2002: North America 28 shows (without club shows) from aug - nov. In total 930,000 people attended the shows (I assume most of them were sold out). So 33,000 per show, given the prices of 2002.

2005: North America 42 shows (without the opening club gig) from aug - nov/dec. In total 1,255,000 people (again I assume most of them were nearly sold out, at least over 90% of tix were sold). So almost 30,000 people per show, given the INCREASED prices of 2005.

My first conclusion is: Supply fits demand, both in 2002 and in 2005.

Second: more shows and more people in 2005 which probably means that there's less room for a black market nowadays, again a strong point in my 'theory' that supply and demand are more in balance now than they were in 2002.

Wrong conclusions are:
- they play less shows (28 vs 42)
- they play smaller venues (33,000 vs 30,000)
- prices aren't marketprices (max $300 vs max $450)

Okay, you can't compare the Stones with a free market system with multiple suppliers, in fact it's indeed some sort of monopoly, in which they are the only supplier. But also monopolists can fail if they set the wrong prices. Given the above facts (2002 vs 2005) they don't fail.

Of course we don't like them to increase prices, but we cannot conclude that supply and demand aren't in balance.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-05 23:26 by saintmick.

but this means, that the people want to see the stones in 2005 better than in 2002?!

or i haven't understand this?

I didnt see no price increase only reason I paid more this time was I got better seats then in 2002.

no prices increase?

the highest price for the tickets for the munich-gig were €99,50. now you have to pay double the price.

Gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but this means, that the people want to see the
> stones in 2005 better than in 2002?!
>
> or i haven't understand this?


It simply means that the prices the Stones set are marketprices.

I believe they could have sold more shows in 2002, given the lower prices. In 2002 black market prices were higher I assume.

It's quite simple: as long as scalpers can ask higher prices than face value, there is an inbalance between supply and demand.

but i think many gigs of this tour wouldn't be sold out. the reason is known.

saintmick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2002: North America 28 shows (without club shows)
> from aug - nov. In total 930,000 people attended
> the shows (I assume most of them were sold out).
> So 33,000 per show, given the prices of 2002.
>
> 2005: North America 42 shows (without the opening
> club gig) from aug - nov/dec. In total 1,255,000
> people (again I assume most of them were nearly
> sold out, at least over 90% of tix were sold). So
> almost 30,000 people per show, given the INCREASED
> prices of 2005.
>
> My first conclusion is: Supply fits demand, both
> in 2002 and in 2005.
>
> Second: more shows and more people in 2005 which
> probably means that there's less room for a black
> market nowadays, again a strong point in my
> 'theory' that supply and demand are more in
> balance now than they were in 2002.
>
> Wrong conclusions are:
> - they play less shows (28 vs 42)
> - they play smaller venues (33,000 vs 30,000)
> - prices aren't marketprices (max $300 vs max
> $450)
>
> Okay, you can't compare the Stones with a free
> market system with multiple suppliers, in fact
> it's indeed some sort of monopoly, in which they
> are the only supplier. But also monopolists can
> fail if they set the wrong prices. Given the above
> facts (2002 vs 2005) they don't fail.
>
> Of course we don't like them to increase prices,
> but we cannot conclude that supply and demand
> aren't in balance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 12/05/05 23:26 by
> saintmick.


This post is directly on point and should be required reading for all the ticket price complainers.

saintmick wrote:

"It's quite simple: as long as scalpers can ask higher prices than face value, there is an inbalance between supply and demand."

You'd think that was the case wouldn't you? But a very, very significant part of the premium that gets paid to scalpers, ahem, brokers is for the ease and convenience of getting good seats without any research or planning--and usually at the last minute. The only others who can guarantee those luxuries are the travel-package people working with the Stones. In-house scalpers, if you will...


dj wrote:

"This post is directly on point and should be required reading for all the ticket price complainers."

It's an exclusively economic anaysis of the price structure of the tour. If you believe that such an analysis tells all, then you probably fit into the classic category of "a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> saintmick wrote:
>
> "It's quite simple: as long as scalpers can ask
> higher prices than face value, there is an
> inbalance between supply and demand."
>
> You'd think that was the case wouldn't you? But a
> very, very significant part of the premium that
> gets paid to scalpers, ahem, brokers is for the
> ease and convenience of getting good seats without
> any research or planning--and usually at the last
> minute. The only others who can guarantee those
> luxuries are the travel-package people working
> with the Stones. In-house scalpers, if you
> will...
>
>
> dj wrote:
>
> "This post is directly on point and should be
> required reading for all the ticket price
> complainers."
>
> It's an exclusively economic anaysis of the price
> structure of the tour. If you believe that such an
> analysis tells all, then you probably fit into the
> classic category of "a man who knows the price of
> everything and the value of nothing."
>


Perhaps you could explain what type of analysis should be applied to the "price structure of the tour" (or to anything) other than an "economic analysis".

And by the way, nice dig at the end. Out of curiousity, have you seen any ABB shows yet? If so, was it worth it in your eyes? If not, please don't respond.

Very good.
By the way Munich was much more than 99 Euro on preferred seating.
but agree with price increases of about 30% in general in Germany.
Which is a lot for a country who counts on the cents.

Nice one. Nice excursion into basic economics. But all I can tell is that a lot of fellow long-term Stones fans don't go this time. You can't hear their voices on this board, they quietly disconnected from further Stones activities. But as long as other, probably younger fans fill in these voids, it will go on and on and on, with further inflationary prices increases until the end of time...when they stop touring, that is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-06 15:28 by retired_dog.

If the demand wasn't there they would not be able to scalp their best tickets through VIP packages and brokers. Not only are the TM tickets priced properly, the premium tickets at $1000+ through the VIP packages are priced properly and people buy them.

Hard for many to accept, but supply = demand this time around.

dj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> And by the way, nice dig at the end. Out of
> curiousity, have you seen any ABB shows yet? If
> so, was it worth it in your eyes? If not, please
> don't respond.


Haven't seen any ABB show yet. But knowing myself, I'm convinced that it will be worth every dollar/euro/whatever. And I also know why: I love the Stones! And - to be very honest - I can afford it. Of course I feel pitty for them who can't go because of the price level. But that's been discussed in plenty of topics already on this board. My only point was the element of suplly and demand. Indeed it doesn't help those who can't see the Stones now, but I only wanted to make this point clear that people can't blame the market mechanisme.

(oops sorry dj, now I see that your last remark was for Robert W.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-06 16:38 by saintmick.

No problem. You can see by my posts in this thread that I'm with you on this issue.

Hi,
I am gonna throw in my two cents here. I have ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, the supply-demand argument is certainly right. Primarily, the change is that (old) rock music has now a fan base which can still be mobilized, which is less price-sensitive. In a way, the marginal utility of a concert more is still quite high, so they are willing to attend again, and whatever other goods are in competition with the "Stones lives" goods are obviously of lower marginal utility. To sum it up, there is demand. On the other hand, there is a segment in society potentially seeking to attend which cannot pocket the alternative costs of going to a concert, including trip, staying overnight, etc. This might mean for them giving up or delaying paying the rent, buying a used car, or settling for an older one - many, many things that 3-500 euros will do for you (counting with 2 ppl on a weekend trip).
Why is it important to consider both - the existing and the potential demand? Because rock music is not supposed to be about supply and demand. Yes, the Stones can do this, and in a general sense, this is both rational and ethical behaviour. At the same time, when I started listening to rock music at the age of 14, having discovered that I disliked the MTV crap of the early nineties, the Stones were part of my personal rebellion. I think this is not a unique experience - it was there for almost everyone, right? I am going to quote Jack Black on this one: "Rock music is about sticking it to the Man". Isn´t this true? Isn´t this what Satisfaction and GOOMY are about? In a way, even Sweet NeoCon and Dangerous Beauty? I don´t think sticking it to the man depends on age, Neil Young still does it on a regular basis. Pity that he will never come close to the Stones in terms of music.
So, the bottom line: let´s get something cleared up: is the discussion about ticket pricing from a market/microeconomic perspective or about ticket prices as a phenomenon examined with regards to the culture of rock music? As much as moaning about either one is unjustified if it is generalized, I think both have a point. Not that boycotting (rght, like that is going to work) is not silly. Not that the Stones will "feel" our discontent in economic terms, ever. But we are paying the costs, not financial costs as much as sentimental costs in terms of seeing our band contradict its own songs. Now early rock`n`roll was not like this, it is clearly sixties ideology here that I am using as a resource to mount a criticism of ticket prices - this much be granted. Inasmuch as one is not willing to openly discard / renounce sixties ideologies concerning society, rebellion, freedom and challenging the logic of capitalism, the criticism is justified. If any criticism is delegitimized, it can only be done by doing to same to the "ethos" of rock music - a case, maybe, of throwing out the baby with the bathing water.
Still, I will, as many others, save, bargain, cheat, steal and borrow to see the Stones this year, hopefully more than once. The only thing I expect from the Stones is exchange is to put on a bitching show, which I know they will. So why the whining? Because I so would like to take friends who I know wll not come because they are not hardcore fans. I will go with my girlfriend, maybe, and that is not a bad thing, but I would much prefer to have a show with normal young people and older ppl with an attitude to a show with ppl with gold chains and shaved heads and lawyers and economists and risk analysts (even if I am one, too) who attend for reasons of prestige. And especially in Eastern Europe, the latter will make up a non-negligible part of the audience, judging by previous experience. Ppl who would look, to quote someone, like a reindeer in the spotlight if god forbid the Stones pull out Sway from under their sleeves. Because I want a show that takes you on a journey, that can challenge me.
The only thing i do not quite understand is how t is possible that despite everything the Stones have not lost any of their magic for me. And never will, I suppose. I am more hardcore with 28 than I was with 18. They must be doing sg right...
C55

in my opinion people with money can go and fans with 2 or 3 kids and high bills stay at home

Clari55,

Nice post. Neoclassic Economics was part of favorites, though in your post sometimes it is mixed-up with Keynesian Economics. Good Lord !!! I would not reverse the argument with a marxist analysis which has demonstrated its failure years ago. My point would be just that the supply has not always brought enough
demand.

Please to meet you....

As you know economics is all about waves. Adam Smith, Keynes, Neoclassics, Sweet Neo-cons, Jaggerians: every period has its own explanations and theories.

Yap,Yap. I would prefer the Sir Keith Richards economics side of the music.

-------------------------------------------------------
> Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > It's an exclusively economic anaysis of the
> price
> > structure of the tour. If you believe that
> such an
> > analysis tells all, then you probably fit
> into the
> > classic category of "a man who knows the
> price of
> > everything and the value of nothing."
> >
>
>
> Perhaps you could explain what type of analysis
> should be applied to the "price structure of the
> tour" (or to anything) other than an "economic
> analysis".
>
> And by the way, nice dig at the end. Out of
> curiousity, have you seen any ABB shows yet? If
> so, was it worth it in your eyes? If not, please
> don't respond.

dj:

Read closely and for precision, tough guy. I wrote "an exclusively economic analysis" of the price structure of the tour. To exclude all but the simplest questions of ticket supply and demand (figures for which are heavily manipulated and distorted, by the way) doesn't account for the altered character of what is--or was, anyway--a musical and pop cultural event.

And "if not, please don't respond?" Are you some kind of authority? Is that supposed to be intimidating?

I've been listening to this band daily for twenty-five years and have read extensively on their history and work. I've been to twenty-five Stones shows in theaters, arenas and stadiums literally across North America. Three of them have been on this tour, so I'm quite prepared to dispute (or to confirm, for that matter) whatever claim you think you might have on this subject.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-06 19:40 by Rev. Robert W..

Sorry, but if you can, it doesn't mean you shouldn't. I think it is not good for their image.

> Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > It's an exclusively economic anaysis of the
> price
> > structure of the tour. If you believe that
> such an
> > analysis tells all, then you probably fit
> into the
> > classic category of "a man who knows the
> price of
> > everything and the value of nothing."
> >
>
>
> Perhaps you could explain what type of analysis
> should be applied to the "price structure of the
> tour" (or to anything) other than an "economic
> analysis".
>
> And by the way, nice dig at the end. Out of
> curiousity, have you seen any ABB shows yet? If
> so, was it worth it in your eyes? If not, please
> don't respond.

dj:

Read closely and for precision, tough guy. I wrote "an exclusively economic analysis" of the price structure of the tour. To exclude all but the simplest questions of ticket supply and demand (figures for which are heavily manipulated and distorted, by the way) doesn't account for the altered character of what is--or was, anyway--a musical and pop cultural event.

And "if not, please don't respond?" Are you some kind of authority? Is that supposed to be intimidating?

I've been listening to this band daily for twenty-five years and have read extensively on their history and work. I've been to twenty-five Stones shows in theaters, arenas and stadiums literally across North America. Three of them have been on this tour, so I'm quite prepared to dispute (or to confirm, for that matter) whatever claim you think you might have on this subject.

My last post was doubled.

Apologies to all for that.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My last post was doubled.

That's what I call increasing supply...

Agree on that.
I guess we all would concur that Stones are not an economic phenomenon , let us leave that to the repectable wall-street traders, but beforehand music.

Rev - Chill out dude. You're in danger of crossing the line between attacking the issue and attacking the poster personally. I'm not a "tough guy". I made the incorrect assumption that you had NOT seen a US ABB show and for that I apologize. Perhaps you could consider doing same. Also in no way was I attempting to challenge your pedigree as a Stones fan, which is impressive. By the way, you didn't answer my question as to whether or not the shows you saw were worth the money you spent.

Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that if the Stones charge less than what the market will bear, it amounts to charity on their part. Let's say, HYPOTHETICALLY, that it costs $100 per ticket to produce a Rolling Stones concert. I repeat, this is HYPOTHETICAL...I don't know what the figures are. Add $25 for profit and the selling price is $125, which I suppose is in the ballpark for a major act rock concert. But don't the Rolling Stones deserve more than the going rate? What is the intrinsic value of the following in determining the ticket prices:

The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World
Been doing this since 1962 (which is mind-boggling)
Wrote the book on the modern rock show and tour
Mick Jagger is the singer
Keith Richards is the guitarist
Charlie Watts is the drummer

I say God Bless the Rolling Stones for realizing their true value.

dj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say God Bless the Rolling Stones for realizing
> their true value.

dj:

A little testy, I know. But very tired of the "if you haven't seen the tour, you can't possibly have an opinion" line of reasoning that gets thrown around. I don't agree with that at all, especially in light of the fact that the tour is--conceptually, at least--such a rehash. Further, you should know that I don't for a minute resent the Stones for making their big, big bucks. It's a vital part of their mystique.

Was it worth it? I love these guys. Directly or indirectly, they introduced me to virtually every piece of music I have ever loved. Every bit of the blues, country, soul and reggae that makes up my world came to me from the Stones. To say nothing of their own records and shows...

I went down to Charlottesville (after Fenway and MSG) to see my best childhood friend. When we were grilling in the parking lot bfore showtime, I kept hearing bits and pieces of the Stones coming from portable stereos and car radios: "Let's Spend The Night Together," "Shattered," "Waiting On A Friend," "Rough Justice," "Not Fade Away," "Gimme Shelter" and so many others. The music makes for such a cool mix when it jumps around like that and you hear all these strange combinations. I was looking at the t-shirts and the people getting up for the show...

And, as much fun as the show itself was, I would have to say that the experience of the crowd and of its handling of the music seemed more interesting and richer than what the Stones themselves had packaged up and presented to us. I'm very sorry to have to conclude that (especially at the price I paid) but there it is. The playing was erratic ("Rambler" was a disgrace; "Sweet Virginia" and "Night Time" terrific) and even armed with what I think of as the greatest catalogue ever, they just seemed to be touching the expected bases. And yeah, "Brown Sugar" kicked ass and Mick seemed like he could go on forever. The flesh is more than willing, but the spirits seemed questionable. (I would have said basically the same thing even after MSG...)

What I'm trying to say is that I do build The Legend Of The Rolling Stones into the value of the experience. That is real and it matters to me (even though that legend will be slightly eroded for a percieved goose to "ABB" sales when the Stones do their "Days Of Our Lives" tie-in. How many teenaged boys will NOT buy a $35 Stones t-shirt because their sisters--or their mothers--watched "Days Of Our Lives? It's not just bad for the art, it's bad for the business...)

The music is still executed in a fine and sometimes thrilling way and it's always a great moment to visit with the boys themselves--and with all the people we love who have shared this music with us. But it is inescapably true that even with the new material plugged in, the formula of the show remains the same as it has been post-1989. For me, that is a very deep disappointment after some of the stretching they did in 2002-03.

Is it worth $200 more than McCartney? Or $250 more than U2? I wouldn't pay to see either of those bands, but that's some pretty heavy firepower...to say nothing of Bob Dylan or Neil Young or Bruce Springsteen. I'm no idealist, but I do think that at some point the meaning of the event becomes compromised by the commerciality of it all. Have you seen the Stones store? They're just making themselves look silly. Just becuase one can make a buck catering to nutso consumerist impulses doesn't mean that one should. How does the baby clothing fit with the vibe on "Beggar's Banquet?"

I'm rambling all over the place and it's because I'm shaken by some of this stuff. I want the shows to be "worth it"--whatever the dollar amount--because I want to continue going...

I want the Stones to act like they mean it. I want them to take us where THEY want to go, not where they think we want to go. I want them to surprise us and surprise themselves again, even just a little. That's "worth it."

One point - It seems like more arenas and less stadiums in 2005. That would means less ticket sales.

Good post, Rev. Probably the best post I read in days. I agree 100%.