barbabang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sidonia,
>
> You also want to hear Hey hey hey You Got Me
> Rocking then?


YES NICE! THE WOSRT, SUCK ON THE JULGAR, YOU GOT ME ROCKING THEN!!

Re: Stones Tickets are not overpriced!
Posted by: bv (IP Logged)
Date: April 4, 2006 16:13


<<<<<< They simply love being on the road... >>>>>>>>

Precisely !

.....bull cookies.............many people I know who paid top tier for Licks absolutely refuse to see them this time around........they've simply said it's not worth it........that argument is debateable certainly .........but nonetheless absolutely an issue...........and Madonna is not worth $350...not in this life time........

Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Madonna tix went on sale in Montreal yesterday.
> Same top ticket price for the Stones in the same
> venue ($350).
>
> If Madonna is worth $350 a ticket, I don't think
> anyone can say the Stones are overpriced at the
> same amount.


I don't know if it's true but I've heard that a programme for the last Madonna tour in 2004 was £60. Now that's greed!

Ticket prices for her in the UK this time are £80 - £160 according to todays paper. That's a little up on the Stones too.

rebelrebel Wrote:
> Ticket prices for her in the UK this time are £80
> - £160 according to todays paper. That's a little
> up on the Stones too.



in some ways it is, and in others it isnt. Its not quite as simple as that

Whilst the lowest and higher priced tickets are higher than the Stones' ones are, I'd bet that a higher proportion of the Stones tickets are in the top range (ie £150)

Stones tickets for the UK tour are pretty much in the same range as they were in 2003. The difference is that many of the tickets that cost £80 last time are £150 this time.

The same system applies for the top priced tickets at the US shows. theres a considerably higher % at the top price than before (plus the fact that the numbers vary depending on what city youre buying them for)

andy js Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They simply love being on the road...
> >
> > Bjornulf
>
>
> in which case, surely they'd ditch all the
> uneccesary nonsense that they tag along with them.
> and the five of em, plus Bobby would jump on a
> tour bus and they could tour the theatre's / small
> arenas and charge the same price as everyone else.
> 20-30 quid a ticket
>
> the real reason they charge so much is to pay the
> ridiculous amount of staff they emply on the road
> (IMHO)
>
> you wouldn't be surprised to find each member had
> their own arse wiper and someone to pick out
> something for em to wear each day. which is
> obviously understandable as they have such a hard
> job ;o)
>
> all those staff wages and endless limos (couldn't
> they all jump in one minibus?) add up and who ends
> up paying for em ?
>
> you guessed right!
>

Spot on. Best post I've read in ages.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Stones were in it for the money they would
> sell off their songs to underwear and perfume
> manufacturing and jeans and MacDonalds >

They simply love being
> on the road...
>
> Bjornulf


You mean like when Microsoft paid 12 million to the Stones to use SMU for thier windows 95 Promotion.

Also I agree
They do love being on the Road and getting Insane top dollar ticket prices.

That's right, THE WORST, it's the same scenario in baseball! The fans keep bitching but keep on paying as ticket prices have gone way, way up over the last 5 years! If the stadiums were suddenly empty, the prices would drop over night.

Exactly. The market value of the Stones is now so large they could sell every single song to any company for 5 million dollars and they could all stay at nice warm private resorts and they did not have to tour at all. But the thing is they live for being on stage. That is what they like. Ordinary people like you and me go to work to make money to buy tickets to see the Stones or to buy food or to pay for the mortage on our houses. The Stones go to work because they enjoy performing live in front of great crowds. And I have a funny feeling the more people post about prices in general, not just tickets, but prices on bread, butter, milk, undergrounbd tickets, petrol/gas anything, the more they are concerned about MONEY MONEY MONEY. Time to ask yourself if your mind is too much on money. Remember money is just a tool, not a way of living.

Bjornulf

BV,

The hottest thing the Stones got going for them now is the logo. The tongue appears on a lot of things lately. WalMart, Target, JC Pennys, Sears and others sells tee-shirts, baby clothes, school supplies, jeans etc. with the logo somewhere on it.

A lot of teenage kids (including my pre-teen girls) have things with the tongue logo on it. Kids recognize it and think it is cool. So my daughter tells me.

Think about it, the tongue logo is one of the most recognizable logos anywhere. And it is damn good looking won't you say? Its sexy, seductive, dirty, and very fashionable. Definitely the best in music.

I agree with BV. You can't take it with you so you might as well spend it on Stones tix and having a good time!

that's right , money well wasted

You have to be a real tool to spend $350 (face value) on a Stones ticket.

Jagger and his accountants are laughing at you try and justify the Stones ticket prices.

Nothing says rock and roll better than a $350 ticket.

What dopes.

ah oh , maddy's accountants r next

To state they are not in it for the money is moronic.

Let them play for free or just to cover costs then I'll believe the "just love being on the road" story.

And anyone with a modicum of common sense would be aware that the Stones are overpriced. Whether anyone pays the price is irrelevant to the cost of the ticket being overpriced.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

I sure do agree with bv on this one. If you want the best, you gotta be willing to pay a certain price to get the stuff you've been wanting for a long time.

It's like when I'm going to buy a new car, I don't go for super cheap cars, I go for the BMWs.

Why? Because I know they make the best cars available and that's why I don't mind paying a larger amount of money. It's simple as that.

Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I sure do agree with bv on this one. If you want
> the best, you gotta be willing to pay a certain
> price to get the stuff you've been wanting for a
> long time.

So the last tours the stones were crap because tickets weren't as expensive as they are now? And have BMW's doubled in price since 1994?
To me it's more annoying people saying the stones aren't in for the money than the ticket prices itself.

I thought The Stones were more Rolls Royce than BMWs !!!!!

Well the fact of the matter is that over in Europe we're not seeing anything approaching the prices they charged for the States leg of this tour; the top price being $454. What exactly that says about the market in the States and/or people's willingness to pay that kind of money - I'm not sure. But I went to three shows in the fall of last year, and it didn't look to me as if there were too many empty seats at any of them - MSG, Giants, & Albany.

PAULYWAUl, I was at the Albany show and if you recall, the most expensive seat at the Pepsi was $350 not $450! The Stones research the community, town, country they're going to play in and adjust the price according to the presumed wealth of that region. Europe must have a slightly weaker economy, maybe the workers earn considerably less than Americans thus the cheapwer ticker. Do I think it's FAIR? Not exactly considering I'm not rich but I wanted to see multiple show! Am I willing to pay for plane fare and European hotels to save $100-150 on a ticket? Maybe not. Here's a question for American fans that have seen multiple Stones shows in Europe; do the Stones put out the same energy for the Europeans? I've seen 4 Flicks and it asppears they do but I'd like to hear what others have seen in person.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PAULYWAUl, I was at the Albany show and if you
> recall, the most expensive seat at the Pepsi was
> $350 not $450! The Stones research the community,
> town, country they're going to play in and adjust
> the price according to the presumed wealth of that
> region. Europe must have a slightly weaker
> economy, maybe the workers earn considerably less
> than Americans thus the cheapwer ticker. Do I
> think it's FAIR? Not exactly considering I'm not
> rich but I wanted to see multiple show! Am I
> willing to pay for plane fare and European hotels
> to save $100-150 on a ticket? Maybe not. Here's a
> question for American fans that have seen multiple
> Stones shows in Europe; do the Stones put out the
> same energy for the Europeans? I've seen 4 Flicks
> and it asppears they do but I'd like to hear what
> others have seen in person.

Yes, I DO recall Albany was $350 tops, but correct me if I'm wrong - there were a good many States shows where indeed $450 was the top price ? It's just an interesting comparison, that in general those prices are not being charged in Europe. I'm not sure how the Scandinavian shows have been priced; they could well have been the "most" expensive of all the European shows quite simply because Scandinavia is a pricey part of the world, salaries are proportionately higher than elsewhere. What I found particularly interesting was that in the UK, where the prevailing attitude towards charging for goods and services is one of "charge what you think you can get away with" - prices have remained the same as from the Licks tour. Now THAT I think is indicative of something; it is to my way of thinking indicative of the fact the the Stones/Cohl have quite wisely read the public mood that "enough is enough". Had they exceeded those 2003 prices this time around, I think that within the UK certainly they would have been thoroughly lambasted by the press, the public, their fans, and I think people would have voted with their feet and their wallets. They simply wouldn't have coughed up and bought tickets to shows, at least not in large numbers. Ticket sales WOULD unquestionably have suffered.

As a matter of interest, do you think the pricing for the States leg of the tour DID affect ticket sales. Tell you what, although I only went to three shows in the US, and admittedly in the densely populated northeast/NY, I feel fairly sure there was scarcely a seat unsold at those particular shows. I didn't see what looked empty seats anyway. The prices obviously didn't put New Yorkers off ?

Just to be curious : what was the average range of age of the audience ?

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be curious : what was the average range of
> age of the audience ?

Where ? In the three States shows I went to you mean ?

Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I sure do agree with bv on this one. If you want
> the best, you gotta be willing to pay a certain
> price to get the stuff you've been wanting for a
> long time.
>

not true...saying something is "the best" is an entirely subjective statement (I personally think Springsteen is a better live show and lasts twice as long at times but it costs about a quarter as much as a top priced Stones ticket. And he could charge more - but chooses not to). But then I wouldnt pay $450 for a ticket by anyone - not because I cant afford it, but as a matter of principle. Its simply lousy value for a night out.

and what Harm says about the shows pre-1999 is entirely correct

Top price for a 1997 BTB show = $65
Top price for a 1999 NS show = $350

You trying to tell me that the shows suddenly became so much better from 1999 onwards that the average ticket price had to double and the top price had to go up by over 500%?

I had $164 tickets to see the Stones at MSG in 2002. I was offered the exact same row in January but the price was $454. If you or anyone thinks thats a justifiable price hike in 3 years, youre need locked up.

open your eyes and get some perspective. $450 can get me a week's holiday somewhere and it was about $100 more than the cost of my return flight from Dublin to NYC to see the shows at MSG in January (I made a point of settling for $179 tickets in the end). To charge $450 for two hours entertainment (especially when many of the seats are restricted view, off to the side or you need to look at a video screen) is outrageous, regardless of how good the show is or who else does something similar.

And paying that amount of money isnt an indication of anyone's willingness to 'want the best' or how deep their pockets are, but how easily fooled some people can be

Yeah Gazza, all true, but honestly: you couldn't care less about the $450 once you're inside right?

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Yes, I DO recall Albany was $350 tops, but correct
> me if I'm wrong - there were a good many States
> shows where indeed $450 was the top price ? It's
> just an interesting comparison, that in general
> those prices are not being charged in Europe. I'm
> not sure how the Scandinavian shows have been
> priced; they could well have been the "most"
> expensive of all the European shows quite simply
> because Scandinavia is a pricey part of the world,
> salaries are proportionately higher than
> elsewhere.

UK seems to be the most expensive shows in Europe, partly for the (unexplained) reason that our shows are all seated, a phenomenon exclusive to the UK on the European tour. The same system applied in 2003. Strange that ticket sales were slow in Japan, a country with a higher average income, yet their prices were actually lower than many European countries. I guess like many European countries, theyve noticed a high price hike % this time and are voting with their feet.



What I found particularly interesting
> was that in the UK, where the prevailing attitude
> towards charging for goods and services is one of
> "charge what you think you can get away with" -
> prices have remained the same as from the Licks
> tour. Now THAT I think is indicative of something;
> it is to my way of thinking indicative of the fact
> the the Stones/Cohl have quite wisely read the
> public mood that "enough is enough". Had they
> exceeded those 2003 prices this time around, I
> think that within the UK certainly they would have
> been thoroughly lambasted by the press, the
> public, their fans, and I think people would have
> voted with their feet and their wallets. They
> simply wouldn't have coughed up and bought tickets
> to shows, at least not in large numbers. Ticket
> sales WOULD unquestionably have suffered.

Thats only really half the story. Ticket prices for the UK have remained within inflation rates, when you look at the range of prices compared to 2003. However, Cohl and the Stones have got round this by their less than transparent way of pricing tickets, which vary from venue to venue depending on how "big" a market it is - they did the same in the US. The top price for the UK shows is £150, similar to last time - however theres a LOT more tickets per show in that price range than before. Lots of lower tier grandstand tickets this time are £150, whereas in 2003 they were £80 and in 1999 they were about £40 (as were all tickets back then). So the AVERAGE ticket price is considerably higher than 2003 all around


>

Whale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah Gazza, all true, but honestly: you couldn't
> care less about the $450 once you're inside right?


No - like I said I refused to pay it as a point of principle. I only decided to go if I got the $179 priced tickets..which were few and far between for MSG! LOL

The shows were great though - but would I have paid $450 for them? No fúcking way..

However I bet I had a better time for what I spent than anyone who paid $450 or forked out thousands to brokers or for some fan club package



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-05 15:56 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
>
> Thats only really half the story. Ticket prices
> for the UK have remained within inflation rates,
> when you look at the range of prices compared to
> 2003. However, Cohl and the Stones have got round
> this by their less than transparent way of pricing
> tickets, which vary from venue to venue depending
> on how "big" a market it is - they did the same in
> the US. The top price for the UK shows is £150,
> similar to last time - however theres a LOT more
> tickets per show in that price range than before.
> Lots of lower tier grandstand tickets this time
> are £150, whereas in 2003 they were £80 and in
> 1999 they were about £40 (as were all tickets back
> then). So the AVERAGE ticket price is considerably
> higher than 2003 all around
>
>
>

True, I overlooked that. So we shouldn't really be consoling ourselves that prices haven't moved since 2003, because the overall "take" from Twickers this time around will of course no doubt be up on what it was 3 years ago ?

Whale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah Gazza, all true, but honestly: you couldn't
> care less about the $450 once you're inside right?


This is true unfortunately. They hit the stage and I for one take complete leave of my senses ................. and all of a sudden $454 looks like the "deal of the week"

then you must be out of your mind! 450 dollars for a two hour stadium show is ridiculous, whoever is performing.