just as much because of finances as it was that from then and now, no other band was on the road between then and now made me want to spend that kind of money when it also meant I might miss a day from work, pay all the additional venue fees, and have to watch one of my favorite bands share a bill with someone else.

When my friend and I talked about why so many bands now do these obscene ticket fees, we realized that (1) Mick Jagger has always been one of the best and most ruthless businesmen as much as he is a great singer, songwriter and performer, and (2) today there are so much more factors putting in a concert than there was in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s as well as the usual factors (higher state federal, state and local taxes, paychecks for the crew, feeding and housing aforementioned crew while on the road, union dues, COLA for the families, production costs, environmental and financial regulations, etc etc), and (3) with the younger acts like Beyonce, it's also about funding her future. As Bjornulf says, there is a heck of a lot more money to be made playing in front of 40,000 who pay $250 a ticket than there is playing in front of 60,000 people who paid $150 per ticket. So, if and when her popularity ever wanes and she doesn't sell music like she does, or doesn't draw big crowds like she does, or cant get the endorsement deals like she does, she will still be able to have a Lamborghini lifestyle.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-09-21 18:47 by stevecardi.

Quote
stevecardi

Quote
bv

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
podiumboy
You have to factor in seats behind the stage not being used. U2 played to 97,000 at the Rose Bowl in 2009. They returned there in 2017 and played 2 sold out shows, both at roughly 60,000. The difference is that in 2009 the 369 tour played to the entire stadium, whereas in 2017 they did an endstage show, which is the norm.

U2 also played to about 35,000 at the Superdome. Guns n Roses did 32,000. They have ways of making shows look fuller than they are.

I know that seats behind the stage are not used and that was Not my question. My question was why they can fill Olympic Stadium in Berlin nearly to capacity and Rose Bowl only 60% with a sellout. I don't understand this.

They made a rule many years ago that capacity i.e. "sold out" was defined at the day of the show, more or less. So with the Stones all shows will be sold out.

It is quite normal to push the stage forward in large stadiums, so that it does not look empty or half sold.

In short they did not sell out the US shows, because ticket prices were too high.

For those who have invested in a show/tour, any money is money. 40,000 x $250 = $10 million. 60,000 x $150 = $9,000. There is more money in 40,000 at a high priced show, than 60,000 at a low priced show.

Thank you Bjornulf. This last point is exactly on point. I have a good friend who loves today's music as much as she loves classic rock (we're both in our 30s), and wanted to see Beyonce when she announced a show at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro around the same time the Stones announced a show when No Filter first got announced in 2018. She and I were talking about the prices, and she was shocked at Beyonce's floor tickets: $500 apiece. Same with me and the Stones: I told her that front stage GA tickets were about $1,200 (compared to 1981, when GA tickets were, adjusted for inflation $45 apiece.)

It's really getting to the point where concerts are getting priced out of reach for most people. Before the Stones show last July, the last major concert I went to was 2013, when the Stones played Boston with Mick Taylor. And it was just as much because of finances as it was that from then and now, no other band was on the road between then and now made me want to spend that kind of money when it also meant I might miss a day from work, pay all the additional venue fees, and have to watch one of my favorite bands share a bill with someone else.

When my friend and I talked about why so many bands now do these obscene ticket fees, we realized that (1) Mick Jagger has always been one of the best and most ruthless businesmen as much as he is a great singer, songwriter and performer, and (2) today there are so much more factors putting in a concert than there was in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s as well as the usual factors (higher state federal, state and local taxes, paychecks for the crew, feeding and housing aforementioned crew while on the road, union dues, COLA for the families, production costs, environmental and financial regulations, etc etc), and (3) with the younger acts like Beyonce, it's also about funding her future. As Bjornulf says, there is a heck of a lot more money to be made playing in front of 40,000 who pay $250 a ticket than there is playing in front of 60,000 people who paid $150 per ticket. So, if and when her popularity ever wanes and she doesn't sell music like she does, or doesn't draw big crowds like she does, or cant get the endorsement deals like she does, she will still be able to have a Lamborghini lifestyle.

The thing is there isn't enough room in just about any venue for "most people."

Any serious downward shifts in overall attendance and the market will shift accordingly. Some will accept lower performance fees and others will might stay home and make more money driving for Uber.

the problem is, we keep going to the stones.. whatever ticketbastard ask for the ticket... i dont think its possible (at least its not for me..) to boycot the shows...

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Figured I'd give this thread a bump...

Check these numbers...

$10 million a night is good incentive for 2020 No Filter in North America!

for almost every established act other then Adele there is not much money in recording new music. the stones know this. the money is made on the road with high ticket prices. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. if the stones were making millions off new recorded music we would have new studio albums every year.

and I haven't paid any big bucks to see any acts in the last 10 years except for my beloved Stones. Just cant afford it. its simple economics for me.

Friends of mine went to see the Toronto Maple Leafs play a few weeks ago.
(NHL Hockey)
They paid $450.00 CAD each for their seats to watch the game.
Tickets to see an NFL football team are similarly priced.
NBA is same.
This is just the cost of a night out, these days.
A friend who has more money than most us says this:
"It's not that this (car, suit,vacation,house) is too expensive. You simply can't afford it."