with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> people are going to complain about too many
> people going to a show or sellingout too fast?
> Thats a phenomenon I must admit I've never heard
> of... <<
>
> ask anyone who's ever experienced not getting
> tickets to a show they wanted to be at


Not the same thing, in fairness. If the tickets are all available at the right time and open to everyone, its purely subject to demand isnt it?

in an ideal world, thats the way it should be. If theyre playing somewhere that holds 60,000 people it shouldnt be too hard to get a ticket. Its a phenomenon thats generally been unlikely to happen on this tour for obvious reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 20:05 by Gazza.

Niklas Wrote:
> I don't think anybody are staying away from a
> Stones concert because of the ticket prices.

Dont agree. whilst it hasnt put many of us off, there are plenty more who have been scared away. Look at the slow sales for this summer's tour. You're in dreamland if you think that the prices have nothing to do with that.


The
> only ones who have that problem are us - we who
> want to see them lot's of times on the same tour.
> If the tickets cost 50$, 150$ or 300$, everybody
> could afford it if the really want to go.

Yeah but they generally arent those prices, and if they are, the breakdown of the various price levels isnt helpful. Not a lot of people will want to spend $150 to watch a TV screen from 80 yards away and whilst its all very well saying there are cheap tickets (which there are) the proportion of them in many cities are extremely small.



The fill
> up almost every stadium anywhere around the globe,

No they dont. They still outgross everyone else (because they charge so much) and of course they are still a huge draw in terms of tickets sold, but theyre relying on more increasingly desperate measures to fill up empty seats. There were several shows on the last US leg where this was the case. High prices combined with market saturation tends to do that. (awaits post from stickydion reminding me how many tickets theyve sold to date......)

>> If the tickets are all available at the right time and open to everyone,
it's purely subject to demand isnt it? <<

well, the supply has something to do with it too.
i'm thinking of the 60s/70s, when shows sold out practically before i'd heard about them,
which was not a particularly happy-making situation for people who didn't get ahold of tickets,
whether it was "purely subject to demand" or not.

but sticking with current arena and stadium shows, i don't quite follow how the ticket sales
aren't "purely subject to demand". they don't sell out in an hour, or 100%, but for the most part
it seems to work pretty well.

fair point (and its happened to me too!), but in this day and age, we're all fully aware of when they go on sale and how to get them at the right time.

All we need to make it hunky dory would be for 'transparent' ticket selling instead of this nonsense about holding back the best seats to get rid of the crap ones, etc.

Ok, let's face it... (Might be a new topic ) What is the best price they could ask for a ticket?

I remember the last 2 tours: I've paid around 1600 belgian franks for BTB ( about 40 €), FF I've payed +/- 80 € for the Stade de France and 55 (!!!) € for Werchter, now I've paid around 80 € for Werchter.
I have no idea how much the orgniser put in his pocket, but I just think that 80 € is not too much. The only rip-off is the virtual membership to RS.com...

PS: this afternoon my girlfriend bought a new pair of shoes, now if you want to talk about rip-off

<ask anyone who's ever experienced not getting tickets to a show they wanted to be at> :
so correct, with sssoul!

Thomas - tables turning now, her time to cry -

Berten001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, let's face it... (Might be a new topic )
> What is the best price they could ask for a
> ticket?
>

Similar to what they did prior to No Security (in the US) and Licks (elsewhere) which was the point where they changed their previous strategy and started putting them through the roof.

With appropriate rises for inflation of course. No-one's reasonably expecting them to give it away cheap.

The BTB prices were $65 for the US and about £40 in the UK. Wasnt a cheap night out at the time, but it was perfectly reasonable for a major act.

There are still LOTS of major touring acts who charge a fraction of what the Stones do and can still fill stadiums and make themselves a lot of money.

Goodness, if youre charging an average of $100 a ticket for a stadium that holds 50,000 people, thats a gross of $5 million. Per show. And thats before anyone even buys a t-shirt or one of those other hideous bits of merchandise that theyre shoving down your throat. So, they can probably gross about $7 million a night. They'll hardly be going to a soupkitchen in Alphabet City with the arses out of their trousers, lets face it.

The Stones are hardly alone in doing what they do, but theyve certainly been the pacesetters in doing so. Not exactly good for the concert industry or the fan and in time it'll be a bit of a stain on their great legacy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 20:54 by Gazza.

>> All we need to make it hunky dory would be for 'transparent' ticket selling instead of this nonsense
about holding back the best seats to get rid of the crap ones, etc. <<

yeah, that part is of course frustrating, nerve-racking, teeth-gnashing, etc,
but still (getting back - sort of - to the earlier point) there is such a thing as shows selling so fast
that miles of people are left behind in the dust. and even though the current situation is far from ideal,
that is one way in which it's better than it used to be.

Berten001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I remember the last 2 tours: I've paid around 1600
> belgian franks for BTB ( about 40 €), FF I've
> payed +/- 80 € for the Stade de France and 55
> (!!!) € for Werchter, now I've paid around 80 €
> for Werchter.
> I have no idea how much the orgniser put in his
>

I dont think those prices are unreasonable at all, but it depends what country you live in, what the average price is in that country and what the type of tickets are as well as many other factors.

London and the US youre paying £150 and $450 for what are often very ordinary seats a LONG way from the stage where youre watching the action on a screen

I thought the ticket prices for Licks for the European shows OUTSIDE the UK were pretty reasonable. I note a lot more discontent from people this time around, even though from my perspective (living in the UK) theyre still a bit cheaper than what WE pay. I bought tickets for Madrid and Lisbon and by our standards the GA tickets arent that expensive at all - however it seems quite a price hike in a short space of time for people in those countries.

It's time for a reality check for all of you whining about Glastonbury. The 'Summer of Love' is over and rock 'n' roll is now a business. And the Stones are at the top of the heap. People always complain about the Stones ticket prices but look at what it takes to put this show on the road. All the mouths too feed. How many semi's/people did it take to cross America? The Stones put on the greatest rock 'n' roll show EVER! Heck, if I had $5m to throw around, I'd hire them!! I'd give Keith the money to get the Wino's back together.

Scotty
Irvine, CA

micknkeef@cox.net Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>It's time for a reality check for all of you whining about Glastonbury.

well..I think we've moved on from Glastonbury. £1 million for a Stones gig is actually a cheap demand by their standards.


>The 'Summer of Love' is over and rock 'n' roll is now a business.

It certainly is, but thats not something to feel good about. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive.


> People always
> complain about the Stones ticket prices

They didnt to the same degree prior to 1999 or 2002 from what I can recall.


but look
> at what it takes to put this show on the road.
> All the mouths too feed.


the same number of mouths as they used to be able to manage to feed quite easily. Seriously now, this tour will gross $500 million in ticket sales alone. Repeat that slowly, so you can maybe grasp how much that actually is. To say they have to make the tickets expensive because they have to feed a couple of hundred people and transport their equipment is beyond laughable. Halve the ticket prices and they still gross $250 million in the space of two years. (they might make even more as theyd be a cert to fill EVERY venue) Are you seriously trying to suggest they still wont make a HUGE profit on that?


How many semi's/people
> did it take to cross America?


the same as its been taking since the early 80's I would have thought



The Stones put on
> the greatest rock 'n' roll show EVER!

maybe they do...although thats based on opinion and not fact. Still pretty irrelevant to the issue, though.


Heck, if I
> had $5m to throw around, I'd hire them!!

so would I!

I'd give
> Keith the money to get the Wino's back together.

he'd snort it! LOL



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 23:42 by Gazza.

Gazza said.

"Goodness, if youre charging an average of $100 a ticket for a stadium that holds 50,000 people, thats a gross of $5 million. Per show. And thats before anyone even buys a t-shirt or one of those other hideous bits of merchandise that theyre shoving down your throat. So, they can probably gross about $7 million a night. They'll hardly be going to a soupkitchen in Alphabet City with the arses out of their trousers, lets face it"


So asking Glastonbury for £1 Million is not way OTT as they usually earn way more than that.

Glastonbury has of course not raised its ticket prices Ha Ha.

Slightly off topic but still money - Keith Richards and Tom Jones have the same bank balance £190 million. (according to the Times rich list). Amazing when you consider Tom Jones is a performer and does not receive song writing royalties and Keith does.
Charlie Watts has a hundred million less then TJ and KR (90 million), he is also does not receive song writing royalties.
So maybe Tom is a saver, but clearly Charlie spends alot of money on horses and high living (100m?) -
Mick is on £215 million.
Ronnies has a mere £75 million (poor sod).
I have a few quid in the bank an old Wartburg car and a hairy mother in law. (even poorer sod).

madmaxx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So asking Glastonbury for £1 Million is not way
> OTT as they usually earn way more than that.

Maybe its OTT by Glastonbury standards, but evidently not by the Stones, relatively speaking. To them, its probably a cheap date!

>
> Glastonbury has of course not raised its ticket
> prices Ha Ha.

They have I presume, but I dont see the correlation. I'm neither defending or bashing the Glastonbury organisers as I couldnt care less about it. Think a Glasto ticket for 3 days is still a bit cheaper than a Stones ticket though, isnt it?

turd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slightly off topic but still money - Keith
> Richards and Tom Jones have the same bank balance
> £190 million. (according to the Times rich list).
> Amazing when you consider Tom Jones is a performer
> and does not receive song writing royalties and
> Keith does.
> Charlie Watts has a hundred million less then TJ
> and KR (90 million), he is also does not receive
> song writing royalties.
> So maybe Tom is a saver, but clearly Charlie
> spends alot of money on horses and high living
> (100m?) -
> Mick is on £215 million.
> Ronnies has a mere £75 million (poor sod).
>

A lot of the money in music is in publishing. No surprise that Mick and Keith are FAR richer than the rest of the band. Woody's relatively 'poor' status is down more to the fact that he was on a salary with the band for almost two decades and he was almost bankrupt by the late 80's. Which was the reason he took up painting professionally. The 1989 tour pulled him out of a very big financial hole.

Tom Jones' wealth is quite staggering for someone who's not a writer, but he has been a consistently big earner as a performer for decades and has also been well managed - and maybe didnt have the financial difficulties that saw the Stones leave the UK for tax reasons in 1971.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I keep on saying, The Stones don't give two
> > f.ucks about their fans
>
>
> With fans like you, why should they?


Meanwhile, don't you think that The Stones, in what is well and truly the twilight of their performing career, should be making an effort to cement their legacy by reaching out to a younger demographic, giving people who wouldn't - and, financially, possibly couldn't - see them live, experience that weird alchemy that keeps the likes of us coming back for more? Paul McCartney played Glastonbury and was rapturously received. The Who are doing it this year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-20 00:44 by Nikolai.

Nikolai Wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, don't you think that The Stones, in
> what is well and truly the twilight of their
> performing career, should be making an effort to
> cement their legacy by reaching out to a younger
> demographic, giving people who wouldn't - and,
> financially, possibly couldn't - see them live,
> experience that weird alchemy that keeps the likes
> of us coming back for more? Paul McCartney played
> Glastonbury and was rapturously received. The Who
> are doing it this year.

Game, set and match, Nikolai.

>> Paul McCartney played Glastonbury and was rapturously received.
The Who are doing it this year. <<

yes, and the Stones are playing the Isle of Wight - does that "not count", somehow?
sorry if i'm missing something about the relative merits of the two festivals -
all i really know about them is that the Isle of Wight festival is famous, historically resonant, etc.
i never even heard of Glastonbury until last year.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Paul McCartney played Glastonbury and was
> rapturously received.
> The Who are doing it this year. <<
>
> yes, and the Stones are playing the Isle of Wight
> - does that "not count", somehow?
> sorry if i'm missing something about the relative
> merits of the two festivals -
> all i really know about them is that the Isle of
> Wight festival is famous, historically resonant,
> etc.
> i never even heard of Glastonbury until last year.


You're obviously not from the UK. Glastonbury's a seriously big deal here - like a national, biannual Woodstock. And it has way more cachet than the IOW and attracts a younger demographic. Careers have been made and reputations enhanced at Glastonbury.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-20 11:47 by Nikolai.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> > I don't think anybody are staying away from a
> > Stones concert because of the ticket prices.
>
> Dont agree. whilst it hasnt put many of us off,
> there are plenty more who have been scared away.
> Look at the slow sales for this summer's tour.
> You're in dreamland if you think that the prices
> have nothing to do with that.
>
>
> The
> > only ones who have that problem are us - we who
> > want to see them lot's of times on the same
> tour.
> > If the tickets cost 50$, 150$ or 300$,
> everybody
> > could afford it if the really want to go.
>
> Yeah but they generally arent those prices, and if
> they are, the breakdown of the various price
> levels isnt helpful. Not a lot of people will want
> to spend $150 to watch a TV screen from 80 yards
> away and whilst its all very well saying there are
> cheap tickets (which there are) the proportion of
> them in many cities are extremely small.
>
>
>
> The fill
> > up almost every stadium anywhere around the
> globe,
>
> No they dont. They still outgross everyone else
> (because they charge so much) and of course they
> are still a huge draw in terms of tickets sold,
> but theyre relying on more increasingly desperate
> measures to fill up empty seats. There were
> several shows on the last US leg where this was
> the case. High prices combined with market
> saturation tends to do that. (awaits post from
> stickydion reminding me how many tickets theyve
> sold to date......)


We had to loose some tickets for the Nijmegen show, because of a double booking. We've tried friends, collegues and family, starting with the ones we thought might be interested (but we had to move on from there). EVERY SINGLE ONE said: wow, that's great, when and where? I'll see if I can make it, maybe a friend is interested too, blabla. What's the price of the ticket? WHAT?????? I'll think about it.... And not a single one bought a ticket... OK, that's not REALLY true. One collegue bought two ticks but he was going to do so anyway as a gift to his parents for a 25 year marriage...

So the ticketprice has in my eyes proven to be THE decisive argument for regularly interested people: the 40-licks owners.

In the end we lost the tickets through here and through the Dutch Stones-forum, still thankful for that.

There just is no category of non-fans who will say: hey, the Stones, let's check them out! at those prices. It does not exist. The exceptions that confirm this rule are those who really don't know what to do with their money, which is an entirely different category.

Jelle

>> You're obviously not from the UK. Glastonbury's a seriously big deal here <<

right, indeed i am obviously not from the UK, which is part of what i meant:
my perception is that outside the UK, the IOW festival is more renowned than Glastonbury.
anyway when the rumours started, it made sense to me that the Stones would play IOW
simply because it's a historically resonant gig that they haven't done before.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> people are going to complain about too many
> people going to a show or sellingout too fast?
> Thats a phenomenon I must admit I've never heard
> of... <<
>
> ask anyone who's ever experienced not getting
> tickets to a show they wanted to be at


My experience so far has been that whatever you want to get, just ask yourself what you have to do to get it, and you'll succeed. I know, with tricks played like ticketmaster does for 02, it becomes rather impossible sometimes, and I know I've been lucky many times, but in general, if we did not succeed, we've been able to blame ourselves somewhere in the process.

For example, we asked ourselves: alright, we want to be at the Vredenburg 2003-gig no matter what. How are we going to do that, not knowing any other channels than the regular sales: a phoneline to Ticketservice. How many telephones do we need? AS many as we can get. So we asked as many people as possible to make calls for us while we were queuing for the stadiumtickets. And one came through. ONly one, so I know that luck has been a great factor. I mean, we were only one call away from having nothing while so many were helping us. But, still, it means that we've tried hard enough and I can safely say that we'd thought it through good enough.

:-)

Jelle

thanks Jelle, but i wasn't talking so much about current arena/stadium shows as the way things used to be:
it used to be that *all* the ticket sales were like your Vredenburg 03 experience.
the fact that we can now normally get tickets to most of the shows we want to be at is a fairly recent phenomenon,
and it's easy to take it for granted, but we shouldn't.

Ah yes, okay, I guess you're right: modern technology has opened more ways to buy tickets, making it easier to be among the first buyers at one of the many channels. (And when you are among the first, it does not really matter if the venue holds 2000 or 50.000). Back in the days of paper tickets sold at the venue, everyone had to fight for the same: I can imagine that was much harder. Popularity (prices) may help a bit nowadays too.

sluissie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Niklas Wrote:
> > > I don't think anybody are staying away from a
> > > Stones concert because of the ticket prices.
> >
> > Dont agree. whilst it hasnt put many of us off,
> > there are plenty more who have been scared
> away.
> > Look at the slow sales for this summer's tour.
> > You're in dreamland if you think that the
> prices
> > have nothing to do with that.
> >
> >
> > The
> > > only ones who have that problem are us - we
> who
> > > want to see them lot's of times on the same
> > tour.
> > > If the tickets cost 50$, 150$ or 300$,
> > everybody
> > > could afford it if the really want to go.
> >
> > Yeah but they generally arent those prices, and
> if
> > they are, the breakdown of the various price
> > levels isnt helpful. Not a lot of people will
> want
> > to spend $150 to watch a TV screen from 80
> yards
> > away and whilst its all very well saying there
> are
> > cheap tickets (which there are) the proportion
> of
> > them in many cities are extremely small.
> >
> >
> >
> > The fill
> > > up almost every stadium anywhere around the
> > globe,
> >
> > No they dont. They still outgross everyone else
> > (because they charge so much) and of course
> they
> > are still a huge draw in terms of tickets sold,
> > but theyre relying on more increasingly
> desperate
> > measures to fill up empty seats. There were
> > several shows on the last US leg where this was
> > the case. High prices combined with market
> > saturation tends to do that. (awaits post from
> > stickydion reminding me how many tickets theyve
> > sold to date......)
>
>
> We had to loose some tickets for the Nijmegen
> show, because of a double booking. We've tried
> friends, collegues and family, starting with the
> ones we thought might be interested (but we had to
> move on from there). EVERY SINGLE ONE said: wow,
> that's great, when and where? I'll see if I can
> make it, maybe a friend is interested too, blabla.
> What's the price of the ticket? WHAT?????? I'll
> think about it.... And not a single one bought a
> ticket... OK, that's not REALLY true. One collegue
> bought two ticks but he was going to do so anyway
> as a gift to his parents for a 25 year marriage...
>
>
> So the ticketprice has in my eyes proven to be THE
> decisive argument for regularly interested people:
> the 40-licks owners.
>
> In the end we lost the tickets through here and
> through the Dutch Stones-forum, still thankful for
> that.
>
> There just is no category of non-fans who will
> say: hey, the Stones, let's check them out! at
> those prices. It does not exist. The exceptions
> that confirm this rule are those who really don't
> know what to do with their money, which is an
> entirely different category.
>
> Jelle

Agree totaly

>> modern technology has opened more ways to buy tickets <<

plus it's a lot easier to be in the loop information-wise regarding tour dates, when/where tickets will go on sale, etc.
i guess it's hard for a lot of people to imagine now, but in the 70s it did happen that shows sold out - whoosh! -
before you even heard that they were going on sale.

obviously the size of the tours/shows these days has a lot to do with the relative ease of getting tickets,
and no doubt the higher prices slow sales down some too. it's fun bitching about it,
but if the venues were smaller and the prices lower, a lot more of us would be plain unable to get tickets,
and that's not my idea of a good time either.

meanwhile, i think the internet is also a main factor in Gazza's perception that people complain more about prices now.
people have been complaining about the prices of Stones tickets since at least 1969
but it's only recently that we can blare our gripes all over the whole wide www.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-20 13:52 by with sssoul.

Glastonbury has a lot of history around it and is the 1 as a performer you want to do, but if we are talking about history and defining moments then IOW is more well known and is known as Europe’s Woodstock when 600,000 came to the IOW for Hendrix last appearance!

Unfortunately government banned any festivals happening after that until it was revived a couple of years back. Isle of Wight was the original and biggest festival this country and continent has ever seen!

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile, don't you think that The Stones, in
> what is well and truly the twilight of their
> performing career, should be making an effort to
> cement their legacy by reaching out to a younger
> demographic, giving people who wouldn't - and,
> financially, possibly couldn't - see them live,
> experience that weird alchemy that keeps the likes
> of us coming back for more? Paul McCartney played
> Glastonbury and was rapturously received. The Who
> are doing it this year.


Yeah and the Stones are doing Isle Of Wight, so what are you even complaining about? If they lowered the prices there's no guarantee that younger fans would attend. It's just something you assume.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Meanwhile, don't you think that The Stones, in
> > what is well and truly the twilight of their
> > performing career, should be making an effort
> to
> > cement their legacy by reaching out to a
> younger
> > demographic, giving people who wouldn't - and,
> > financially, possibly couldn't - see them live,
> > experience that weird alchemy that keeps the
> likes
> > of us coming back for more? Paul McCartney
> played
> > Glastonbury and was rapturously received. The
> Who
> > are doing it this year.
>
>
> Yeah and the Stones are doing Isle Of Wight, so
> what are you even complaining about? If they
> lowered the prices there's no guarantee that
> younger fans would attend. It's just something you
> assume.


Actually, Prince has pretty much sold out 15 dates at the O2 for which he is charging no more than £31.21. Fans old and new, hardcore and lapsed are all coming to see him. Lower ticket prices = more seats sold. This is why the Stones are struggling to sell out a tour many suspect will be their last in Europe.

Glastonbury is a "young" festival - i.e: regularly attracting an majority 18-35 demographic. It would have been both a great gesture for the Stones to play to such a crowd, who would have loved every damn second of it - diminished skills, arthritic fingers, blown cues et al - and it would have extended their legacy beyond their largely well off, middle aged fanbase. They're not doing it because it's all about the money, honey. Nothing wrong with making money and lots of it, but at this stage of their career, you'd think they'd be thinking about more than balance sheets. Obviously not.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Meanwhile, don't you think that The Stones, in
> > what is well and truly the twilight of their
> > performing career, should be making an effort
> to
> > cement their legacy by reaching out to a
> younger
> > demographic, giving people who wouldn't - and,
> > financially, possibly couldn't - see them live,
> > experience that weird alchemy that keeps the
> likes
> > of us coming back for more? Paul McCartney
> played
> > Glastonbury and was rapturously received. The
> Who
> > are doing it this year.
>
>
> Yeah and the Stones are doing Isle Of Wight, so
> what are you even complaining about? If they
> lowered the prices there's no guarantee that
> younger fans would attend. It's just something you
> assume.

They're playing the IOW, not because you've heard of the festival in the US thanks to legendary performances there over thirty years ago by The Who, Hendrix, The Doors etc, etc, but because it's an event Cohl has a hand in.

As for lower ticket prices being "no guarantee that younger fans" will attend, come off it! Prince has sold out/sold close to 220,000 tickets for 15 O2 shows so far because he's charging a fifth of what The Stones are charging for lower tier seats. No way would he have sold out more than one night if he was charging £75-£150 a ticket.

Glastonbury is more of an institution in the UK than the IOW. When you ask people to name a major festival in the UK, Glastonbury is inevitably the first name on people's lips. And it regularly sells out before the main headliners are even announced.

You can't guarantee that younger fans would attend no matter how much you kick and scream.
You cannot be sure that they do IOW instead of Glasto solely because there's a Cohl involvement.

JumpingKentFlash